Pink Pistols (A Gay Organization) "Armed Gays Don't Get Bashed"

[Silverhair]

MODS: PLEASE DON'T MOVE THIS THREAD TO THE GUN OR GAYS GROUP. That a group such as this should come about is an important social development. It may, or may not, be an early indicator of future social change. For that reason, it is worth being in "General Discussion".

www.pinkpistols.org

From their web site:
"Thirty-one states allow all qualified citizens to carry concealed weapons. In those states, homosexuals should embark on organized efforts to become comfortable with guns, learn to use them safely and carry them. They should set up Pink Pistols task forces, sponsor shooting courses and help homosexuals get licensed to carry. And they should do it in a way that gets as much publicity as possible. "

--Jonathan Rauch, Salon Magazine, March 13, 2000

"We did. There are now over 35 Pink Pistols chapters nationwide, and more are starting up every day. We are dedicated to the legal, safe, and responsible use of firearms for self-defense of the sexual-minority community. We no longer believe it is the right of those who hate and fear gay, lesbian, bi, trans, or polyamorous persons to use us as targets for their rage. Self-defense is our RIGHT."
------
Doing a Google on the group brings up some interesting hits.
------
http://www.nationalreview.com/murdock/murdock070102.asp

" According to Doug Krick, 31, the Boston-based dot.com engineer who founded Pink Pistols in July 2000: "While I can't say that we are completely responsible for it, I can say that there has not been a 'fag bashing' in any of the towns where we have chapters after our chapters were founded."
------
This one is a very informative article:
http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2005/02/03/BAGMTB4NTL1.DTL
"The right to own guns may be even more important than the right to marry, Thomas said during the monthly shooting practice organized by the gay gun group the Pink Pistols.

"I want to be liberated as a gay man, but I'm not willing to give up the rights I have," he said. "If they can take that away from you, what more can they do?""

"The Pink Pistols are likely to play a critical role in the developing San Francisco fight, said Chuck Michel, a spokesman for the California Rifle and Pistol Association and a lawyer for the National Rifle Association. "They have a great deal of legitimacy because they recognize they are at great odds of becoming victims because of their sexual preference. ... I think people will understand that they should not be deprived of their rights."
---------
Another good article:
http://www.ocweekly.com/ink/03/19/cover-lowery.php
""Claiming always to be victim, making it seem that we need society to protect us, is not working. I’m sorry, but ‘I’m weak and helpless’ is not a deterrent to a bully. This," he says, tapping the gun case, "is a deterrent." Terry McIntyre is the person quoted.
----------
The group takes no stand on other issues, nor does it restrict it's membership to gays only. Articles stated that no member has actually shot anyone yet, but some have used the showing of the gun to scare away would-be gay bashers.

So far, based on what I have read, I am completely in agreement with them.

[OrlandoGator]

1. I can vouch that the Pink Pistols really do exist.

This has been hotly debated in the past. Some people here seem to think that it is just a fake NRA front.

[Solo_in_MD]

9. They are quite real

I used to shoot with some of them on a regular basis before I moved. They are a hot and heavy on the 2nd amendment as anyone in the various RKBA movement. Like most serious shooters, they tend to be nice and polite folks.

[Dr.Phool]

2. I read about them several years ago. Legit group.

What a way to turn the tables on the wing-nut homophobes.

Especially here in Florida, where they passed a law this year saying it's OK to shoot someone you feel is threatening you. Could lead to a lot less gay bashing and assaults. Or a lot more dead freepers.

[Silverhair]

4. You are greatly overstating the FL law.

All it does is remove the requirement to prove that you were unable to retreat. Nor can you shoot someone just because you feel threatened. The fear has to be realistic to the situation.

[LoZoccolo]

3. That reminds me of the Gay Communist Gun Club.

Caller #6: Why shouldn't I just join the National Rifle Association, or the National Gay Alliance?

John: Well.. the NRA has certainly supported pro-gun legislation, but if you look at their record at promoting Communism or gayness, it's actually not that good.

http://snltranscripts.jt.org/88/88cgunclub.phtml

[billbuckhead]

7. Go along with the RBKA extremist line & submit to being armed or be bashed

Have the Gay Panthers ever addressed an NRA or GOA convention?Any out gays on the NRA board of directors?

Isn't it ironic that the places that have gay marriage also have strong gun regs. Canada, Spain, Netherlands. The American places that tried to have gay marriage in New York, Massachussetts and San Francisco are also bastions of gun regulation.

[LoZoccolo]

11. So?

I don't need to be a boilerplate "progressive".

[billbuckhead]

24. Progressives aren't progun. A sure litmus test.

It's a sure litmus test. Neocons are the ones who think that everything is settled from the barrel of a gun.

[Silverhair]

26. Since when do you get to define who is & isn't progressive? NT

[billbuckhead]

29. Dem voters have decided time and time again they are for gun regulations

Our 2008 candidate will be pro gun regulation. Clintons, Wes Clark, Al Gore, John Kerry, Jimmy Carter, the ACLU, the Black Caucus, the NAACP, liberals are vastly for sensible gun regulation. Can you you disagree?

[Jack_DeLeon]

37. Thats a load of crap, local long time Democrat congressman...

voted against the AWB, and against its renewal, and he keeps getting relected.

Solomon Ortiz 4tw.

[billbuckhead]

38. So did other DINO's like Zell Miller

[MrSandman]

78. These four aren't important to us?...

Lincoln Davis
Jim Cooper
Bart Gordon
John Tanner


Maybe you can convince a Democrat to run for their seats. Wait, they are Democrats.

[SoutherLib]

184. I Disagree.

I live in the south the words "Gun" and "Control" in combination do not fly here. If the Democratic party wants to start winning southern states again it needs to drop the gun control platform or better still start repealing gun laws. People are worried about "THEIR" security and the current trends say they do not trust a Democrat with their security. If Hillary wants to win in 2008 she needs to distance herself from Finestien and other confiscation advocates. Better still if she leads the fight to repeal some of these laws it will drastically "moderate" her, California and New York are Dem. locks anyway she has little to gain and everything to lose by associating with GC advocates.

[LoZoccolo]

31. OK, I'm not a progressive then.

I guess that settles it. Now I have to read up on the conservative line about economics, personal freedoms, civil rights, and foreign policy since I gotta get behind all that too, I suppose.

[Sapphocrat]

36. Then I'm not a progressive.

Let's see... I'm a far-left, pro-choice, anti-death penalty, pro-immigration rights, lifelong lesbian who's voted a straight Dem ticket in every single national, state, and local election since 1979 (save for Pete Camejo, Green candidate for CA gov.)... and I am a strong Second Amendment-supporting gun owner.

(Never mind that I believe in handgun registrations, background checks, waiting periods, and outlawing assault weapons.)

Guess that makes me a neocon.
:eyes:

[billbuckhead]

39. It you believe all political power comes from the end of a gun

The ACLU says you have no right to a gun under the 2nd amendment. Cheif Justice Warren Burger said as much and said it was settled law that you have no right to gun under the 2nd amendment.

[Silverhair]

42. Ultimately, it does. Mao was right about that.

Democracy is really a way of avoiding civil war. Since the side with the most people usually wins, by counting heads we determine who could likely muster the biggest army and win the war. So we allow them to win and avoid the bloodshed.

No suppose that you decide to disobey a law. The gov't must then decide whether it is worthwhile to go after you. If they decide to and if you resist then they will escalate the force used until they win. Take a look at Waco for the level of escalation they will go to. And that was a Democratic administration.

Underneath all of our laws lies the threat of raw power.

[Jack_DeLeon]

57. exactly

[iverglas]

123. y'all make me giggle

Take a look at Waco for the level of escalation they will go to.

