Who can refute this libelous firearm-related statement the fastest?

[KenWP]

The only way somebody would loose control of his firearm is if he forgets the 12 foot rule and lets somebody get to close. Thats why we own guns so we don't have to walk over and club something.

 

[TOTC]

Read Clayton Cramer's self defense gun blog, then have them reply to most people shooting a loved one or having the gun taken away from them.

 

[John Wayne]

To play the devil's advocate,

There are reasons other than self-defense to own a firearm. Collecting guns is a popular hobby and sound investment, sport shooting is fun, and some guns used for hunting are poorly suited for close-range self defense.

Not having any ammo in the house is not very smart unless you're strictly a collector (even then you could have collectable ammo!). It should be stored seperately from the guns per the NRA guidelines if you're worried about unauthorized access.

I am in no way saying there is anything wrong with keeping a loaded firearm accessable for self defense, as I do it myself. I agree that the statistics in this article are flawed, but I do applaud the author for acknowledging the fact that if you are not comfortable enough to be using your gun for self defense, you should not do it---these are the cases where it's likely to be taken away, used against you, or end up with you shooting the wrong person. It is far better to realize your limitations and wait until you have trained and are comfortable with the gun and its use than to assume you're well protected because of that one range trip three years ago.

 

[Carl N. Brown]

I know at least four instances where women used guns in self-defense: all were chase-offs of the men threatening-assaulting them, no one least of all the defender shooting themselves, etc. Yeah, four ancedotes dont equal data, but the "data" behind that "99% of the time defenders shoot themselves" is bogus. Four real life cases trump made-up stats any day.

 

[eye5600]

Yes, the instructor was an idiot, and yes, the letter-writer was not half as smart as she was smug, and yes, Slate would not have printed the letter if they didn't have an anti-gun bias, and yes, the statistics on guns injuring residents of the house are distorted by the inclusion of suicides...

But...

There is a strain of thinking on THR and other pro-gun forums that favors a very active style of defense, i.e. carrying at all times, carrying multiple guns, having multiple guns around the home, etc. I'm not going to say that this is wrong, but I will say that a lot of these people underestimate - often to the point of flat denial - the possibility of a bad result.

Besides which, if you have relatives whom you want to entertain, you have a responsibility to make them psychologically comfortable. For example, you might put your pet python back in its cage for the duration of the visit, or you might refrain from playing hip-hop.

Parents are not rational about the safety of their children.

 

[Titan6]

It is all good. I figure the Southern Poverty Law Center will quote that figure in their next "report" and then the DOJ will use it in their next "report".

 

[HKUSP45C]

Besides which, if you have relatives whom you want to entertain, you have a responsibility to make them psychologically comfortable. For example, you might put your pet python back in its cage for the duration of the visit, or you might refrain from playing hip-hop.

Hogwash .... responsibilties my left foot.

There isn't a person in this world that I want to entertain so badly that I cease to act and think the way I normally do when they are not around for the duration of their presence in my own home.

Anyone coming into into my home already knows me well enough to know that I may or may not disagree with them on many, many different viewpoints of life. They should also know that when they come into my house there may well be a gun laying out in the open and that gun is definately loaded. This is part and parcel of the way I choose to live my life. They can either accept that or leave.

I refuse to allow children below the age of reason into my home and require that minors above the age of reason are supervised by the the people bringing them in.

If there were someone I knew well enough to invite past my threshold who was so diametrically opposed to my viewpoints or lifestyle that they were intolerant to the point of me having to change to make them comfortable I'd probably just ask them to kindly un-arse themselves from my couch and toddle on down the road to someplace that more suits their delicate sensibilities.

That goes for my choices in beer, food and music too.

Responsibilties .... jeeze

 

[Vern Humphrey]

This is an example of the Dan Rather School of Journalism -- repeat a lie told by someone else and that makes it true.

 

[Officers'Wife]

It kind of reminds me of the old joke that 95% of all percentages are made up at the spur of the moment.

 

[eye5600]

There isn't a person in this world that I want to entertain so badly that I cease to act and think the way I normally do when they are not around for the duration of their presence in my own home.