I'd be taking a look at Waco for the level of appalling shit that some people will pull, and the wisdom of not allowing them access to weapons to facilitate their doing of it.

Sheesh. Take a look at WWII for the level of escalation that some people will go to in order to defeat fascism ...

[NightRainFalls]

187. You wrote

"Take a look at WWII for the level of escalation that some people will go to in order to defeat fascism ..."

If you are referring to the battle desperate Jewish people put up in the Warsaw Ghetto, that was indeed impressive. During the ZOB's struggle, less then 800 poorly armed, equipped and starving men and women held off the most powerful military machine that had existed up to that point. The ZOB forced the Germans into retreat and held off repeated counter attacks for over a month. Though only about a hundred of these brave fighters survived the battle, they showed that even disorganized poorly armed resistance fighters can stymie a modern military. If the Germans had met this kind of resistance earlier and in greater numbers, their manpower and resources would likely have been stretched to the breaking point and WWII would have probably been much shorter.

Your exhortation to examine the "level of escalation that some people will go to in order to defeat fascism" provides a stark reminder of the importance and prudence of maintaining an armed citizenry. Indeed, throughout WWII, resistance groups regularly sabotaged German units, hid members of persecuted ethnic groups, and coordinated with allied military planners. Thank you for pointing so directly to the historical importance of armed resistance against oppression. Examples like this highlight the importance of protecting Gun Rights in the US.

Dave

[Silverhair]

188. Outstanding Post!!!! NT

[sierrajim]

189. One of the Best posts I've ever read.

:yourock: :toast:

[iverglas]

190. oh, hooray hurrah

Allow me to join in the uproarious applause.

Oh well. Not.

No, I wasn't talking about the Warsaw ghetto. I wasn't advancing the hypothesis that a rag-tag band of anybody with home-defence weapons could defeat the well-equipped military of a highly organized fascist state. Sorry.

And the damn thing is, I'm pretty sure you knew it. In fact, I'm positive. So be careful not to hit your head on something as I pull the soapbox out from under you, 'k?

Indeed, throughout WWII, resistance groups regularly sabotaged German units, hid members of persecuted ethnic groups, and coordinated with allied military planners.

They did indeed. But it was THE MILITARY FORCES of the opposition to fascism that defeated the fascist forces, not the saboteurs among the public.

But don't let me interrupt youse guys' little fantasies about blowing the jackbooted minions of that fascist US govt of the future away. As you were, now.

As I recall, "as you were" was usually debating the merits of voting for the jackbooted minions' masters versus voting for the opponents of the incipient fascist government ...

[NightRainFalls]

191. Wow, you really should try reading

posts before you respond to them.

For example, you wrote " But don't let me interrupt youse guys' little fantasies about blowing the jackbooted minions of that fascist US govt of the future away. As you were, now." Of course, in these posts, Seirrajim, Silverhair, and I never fantasized about anything. I looked briefly at a historical event and suggested that the spirit of resistance was a good reason to maintain an armed citizenry. I certainly never fantasized about an uprising of that armed populace. In fact, I hope the armed populace continues to be latent. I never mentioned anything about Jackbooted minions, or blowing them away. In fact the words only appear in your post.

Considering how deeply you hallucinate about our fantasies, I have to wonder why you would mock us for fantasies we haven't expressed?

I also never suggested you were, "advancing the hypothesis that a rag-tag band of anybody with home-defence weapons could defeat the well-equipped military of a highly organized fascist state." I was merely following your exhortation to "Take a look at WWII for the level of escalation that some people will go to in order to defeat fascism ..." Since I did exactly what you asked, I can't see what you are objecting to.

Dave

[iverglas]

192. and you should try

... easing up on the pretence.

Of course, in these posts, Seirrajim, Silverhair, and I never fantasized about anything.

Hmm. IN THESE POSTS. Did *I* say anything about THESE POSTS? Is there not a whole great big forum full of posts hereabouts, stretching back several years in time?

I looked briefly at a historical event and suggested that the spirit of resistance was a good reason to maintain an armed citizenry.

And ... apart from what you now say making no sense ... you misrepresented what I wrote, or pretended to understand it in a way that it could not be understood, in order to launch a pseudo-lesson in history that was really quite irrelevant to anything.

I was merely following your exhortation to "Take a look at WWII for the level of escalation that some people will go to in order to defeat fascism ..." Since I did exactly what you asked, I can't see what you are objecting to.

How odd, hmm?

How very strange that your purporting to understand something I said as having meant something it could not conceivably have meant would have been taken as objectionable.

It went like this:

Silverhair:

The gov't must then decide whether it is worthwhile to go after you. If they decide to and if you resist then they will escalate the force used until they win. Take a look at Waco for the level of escalation they will go to. And that was a Democratic administration.

I found this inexplicably bizarre, as I usually do when people use Waco as an example of government -- the "they" in the level of escalation they will go to -- run amok. What was amok there was a handful of people doing very unpleasant things and arming themselves heavily in order to repel any government efforts to stop them.

For that reason, I replied:

I'd be taking a look at Waco for the level of appalling shit that some people will pull, and the wisdom of not allowing them access to weapons to facilitate their doing of it.

(I'm still utterly gobsmacked that anyone here would liken himself to the criminals in Waco, which is really what Silverhair appeared to do. It appears to serve the purpose of people who have fantasies about repelling jack-booted fascist minions to liken themselves to criminals who have repelled government forces. I mean, Waco is really not infrequently cited in this respect.)

Obviously, Waco is an example of the level of escalation <the government> will go to to put an end to appalling shit. So? Obviously, force is the ultimate means for compelling compliance with the rules that a society has agreed to. So?

But obviously, it was the question of what the government will do that I was addressing.

Silverhair said:

Democracy is really a way of avoiding civil war. Since the side with the most people usually wins, by counting heads we determine who could likely muster the biggest army and win the war. So we allow them to win and avoid the bloodshed.

What on earth does that have to do with Waco? Was that crowd really some minority within society, some group that collectively rejected the rules on which the rest of society had reached consensus? Do we need to regard individuals who coerce and manipulate and harm other people, and the victims of those individuals, as some sort of legitimate dissenting minority? It's a question, certainly. But few would disagree that the answer should be 'no'.

There is a difference between dissent and criminality, even though the precise line may not be easy to draw.

When someone uses an instance of the use of force by the state against individuals engaged in criminality to bolster an argument defining democracy as a way of dealing with dissent, my jaw drops.

And *I* suggested that we look at the use of force by the state against criminality on a massive scale -- fascism in WWII --

Take a look at WWII for the level of escalation that some people will go to in order to defeat fascism ...

-- very obviously referring to the lengths the government would go to, obviously meaning that I am quite prepared to be happy about the lengths that governments will go to, to defend their societies against such people and their actions. I am no more prepared to regard fascists and what they do as legitimate dissenters and legitimate expressions of dissent than I am to regard the Waco leaders and their deeds as such.

These are both *not* expressions of how Silverhair defined democracy: "really a way of avoiding civil war". They are instances of the use of force to defend democracy itself. "Democracy" no more permits the things that the Waco leaders were doing than it permits the things that the Nazi leaders were doing.


My comments were made in this very clear context: what "government" will do to defend democracy. NOT what individuals will do to defy government.

Nonetheless, my point remains; when you decided to change the subject, you were stuck with the one you chose.

And the conclusion you purported to draw from what I said:

Your exhortation to examine the "level of escalation that some people will go to in order to defeat fascism" provides a stark reminder of the importance and prudence of maintaining an armed citizenry.

is the purest bullshit, and unrelated to what I said in any way. My exhortation provided no such reminder of any such thing.

And that is quite simply because "an armed citizenry" could not and would not have defeated fascism through its random skirmishes and assassinations, or even through organized local uprisings, and is completely unlikely ever to do so. Not unless the arms that the "citizenry" has include tanks, trains, planes and sophisticated communications systems.

So your soapbox was evidently soggy even before I got to it.

[Silverhair]

193. And you are misunderstanding the intent of my statement.

I was responding to the statement of "Political power grows from the barrel of a gun." A statement of Mao that I agree with as being a description of reality.

I used Waco, not as an example of gov't run amok, but a demonstration that if the gov't decides to attempt to enforce law on you, they have to ability and the will to do it. My point was that a person who has broken a law can not hope to win using force against a gov't. In my example, the nutcases inside the Waco compound were indeed criminals. I pointed out that it was a Democratic administration because, in general, Democrats are more hesitant to use force than Republicans are.


Obviously, force is the ultimate means for compelling compliance with the rules that a society has agreed to.

So we are in agreement. Political power does indeed grow from the barrel of a gun.

WWII is also an example of political power growing from the barrel of guns. If Germany & Japan had won, as they almost did, (We won on sheer amazing good luck.)then they would have had the political power and we would not be having this conversation.

About fantasies. I am really quite tired of you telling me what fantasies I am having. There is a great difference between making contingency plans for and preparing for certain events, and hoping for those events.

I my part of the country, many people build underground (Not basement. I have NEVER seen a southern house with a basement.) tornado shelters. That costs thousands of dollars. The chance of a tornado impact on a particular spot in any particular year is less than .1%. That's about once every thousand years. Are they fantasizing about and wishing for a tornado?

[NightRainFalls]

197. Wow you like to abuse context

You were clearly talking about Silverhair's quote:

"The gov't must then decide whether it is worthwhile to go after you. If they decide to and if you resist then they will escalate the force used until they win. Take a look at Waco for the level of escalation they will go to," when you claim that Silverhair, "would liken himself to the criminals in Waco, which is really what Silverhair appeared to do." He did no such thing. You deliberately inserting meaning into a quote. The quote never had any such meaning.

Also, when you wrote, "I found this inexplicably bizarre, as I usually do when people use Waco as an example of government -- the "they" in the level of escalation they will go to -- run amok."

Of course it only looks that way in your post because you cut off the first part of the statement Silverhair made, "Now suppose that you decide to disobey a law." With this statement Silverhair made it clear that the government was going after those disobeying a law. He never suggested that the government was running amok. Those words appear in your post, not his. Silverhair has also responded to you and confirmed my belief that you misrepresented or misunderstood his intent.

Considering how much you misrepresent or misunderstand what previous posts say, it is nearly impossible to decipher what context your comments are made in. This is especially true when the context is as ambiguous as the words you use. Specifically, the phrase "some people" certainly could be the ZOB or the Polish resistance, or the French resistance, or the US army, or the Russian Army, or freelance snipers on the Eastern Front. In the earlier part of your message you had used the term "some people" to describe the Branch Davidians when you wrote, "I'd be taking a look at Waco for the level of appalling shit that some people will pull, and the wisdom of not allowing them access to weapons to facilitate their doing of it." Unless you were suggesting disarming the US government, "some people" is definitely not referring to a government. You provide no reason to believe that "some people" describes governments in the latter part of your post. You were not specific and the readers of this forums are not mind readers.

Dave

[SoutherLib]

185. Irony?

Defending gun rights while quoting Mao. Interesting! Ironic!

[Silverhair]

186. Mao wasn't wrong about EVERYTHING.

His manual on guerrilla warfare is a very good. He knew a good lot about organization and leadership. Like the modern Chinese say, "He had some good, some bad."

But yes, it is funny to see someone using him to defend something that he would have opposed.

[foreigncorrespondent]

46. Gee you are a real piece of works!

Sapph never said she believes that. What she did say was that according to you, even though she has voted a straight Dem ticket for a hell of a lot of years now, because she believes in the right to be armed she is nothing more than a neocon.

Let me give you a lesson in people. People come in all shapes and sizes. They come in different colours (Not everyone on earth is white.) Their hair can be long short, neat or scruffy, And guess what? Their beliefs will vary from your beliefs. Not everyone is going to tow the same trailer you are pulling.

I was under the impression that the Democrats were a big tent party, am I wrong?

Now, from what I understand by what your saying, you would prefer queers get murdered rather than protect themselves? I thought the senseless deaths of Matthew Shepherd and Brendan Teena would tell a different story to someone who claims to be such a progressive as yourself? Am I wrong again?

You can't have it both ways in a country lead my a maniac who has let it be known publicly what he thinks of the queer community.

Me, I stand for the right for a person to protect themselves. And to think, I don't think to highly of guns myself, but I have enough sense to realize, that under Bush* things won't get easier for my community.

[billbuckhead]

48. Don't blame gun regulation advocates for rightwing bigots

These RBKA zealots sell their souls to thier tin god by allying themselves with the darkest forces in politics like DeLay, Rove, Norquist, Cheney, Bolton, ad nauseum.

The rest of the advanced world has strong gun regualtions and enforcement and also usually treat gays better.

[foreigncorrespondent]

115. Oh please!

Where did I blame gun regulation advocates for right wing bigots? I don't recall saying that.

What I said was, that under a Bush* regime you won't get what you want. Queers won't get what they want. Only queers are in more danger than you. The queer community has a right to protect themselves from the bigots.

With Bush* in power, more and more bigots are coming forward. You either have a choice to continue to bash gun owners, or support the queer community in their right to protect themselves.

Now back to the issue at hand, which is you calling any leftie who owns a gun a neocon.

[Sapphocrat]

111. I didn't know Home Depot...

...sold such broad brushes.

Your diversionary tactics are absolutely astounding. Where did I ever say I "believe all political power comes from the end of a gun"?

And where did I ever argue that the Second Amendment guarantees me the right to own a gun?

You are off on a complete tangent, and dodging the issue at hand -- which, to refresh your memory, was your accusation that anyone who is "pro-gun" is a "neocon."

That wild accusation was the issue, and that's what I was objecting to. Don't insult my intelligence, and stop twisting my words in order to divert everyone's attention from your attempt to brand all gun owners "neocons."

I frankly wonder if you have even the most rudimentary understanding of the word "neocon."

[iverglas]

122. perhaps an oxymoran?

... and I am a strong Second Amendment-supporting gun owner.
(Never mind that I believe in handgun registrations, background checks, waiting periods, and outlawing assault weapons.)
Guess that makes me a neocon.

From what I can see, what it makes you is way to the left of any organized firearms control movement in the US these days. The idea of handgun registration is something that I've been given to understand would give strong men the vapours, and cause a volcano to erupt somewhere in a southern kind of state.

I guess I'm just not gittin' yer point. You define being a "strong Second Amendment-supporting gun owner" differently from anybody else hereabouts?

(I wouldn't expect you to know, so here's my own Coles notes version: I regard firearms acquisition and possession as just like any other human activity -- an exercise of a right to liberty, and in some respects and situations the right to life, although I'm actually talking about things like subsistence hunting, not toting pistols in one's pants to ward off chimerical bad people. Just as eating pizza for breakfast is an exercise of the right to life and liberty. And, accordingly, subject to the same limitations as any other human activity -- that is, limitations that are rationally connected to an important public objective, that do not disproportionately interfere in the exercise of the right, etc. etc. Limitations pretty much just like we have right here in Canada. ... Hmm, funny thing, that. We don't have any Pink Pistols up here.)