Having denied the first part of my assertion (having someone you wish to entertain), there is no point in complaining about the second (treating them in a civilized manner)..

 

[HKUSP45C]

There isn't a person in this world that I want to entertain so badly that I cease to act and think the way I normally do when they are not around for the duration of their presence in my own home.

Having denied the first part of my assertion (having someone you wish to entertain), there is no point in complaining about the second (treating them in a civilized manner)..

Read what I wrote a little more carefully, please. There are, literally, dozens of people I enjoy entertaining on a freuquent (and in some case infrequent) basis. I never asserted that I didn't wish to entertain anyone at all.

What I said was that there wasn't anyone I wished to entertain so badly that I would concern myself with a silly notion like my "responsibility to make them psycologically comfortable."

Those are separate ideas that really shouldn't be lumped together if we're going to be intellectually honest throughout the discussion.

Further, "civilized" is a very, very subjective word. Let's not pretend that "civilized" doesn't cover a wide, vast swath of behaviors depending entirely on to whom you are speaking.

So, now that we've sorted that out, can you explain where this "responsibility" to ensure those around me are psycologically comfortable comes from? Particularly when we're discussing activities that have no objective impact on the person who is "subjected" to them? Such as an inanimate object laying on a table or strapped to my waist or my taste in music, beer or food. It isn't as if we're discussing anything even resembling "deviant" behavior by any objective definition I can find.

 

[D94R]

I've just come to the conclusion that a good portion of humanity is just plain stupid.

Which leads to one hell of a catch-.22.

On the one hand we all advocate for the individual and keep governmental intrusion to a limit.

But then we look at how stupid people really are, see they are barely capable of tying their shoes in the morning, expect them to be able to keep themselves afloat in the real world, and expect them to make competent decisions that affect EVERYONE.


I generally have the thought though that the person is smart, a crowd is stupid.

 

[Jim K]

When you want to lie, don't do it directly; make up an authoritative sounding source, like "a government official", or "many experts", or "a firearms instructor."

Jim

 

[colorado_handgunner]

I've just come to the conclusion that a good portion of humanity is just plain stupid.

Just realizing it now, TexasR. ? I have know this for years!

 

[jakemccoy]

I found this on the same site:

http://www.slate.com/id/2221790/

Louisville, Ky.: Hi, Prudence!

I have an in-law problem that I really need advice on. First, my father-in-law (I'll call him Paul) is a big gun nut. He loves his weapons. Paul and my mother-in-law really want to our pre-school twins over to spend time with them. I've asked about making sure that the guns are all locked up, and have been assured that all the weapons are in the basement, where the kids aren't allowed to go. My husband says that although Paul's a nice guy, he doesn't trust him not to have loaded weapons somewhere. And, knowing my boys, they can and will go anywhere in an instant. My in-laws refuse to lock up the basement because of the cats. They swear they can keep the boys away from the guns. But they've promised things and failed to follow up on them before. What do I do?

Emily Yoffe: Curious boys, distracted grandparents, and loaded guns. Need one say any more other than, "calling the Lifetime channel." You need to tell your in-laws that of course you want them to have a great relationship with your children. And you want to feel calm and comfortable when you leave your kids with them. That's why they need to invest in a gun safe and promise that every weapon will be unloaded and locked in the safe before the kids visit. Tell them unless they agree—and show you that the firearms are completely secured—then they are welcome to come see the kids at your house, but the kids will not be visiting theirs.

I'd say the kids need gun education or granpa needs to lock up the guns when the grandkids are around.

 

[divenutt]

divemedic - that's a great way to start a new collection and get "evil" guns off of the street. Let's all go out for a walk and start disarming all of our gun-toting criminals.

 

[The Annoyed Man]

(And the gun course instructor also told us that 99 percent of the time, people who have guns for "self defense" end up shooting themselves or loved ones or having intruders take the gun away from them....)

What the heck has she been smoking, and is it legal?

I know TONS of people who own guns for self defense, and not a single one of them has EVER A) shot themselves or a loved one; or B) had their gun taken away by an intruder. Statistics simply don't support this most stupid of assertions.

Good grief!