In your other post you say:

And where did I ever argue that the Second Amendment guarantees me the right to own a gun?

Would it be rude of me to inquire just what the heck you *did* mean by the first-quoted statement above?

[Sapphocrat]

158. What's so difficult to understand?

From what I can see, what it makes you is way to the left of any organized firearms control movement in the US these days. The idea of handgun registration is something that I've been given to understand would give strong men the vapours, and cause a volcano to erupt somewhere in a southern kind of state.

Well, I've guess you've learned today that gun owners are not all cut from the same cloth.

And, for the record, I don't belong to any "group" or "movement" on either side of the gun issue. Perhaps that's what throws you: My views on guns don't fit into some sort of neat little box -- any more than my views on abortion (don't ask -- it's the wrong thread for that).

I guess I'm just not gittin' yer point. You define being a "strong Second Amendment-supporting gun owner" differently from anybody else hereabouts?

Apparently I do define it differently.

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

Supporting that makes me an "oxymoran"? I don't see the problem, or the conflict. What gets people's panties in a twist is when the NRA types start trying to pervert that single sentence into indicating some sort of inalienable individual right to own guns.

That's certainly not my interpretation. I understand that "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms" depends solely on the condition of a "well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State."

What I object to is being lumped in with those nuts up in Montana who think they are the "Militia."

Perhaps I erred by including the qualifier "Second Amendment-supporting" in the same sentence as "gun owner" -- but I thought it necessary to include it, because in my thinking, the two phrases are not redundant. I recognize that one can support the Second Amendment without owning a gun, and that individual gun ownership has precious little (if anything) to do with the Second Amendment.

This sort of thinking is definitely outside the norm, I know. But I believe it's a far more accurate interpretation of the law than I've seen from (almost) "anybody else hereabouts."

That's why I'm not aligned with any sort of group or movement on either side of the fence -- and I'm sure neither side would want me on its team. LOL

(I wouldn't expect you to know, so here's my own Coles notes version: I regard firearms acquisition and possession as just like any other human activity -- an exercise of a right to liberty, and in some respects and situations the right to life, although I'm actually talking about things like subsistence hunting, not toting pistols in one's pants to ward off chimerical bad people. Just as eating pizza for breakfast is an exercise of the right to life and liberty. And, accordingly, subject to the same limitations as any other human activity -- that is, limitations that are rationally connected to an important public objective, that do not disproportionately interfere in the exercise of the right, etc. etc. Limitations pretty much just like we have right here in Canada. ... Hmm, funny thing, that. We don't have any Pink Pistols up here.)

Did I just get slammed here? Why wouldn't you expect me to know what I think? Never mind...

While it's obvious you're making fun of me with the above quote, I'll just say yes, you've pretty much got it. I suppose I've just walked into some sort of trap by saying that, but I'll (optimistically) hope you're not trying to set me up to make a complete ass of me.

I'm not sure what your point is about the lack of Pink Pistols in Canada, unless you're trying to ferret out my hypocrisy about U.S. vs. Canadian gun laws... Again, I'm sure I'm being set up here -- but I hope not.

If it makes you feel any better, I have no issue with Canadian gun laws. In fact, I have no issue with Australian gun laws (i.e., individual handgun ownership is prohibited). I suppose that sounds hypocritical, too; however, I suppose it's my simple belief in democracy that makes me think this way: If a law is enacted by the wishes of the majority, and applied equally, across the board, then, like it or not, it's my duty to abide by that law.

In other words, if handgun ownership were outlawed in the U.S. tomorrow, I would have no alternative but to turn mine in. I wouldn't like it one bit, but I'm not a Charlton Heston "cold, dead hands" gun owner. And I don't like anyone assuming I am.

(Of course, such a law could never be enforced "across the board" in the gun-crazy U.S., but that's another tangent altogether.)

I just don't see why it's so difficult for some people to understand that not all gun owners are wild-eyed fanatics holing up in some underground, off-the-grid bunker.

Which brings us back to the original point that irked me to no end: Never let your own biases lead to the assumption that anyone is just like any other member of a group, or shares the same "values" as the majority of that group.

You've seen the results of doing just that, right in this thread; i.e., labeling all gun owners "neocons." That sort of stretch absolutely astounds me -- and it certainly doesn't lead to any sort of open, thoughtful, mutually-respectful debate.

[iverglas]

171. I really don't fucking believe this

Hath no one any humour?

Let's start from the beginning.

You said:
... and I am a strong Second Amendment-supporting gun owner. (Never mind that I believe in handgun registrations, background checks, waiting periods, and outlawing assault weapons.) Guess that makes me a neocon.

I said:
perhaps an oxymoran?

You actually seem to have thought this was an insult. To start with, it was a contemporarily-relevant kind of play on "oxymoron". Do we all know what "oxymoron" means?

"A figure of speech in which apparently contradictory terms appear in conjunction." You know ... "military intelligence" ...

(The on-line personal ad I met my current co-vivant through 6 years ago started out "anti-social socialist, funny feminist, atheist in search of soulmate" -- supposedly oxymorons, see? -- and requested that no non-oxy-morons reply.)

A "strong second-amendment supporting" person (gun owner had nothing to do with it) who believed in handgun registration struck me as an oxymoron. That's simply neutral, and I have no idea how it could be seen as insulting.

Well, I've guess you've learned today that gun owners are not all cut from the same cloth.

Well, I guess I've learned today that I can expect presumptuous assumptions from absolutely every quarter.

**I** have never said anything about all gun owners being cut from the same cloth, or anything that would justify any inference that I think such a thing. Two of my close friends (out of, say, a hundred close adult friends over the last 3+ decades) owned guns. One was my lover for a while, the other I kind of wished was. Of course, the first one's son had killed himself with one of those guns at the age of 13.

My curiosity had nothing whatsoever to do with you being a gun owner and supporting, e.g., handgun registration. **I** have consistently and repeatedly said that many gun owners support the kinds of firearms controls we have in Canada, for instance.

That's certainly not my interpretation. I understand that "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms" depends solely on the condition of a "well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State."

Well, you see, that's exactly what I was asking about. At first glance, your statements appeared to be oxymoronic. In fact, I'm quite sure that's exactly how you intended them. You do not interpret the second-amendment right the way most people who describe themselves as "strong second amendment supporters" do.


I said:
(I wouldn't expect you to know, so here's my own Coles notes version: I regard firearms acquisition and possession as just like any other human activity -- an exercise of a right to liberty, and in some respects and situations the right to life, although I'm actually talking about things like subsistence hunting, not toting pistols in one's pants to ward off chimerical bad people. Just as eating pizza for breakfast is an exercise of the right to life and liberty. And, accordingly, subject to the same limitations as any other human activity -- that is, limitations that are rationally connected to an important public objective, that do not disproportionately interfere in the exercise of the right, etc. etc. Limitations pretty much just like we have right here in Canada. ... Hmm, funny thing, that. We don't have any Pink Pistols up here.)

You said:

Did I just get slammed here? Why wouldn't you expect me to know what I think? Never mind...

While it's obvious you're making fun of me with the above quote, I'll just say yes, you've pretty much got it. I suppose I've just walked into some sort of trap by saying that, but I'll (optimistically) hope you're not trying to set me up to make a complete ass of me.

I really have no idea why you react so defensively to what I say.

I wouldn't expect you to know what MY position on what "right" there is to own firearms would be -- so I told you. The reason I wouldn't expect you to know that is that you don't hang out in the gun dungeon.

And no matter how many times I make plain my own position on the right to own firearms, and the justifiability of various forms of firearms control, *I* am constantly subjected to presumptions false assumptions about what I think. The fact that I support the firearms controls we have in Canada (which focus on training and licensing users, registering possession and transfers of firearms, and requiring safe/secure storage and transportation) makes me a "gun-grabber". And all sorts of weird and wonderful beliefs and personality problems and political ideologies are ascribed to me, and false assertions made about my positions, on a weekly basis.

I was attempting to head that off -- by not leaving any second or third meanings open in what I said (the way you had done).

All I was doing was explaining that I believe there is a "right" to own firearms entirely independently of any second amendment -- just as there is a right to own anything else. And that the right in question is just as subject to limitation and regulation as any other right. Coles Notes are the Canadian equivalent of Cliffs Notes.

I really don't know what there could be in a description of *my* position that could have been read as intended to insult you, or set you up, or anything else.

Why would you respond to
I wouldn't expect you to know, so here's *my* own Coles notes version: *I* regard ...
by saying
Why wouldn't you expect me to know what *I* think?
Who was talking about what *you* think??

I'm not sure what your point is about the lack of Pink Pistols in Canada

Well actually, I guess I just threw it in because it came into my head. The point, if there was one, was that gay men and lesbians don't seem to feel a need, or think it a wise idea, to organize posses up here -- or, to set aside hyperbole, to arm themselves.

In other words, if handgun ownership were outlawed in the U.S. tomorrow, I would have no alternative but to turn mine in. I wouldn't like it one bit, but I'm not a Charlton Heston "cold, dead hands" gun owner. And I don't like anyone assuming I am.

(Of course, such a law could never be enforced "across the board" in the gun-crazy U.S., but that's another tangent altogether.)

Oh, I'm aware of that. 10,000 deaths a year, but oh well -- take away handguns from the law-abiding and only outlaws will have them, and yada yada. No other response could be expected; I too have no doubt of that. The longest journey starts with a single step, but it's a step that won't likely be taken in the US in our lifetime.

I just don't see why it's so difficult for some people to understand that not all gun owners are wild-eyed fanatics holing up in some underground, off-the-grid bunker.

And, you see, I have no idea why you inferred that I don't "understand" this -- if I can infer from this that you think I don't.

Which brings us back to the original point that irked me to no end: Never let your own biases lead to the assumption that anyone is just like any other member of a group, or shares the same "values" as the majority of that group.

And I'm afraid I'm going to have to say: ditto.

You've seen the results of doing just that, right in this thread; i.e., labeling all gun owners "neocons."

And certainly, don't assume that because one member of a group says something, all members think it.

I know I never do that.

[iverglas]

182. obviously, it was far too much to expect ...

[foreigncorrespondent]

160. Well I for one am shocked with you!

Being from such a progressive country as Canada, you should see reason for a gay person wanting to protect themselves in the U.S. Yet you here attack my partner, a lesbian for being a gun owner in the U.S. Now, I will let you into a part of Sapph's and my relationship.

My being from Australia, I do have different views than American's when it comes to guns, and gun ownership. I have only ever fired a gun once in my life, and I didn't like it.

When Sapph and I spent our first weekend together and her home, we got into a discussion about guns. She knew I was uncomfortable about guns, but also knew that I realized it wasn't the gun that killed a person, but rather the person and their mentality behind the gun.

After living with Sapph for fifteen months, she helped me to see a different light about guns, and gun owners. You see, Sapph isn't your regular NRA toting gun owner, she doesn't hunt. Sapph does not believe in killing a wild animal for the thrill of the kill.

Once I saw this side of her, I realized not all gun owners fit into the same caliber in the U.S. That those on the left view gun ownership as something different to those on the right. And that, is what you don't understand, inverglas.

Now let's come forward again to just a few days ago, when we here at DU read about a lesbian couple who received a beating for nothing more than loving one another and holding hands. On top of that, the police refused to do anything about that beating.

The government of the U.S. isn't a progressive government like your government in Canada. They do not believe in protection for minorities. Rather, they believe in protection for the majority.

Their government doesn't believe in rights for minorities, but rather rights for the majority. Do you see a pattern here?

Now let me ask you, do you believe those women would have been given a bashing had they been able to protect themselves? Let's go further, do you believe Matthew Shepherd would have been murdered had he been able to protect himself?

Right now, there are no laws in place to help protect the queer community. The queer community are getting tired of having their heads knocked in by jerks who believe they don't have a right to breath air. If the government and police aren't going to do anything about it, then they have to do something about it, because things are that bad in the U.S.

Not all of us are lucky enough to live in such a progressive nation as you, and I am just shocked by your attack on my partner, for being nothing more than a gun owner. She is no neocon. She is no repuke supporter. She is just a person who happens to believe in her right to own guns, and has been attacked for that. How sad!

On edit: Typo

[iverglas]

173. don't miss the sequel up above

Yet you here attack my partner, a lesbian for being a gun owner in the U.S.

Ya think?

Would you care to quote the words constituting the attack(s) in question?

There's an awful lot of - if you'll excuse the expression on so many levels -- running off half-cocked going on here, I'm afraid.

After living with Sapph for fifteen months, she helped me to see a different light about guns, and gun owners. You see, Sapph isn't your regular NRA toting gun owner, she doesn't hunt. Sapph does not believe in killing a wild animal for the thrill of the kill.

Well, ya see, much as I would never want to do it myself, I have no problem with people killing wild animals - for food, and possibly even for agricultural protection, and in self-defence.

The First Nations people of Canada, for instance, have protected hunting rights as part of their protected aboriginal rights and practices. And that's how it should be. Ditto for the Aboriginal people of Australia, no? And hunting, in Canada, is still an important part of some rural cultures and economies (both subsistence hunting and tourism hunting), and I'm not out to interfere with that.

Once I saw this side of her, I realized not all gun owners fit into the same caliber in the U.S. That those on the left view gun ownership as something different to those on the right. And that, is what you don't understand, inverglas.

But I can guess you're going to explain it to me, even though you haven't the slightest basis for thinking I need the lecture.

By the way, I have no idea why "those on the left" in the US would not view gun ownership for hunting (not, of course, trophy hunting) just the way I do, on the left up here in Canada. I don't suspect the left in the US of being out to deprive rural, aboriginal and low-income people of a source of food or income.

Now, I'm sure that what you're saying is that "those on the left" in the US think that members of vulnerable groups need to be able to have firearms to protect themselves. And I can assure you that while *some* of them may think that, a great many others don't.

Now let me ask you, do you believe those women would have been given a bashing had they been able to protect themselves? Let's go further, do you believe Matthew Shepherd would have been murdered had he been able to protect himself?

Are those not kind of tautological questions? If I had not fallen off the curb, would I have broken my ankle?

On the other hand, are they really not simply unanswerable? How does anyone know what would have happened in a particular situation, gun or no gun? Crystal balls don't work in hindsight any better than for predicting the future.

Right now, there are no laws in place to help protect the queer community.

Well that's just a bizarre thing to say. What: the law says "thou shalt not maim or kill, except a GLBT person"? Law enforcement may be a problem, and vulnerability is certainly a problem. But hardly the laws.

If the government and police aren't going to do anything about it, then they have to do something about it, because things are that bad in the U.S.

Well, that's one theory. It's not necessarily one I'm prepared to agree with.

I do believe rather firmly in collective rights -- the rights of groups (cultural, racial, religious, ethnic, national) to autonomy, and to exercise that autonomy -- and to collective self-defence. That is, I believe in arrangements that protect the nature and practices of such groups -- equality rights for individual members of the groups, and support for the groups as a whole (e.g. to preserve their language) within states, and separate statehood where necessary. And I believe in the right of defensive war, and rebellion -- i.e. collective self-defence.

The problem arises when the assault on the collective is being conducted via assaults on the individual members. This was the problem taken up by the Black Panthers in the old days, and the problem you are addressing.

The difficulty is that individuals are really not entitled to determine, by themselves and for themselves, how collective rights will be exercised. If I am a member of a Canadian First Nation, for instance, I don't get to say okay, we're going to set up an independent state now. And, in exercising our nations' collective right of self-determination, you and I don't get to say okay, today we vote the bastards out.

And to be perfectly frank, I have not been able to sort out the paradox -- and I don't expect to be able to, because it *is* a paradox. The nature of human beings itself is a paradox -- we're individuals and we're members of groups, and we act in both capacities at all times.

About all I can say is that I do not see the use of firearms by individuals, in their individual discretion, in individualized circumstances, as an appropriate response to victimization they suffer as individual members of a vulnerable group. I put that as an over-riding rule, above the other considerations. The generalized presence of firearms in the public spaces of a society is simply not acceptable (and I won't go into the arguments, but simply offer the conclusion as the reason for my position). And there simply is no way to allow members of vulnerable groups to carry firearms as an exception to the general rule.

Sometimes, bad things happen. Some people are more vulnerable to bad things than others. There are many, many people who are vulnerable for many, many reasons, including their membership in vulnerable groups -- as defined by race, religion, ethnicity, class, sex, age, and of course sexual orientation. I simply do not see all those people (and everyone else) carrying firearms around as likely to be a good thing.

The way to protect members of vulnerable groups, as individuals, is to guarantee equality rights -- the ability to exercise all rights on an equal basis with all other members of the society. And that means equality in law enforcement, and equality in the schools and the workplaces and all that jazz. (Sadly, it probably won't mean equality in the representations made by other individuals in public, in view of the conflicting and jealously guarded right of free speech -- others' right to say nasty things, short of actually inciting hatred in any event, where such rules exist, will probably not be fettered by rules governing letters to the editor the way the rules govern employment and tenancy practices, for instance.) But yup, when that isn't done, bad things happen.

And lest I be accused of just being complacent and non-vulnerable, I would point out that I was the victim of an extremely violent and terrifying and life-threatening crime purely because I was a woman. As a woman, I have always been vulnerable, as are all women. And I have no desire to carry a firearm around, because I see that as something *I* should not do, not just as something everybody else should not do.

Not all of us are lucky enough to live in such a progressive nation as you, and I am just shocked by your attack on my partner, for being nothing more than a gun owner.

Well, I'm shocked by your attack on me, so are we even? Of course the difference is that I DID NOT ATTACK YOUR PARTNER IN ANY WAY, whereas you have made all sorts of false allegations about me.

She is no neocon. She is no repuke supporter.

And you're telling me this ... why? Because I said she was? Sorry. I did no such thing.

She is just a person who happens to believe in her right to own guns, and has been attacked for that.

And again ... you're saying this to me ... why? I'd expect that you might want to say it to someone who actually attacked her.

How sad!

Indeed.

On edit: Typo

Ah. You fixed the mote, and left all the logs.


So. Any clearer now? If anything isn't, perhaps someone would ask. Often the wisest first choice.

[iverglas]

183. ... retractions, let alone apologies.

[Blade42]

164. Actually iverglas

The Pink Pistols are starting a chapter in Canada, we have four member so far ....but yeah it's a good start.

[iverglas]

174. uh huh

[LoZoccolo]

13. This makes less sense to me the more I think about it.

Go along with the RBKA extremist line & submit to being armed or be bashed

The way you're phrasing this, you're making it sound like people bash gay people in order to get them to arm themselves to prevent themselves from being bashed. I have trouble believing that that's what you're really trying to say. What are you saying?

[billbuckhead]

18. Isn't that what terrorism is all about?

If guns made for free societies, why is the most fascist regime in US history the most progun? If guns made people free, why isn't Afghanistan the freest place on the planet and the EU a gulag?

[Silverhair]

20. You are changing to topic.

The issue here is the use of guns for personal self-defense against common criminals. In this case, hate-criminals.

We are not talking about political repression.

It is noteworthy that the crime rate in EU is going up.

[billbuckhead]

22. It's far more noteworthy the EU murder rate is multiples less than USA

The Pink Pistols is just contrived astroturf to scare gay people. Another Neocon marketing campaign like the equally phony Mary Rosh clones on the internet and the pathetic second amendment sisters neocon campfollowers.

[dsc]

23. With all due respect

They don't need to scare us. We are already scared. There are very few gays or lesbians who don't know of someone who has been bashed. I honestly don't see myself carrying a gun, but I am looking much less skeptically at those who do. Our fiction is already taking seriously the notion that we may wish to leave the country and that is no accident. They may well be playing on fears to get us to support gun rights, but they didn't create those fears.

[billbuckhead]

25. The same people who are bashing you have NRA stickers on their trucks

Every gun bought by gays or anyone else out of fear is a far bigger defeat than any bashing, it's a defeat for civilization. it's no accident that the most fascist barbaric regime in American history is also the most progun. The places gays people are leaving for that are more gay friendly are also more strongly regulated about guns.

Ever see the "liberal hunting permit"?<http://dneiwert.blogspot.com/2005/06/hunting-of-liberals.html>

[dsc]

27. I and other gays shouldn't have to leave

and for people like me who have very limited physical abilities a gun may well be an option. It isn't my option as of yet, but I'll be damened if I am going to live my life in fear of everyone and everything.

[billbuckhead]

28. There's a better chance a gun will work against you rather than help you

Guns aren't the panacea the gun manufacturers and the neocons sell them as. Like can they really guarantee that armed gays won't be bashed. Of course not. It's easier to sell you a gun rather than to do the hard work to build social harmony or more cynically, they want us all scared to death of each other cause we're shooting at each other. That's "compassionate conservatism" in action.

[dsc]

30. no they aren't

which is one reason I am avoiding buying one. But for some people they may be a solution.

[comradebillyboy]

35. you are unlikely to hurt yourself if

when you buy a pistol you get plenty of practice. my gun club has informal 'tactical pistol' competitions twice a month. they are fun, one gains experience in handling one's firearm and lots of focus on safety. the gun club doesn't care about sexual preference or politics, although most members are conservative.

owning a gun is a personal matter. it is not a political litmus test. you can be a liberal gun nut, you can learn how to use these toys and tools safely and responsibly. i say toys cuz guns are also fun to shoot.

[billbuckhead]

40. Everything you own, owns you and has demands

Owning a gun is actually a very public matter and ones relationship to guns/weapons is one of the most crucial political decisions one makes. The Brooking Institute estimates that America's weak gun regulations cost 100 billion a year. America alone of advanced nations has these weak gun regs and alone has murder rates multiples higher than comparable nations. Corporate neocons behind their bulletproof glass and security guards don't care since the vast amount of victims are the poor and minorities.

[Solo_in_MD]

47. For the first time I agree with something you posted in this thread

Owning a gun is partly a political decision. For me it meant taking on a level of responsibility above that which I previously had not just for myself but my family and neighbors (training, safe storage...). It also meant acknowledging the inability of the society to secure my person from attack. Both decisions are clearly in part political. However, my active gun ownership does not make me any less progressive. Over time I have come to the conclusion that gun ownership is a progressive value, even if that makes me a small minor ty in the Democratic party and the progressive movement.

It is interesting to note the the current gun laws clearly have a disproportionate impact on the poor and minorities. I can not see how more would make it better.

[slackmaster]

51. Crock of baloney

Owning a gun is actually a very public matter...

Hogwash.

[billbuckhead]

64. We all know slackmaster has guns

It's no secret.

[slackmaster]

155. Makes no sense whatsoever

We all know that the person who uses the handle 'slackmaster' owns guns because I have elected to share that information with people.

OTOH I have elected not to share my IRL name or address, so my gun ownership is still a private matter.

What are you trying to say here, billbuckhead?

[Silverhair]

41. Only if you don't know how or are unwilling to use it.

Lots of antigunners like to claim that a gun is more likely to be used against you. But if that were true, then cops would not carry guns, nor would criminals. The only way that your gun can be used against you is if you are unable to use it correctly, or if you are unwilling to use it. Lack of will to use is is actually a special case of incorrect use.

Don't get a gun unless you are willing to learn how to use it right, and have to will to use it if you have to.

[billbuckhead]

43. Many times cops guns are used against them

It just demonstrates how even trained people have trouble keeping guns secure. Having a gun around is more likely a pandoras box than a help.

[Silverhair]

58. Do you have any genuine stats on that?

If it were really that big a problem, cops would not carry them.

[billbuckhead]

66. The Atlanta courthouse shooting is the latest most famous

"Nichols was at the Fulton County Courthouse (search) in downtown Atlanta to face charges of raping and holding his girlfriend prisoner. But before entering the courtroom, police say he grabbed a sheriff's deputy's gun and used it to kill three people, including Superior Court Judge Rowland Barnes (search).

The deputy was in critical condition with a gunshot wound to her head, a doctor at Grady Memorial Hospital said. She was expected to survive."

<http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,150119,00.html>
The there's this guy selling training but then you RBKAers are selling guns so I guess it's all equal.

The subject is Advanced Gun Disarmament and Weapons Retention — the most important martial arts tactic in "street level" SWAT work today. Why? Because 75% of all cops who are shot in the line of duty…

Are Shot With Their OWN GUN!

"And owning a gun won't help you. In fact, according to the latest FBI statistics … just owning a gun can actually get you killed. Because… while 75% of cops who get shot in the line of duty get shot with their own gun… over 95% of civilians who get shot get shot with their own gun!"
<http://www.bodysecurity.com/videos/taylor.htm>

Posted on Sunday, April 17, 2005 at 11:03 AM by XD shooter
My heart goes out to the family of this 20+ year veteran. Apparently he was questioning a suspect in the police station, when the suspect attacked him. During the struggle, the detectives Gun was used against him and he was shot several times and was killed. The BG tried to run away by taking a taxi!!

Will be interesting to see what other facts come out in this case.

Here is the link for Fox News Article.<http://www.packing.org/news/article.jsp/10143/>

And here's another one
Shot with his own gun
By Selma Milovanovic, Andrea Petrie and Gary Tippet

It's the call that turns every cop's heart to ice. "Officer down": the radio message that one of their own has been attacked. The fact that this time a policeman had been murdered - perhaps executed - during a commonplace traffic job only added to their dread.

To the best of their knowledge, Senior Constable Tony Clarke had pulled over a red Nissan on Warburton Highway, Launching Place, early yesterday morning as part of a routine traffic interception, possibly to administer a breath test. Within minutes he was dead, shot once in the back of the head with his own service revolver.

http://www.theage.com.au/news/National/Shot-with-his-own-gun/2005/04/24/1114281450181.html?oneclick=true

And another one
A New York police officer was shot in the leg with his own gun while trying to arrest a man allegedly smoking marijuana.
<http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=05/07/01/1430228>

Sure sounds pretty common.

[Silverhair]

71. Distorted statistics and bad logic

You can't make a case based on isolated incidents, no matter how famous.

While it may be true, (I don't have stats and don't feel like researching it.)that most cops that are shot are shot with their own gun, that does NOT take into account the many times cop use their guns on perps, either to shoot them are to intimidate them into surrender.

If a cop's own gun was more dangerous to him than it was to the criminals, they would have quit carrying guns long ago.

Further, for a criminal to use my gun on me means he has to get it from me. That will be very difficult for him to do if I have already put a few bullets into him.

If you think he is going to use some super martial arts move to get it away from me, you have been watching too much bad TV.

[billbuckhead]

80. 25% of police murdered were by their own guns! Add suicides and accidents

"In this offering, I’d intended to quote recent statistics and write in general terms about the traditional activities that all too often result in cops becoming the victims of violence. But while reviewing the circumstances surrounding officer murders that have occurred as of late, an alarming commonality in several such events screamed for immediate attention: officer disarmings.

Tragic Examples
On The Officer Down Memorial Page (www.ODMP.org) it’s reported that 146 officers suffered line of duty deaths in this country during 2003, 47 of which were slain by felonious gunfire. The alarming fact is that 12 of those 47 officers were murdered by suspects who’d gained control of a peace officer’s sidearm! These events occurred in Alaska, Alabama, Montana, Oklahoma, North Carolina, South Carolina, Virginia, and the state of Washington. Two officers were slain in this fashion both in Alabama and Washington, while the South Carolina law enforcement community suffered three loses after officer disarmings.

Not surprisingly, most of these tragedies began in typical fashion, with cops responding to traditional calls for service, interacting with persons about whom they knew little, and during subsequent attempts to apprehend offenders willing to do anything to avoid a prison stint - or in many cases, another prison stint guaranteed to be longer than their last one. Until the point that precious blood was spilled, some of these situations, including the following examples, might even have been classified as “routine” by those who haven’t yet figured out that there is no such thing in police work."
----------------snip-------------------------------
<http://www.llrmi.com/Articles/le-deadlydisarmings.cfm>

[Silverhair]

82. 12 out of how many police in the country?

And out of how many violent encounters in that same year? That brings the criminal's success rate in gaining control of and using an officer's gun down to a very tiny faction of a percent. Your attempts to distort statistics aren't working.

12 criminal successes out of all of the violent police encounters in the entire country in an entire year. Sound like the police are doing a very good job of keeping their guns. Not perfect, but very close to it.

[billbuckhead]

87. Guns are so secure that 170,000 guns are stolen every year

WASHINGTON -- 1,695,482 firearms have been reported stolen to police since 1993, and they are frequently used in later crimes, according to a report released today by Americans for Gun Safety Foundation (AGSF).

The AGSF report, entitled Stolen Firearms: Arming the Enemy, found that gun theft is a two-edged problem: for the hundreds of thousands of gun owners and dealers who have been the victims of theft, and for the communities where the nearly 170,000 annual stolen guns end up, fueling the black market and being used in gun crimes. According to the report, six states - Alaska, Alabama, Mississippi, Arkansas, New Mexico, and Georgia - have firearm theft rates of at least twice the national average. California, Texas, Florida, Georgia, and North Carolina had the most firearm thefts over the past 10 years.

<http://w3.agsfoundation.com/press_121702.htm>

Yep, guns are real secure.

[Silverhair]

90. You are changing the subject - again!

You were talking about criminal gaining control of a gun that was in a cop's holster. When you lost on that point, you start reaching for the stat on stolen guns to try to prove something.

Yes, many guns are stolen, as are TV, cars, jewelry, etc. That many guns are stolen does NOT help your argument that somehow a crook is going to disarm me and use my gun on me.

[billbuckhead]

94. Cops can't keep guns secure and RBKAers are even worse

Guns in the Home

One of the most dangerous misconceptions promoted by the gun industry is that handguns are a useful tool in self defense when kept in the home. In reality, the number of cases of individuals successfully averting an attacker inside their own homes using a handgun is virtually nil when compared to the number of handgun owners who are injured or killed in their own homes with handguns - and usually with their own handgun.

In fact, a person who lives in a home with a gun is three times more likely to be murdered1 and five times more likely to commit suicide than a person who lives in a home without a gun.2 For every time that a gun is used in the home for the purposes of self-defense, 43 other people are killed with a gun in unintentional shootings, homicides or suicides.3

According to the US General Accounting Office (GAO), more than 70% of all unintentional shootings resulting in death involved a handgun, and most occurred in or near the home.4 A 1992 national survey found that more than half of all handgun owners keep their guns loaded at all times.5 A similar study found that 10% of gun owners said they keep their guns "loaded, unlocked and within reach of children."6

----------snip-------------------------------------------

<http://www.handgunfree.org/HFAMain/topics/home/default.htm>

[Silverhair]

97. Guns are used 2.3 million times a year to PREVENT crimes.

I have personally known several people who have used guns against burglars. I don't know anybody that was killed by their own gun.

[billbuckhead]

99. There are no police reports to prove that. It's a unverifiable neocon lie

SURVEY RESEARCH AND SELF-DEFENSE GUN USE: AN EXPLANATION OF EXTREME OVERESTIMATES
David Hemenway *

Copyright © 1997 Northwestern University School of Law & David Hemenway

Editor's note: In Fall 1995, the Journal published an article by Professors Gary Kleck and Marc Gertz, Armed Resistance to Crime: The Prevalence and Nature of Self-Defense with a Gun, 86 J. Crim. & Criminology 150 (1995). As part of its Policy and Perspectives section, the Journal now publishes the views of Professor David Hemenway on the Kleck-Gertz paper, a reply by Professors Kleck and Gertz, and the views of Professor Tom Smith on both the Hemenway and Kleck- Gertz papers. As always, the views expressed here are those of the authors.

I. Introduction and Summary

Gary Kleck and Marc Gertz conducted a survey of civilian defensive gun use in 1992. In 1993, Kleck began publicizing the estimate that civilians use guns in self-defense against offenders up to 2.5 million times each year. <1> This figure has been widely used by the National Rifle Association and by gun advocates. It is also often cited in the media <2> and even in Congress. <3> The Kleck and Gertz (K-G) paper has now been published. <4> It is clear, however, that its conclusions cannot be accepted as valid.

Two aspects of the K-G survey combine to create severe misestimation. The first is the likelihood of positive social desirability response, sometimes referred to as personal presentation bias. An individual who purchases a gun for self-defense and then uses it successfully to ward off a criminal is displaying the wisdom of his precautions and his capability in protecting himself, his loved ones, and his property. His action is to be commended and admired.

-----snip------------------------
<http://www.saf.org/LawReviews/Hemenway1.htm>

Where are all the hospital visits and where are all the police reports?

[Silverhair]

101. Actually my number comes from John Lott's study.

"Where are all the hospital visits and where are all the police reports?"

In about 99% of cases the would be criminal takes off running. No shots fired, no hospital needed. Often there is no police report because the defender has stopped the crime from being committed.

[billbuckhead]

105. John Lott is a discredited neocon AEI whore No credibilty there whatsoever

Double Barreled Double Standards

News: For years, John Lott has provided a vital scholarly basis to the pro-gun movement. But now his research and his integrity are drawing heavy fire.

By Chris Mooney
October 13, 2003

If economist John R. Lott didn't exist, pro-gun advocates would have had to invent him. Probably the most visible scholarly figure in the U.S. gun debate, Lott's densely statistical work has given an immense boost to the arguments of the National Rifle Association. Lott's 1998 book More Guns, Less Crime -- which extolled the virtues of firearms for self-defense and has sold some 100,000 copies in two editions, quite an accomplishment for an academic book -- has served as a Bible for proponents of "right to carry" laws (also known as "shall issue" laws), which make it easier for citizens to carry concealed weapons. Were Lott to be discredited, an entire branch of pro-gun advocacy could lose its chief social scientific basis.

That may be happening. Earlier this year, Lott found himself facing serious criticism of his professional ethics. Pressed by critics, he failed to produce evidence of the existence of a survey -- which supposedly found that "98 percent of the time that people use guns defensively, they merely have to brandish a weapon to break off an attack" -- that he claimed to have conducted in the second edition of "More Guns, Less Crime". Lott then made matters even worse by posing as a former student, "Mary Rosh," and using the alias to attack his critics and defend his work online. When an Internet blogger exposed the ruse, the scientific community was outraged. Lott had created a "false identity for a scholar," charged Science editor-in-chief Donald Kennedy. "In most circles, this goes down as fraud."

Lott's recent baggage makes him an impeachable witness in the push to pass state-level right to carry laws, and raises questions about his broader body of work. Kennedy and others have even likened Lott to Michael Bellesiles, the Emory University historian who could not produce the data at the heart of his award-winning 2000 book "Arming America", which had seemed to undermine the notion that there was widespread gun ownership and usage in colonial America. But while Bellesiles resigned after a university panel challenged his credibility, thus far Lott has escaped a similar fate. An academic rolling stone, Lott has held research positions at the University of Chicago and Yale law schools, but currently works at the American Enterprise Institute (AEI), a Washington think tank much smiled upon by the Bush administration. AEI will not say whether it will investigate its in-house guns expert; by e-mail, AEI president Christopher DeMuth declined to comment on the possibility.
------------snip-----------------------------------
<http://www.whoismaryrosh.com/motherjones.html>

[Silverhair]

107. You seem to call anybody that disagrees with a neocon, etc.

From my experience, and the experience of friends whom have used guns in self defense, I can personally state that in almost all cases, as soon as the gun is brought out, the would be crook runs away. The crooks want easy prey and are not interested in a fight.

[billbuckhead]

124. I call NRA apologists&2nd amendments absolutists, neocons

Your experience. Most guns end end hurting the people who own them or more particularly their innocent loved ones, from my experience.

RBKAextremists believe all power comes from the barrel of gun and progressive people think the least power that comes from a barrel of a gun, the more civilized a society is. If guns made men free, Afghanistan and Waziristan would be the freest places on earth and the EU would be a gulag.

[Silverhair]

131. You call everybody that disagrees with you a neocon.

Most guns hurt their owners?? MOST are never used except for practice. You really should learn precision in the use of language. Further, you are repeating yourself. Your arguments have already been refuted. I refuse to go in circles with you so I will not bother to post the refutations again.

[Name removed]

156. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[ManiacJoe]

117. Actually the number comes from the police reports.

If you don't like the high end of the estimate, lets go with the low end of 1.8 million. While the anti-gun orgs hate to admit it, they do admit that the estimate of 1.8-2.3 million is quite accurate.

And the vast majority of these uses do not involve any shots being fired.

[billbuckhead]

137. Any links or PROOF besides a highly discredited study

Survey Research and Self-Defense Gun Use: An Explanation of Extreme Overestimates, David Hemenway, PhD, The Journal of Criminal Law & Criminology, Vol. 87, No. 4, 1997, pp. 1430-1445.

This paper analyzes survey methodology by Gary Kleck and Marc Gertz, who estimate that civilians use guns in self-defense against offenders up to 2.5 million times each year. This estimate is based on a survey of civilian defensive gun use in 1992 and has been repeatedly by the NRA and gun advocates. This paper concludes that the Kleck and Gertz survey design contains a huge overestimation bias and that their estimate is highly exaggerated.

This paper illustrates the overestimation problem found in Kleck and Gertz's methodology by applying it to a 1994 ABC News/ Washington Post survey of 1500 adults of which 10 percent answered affirmatively as to whether they had ever seen an alien spacecraft. Of these, six percent stated they had come into contact with a space alien. If extrapolated to the national population using Kleck and Gertz's methodology, this would translate into almost 20 million Americans who had seen a spacecraft from another planet and more than a million who had actually met space aliens.

<http://www.vpc.org/studies/wherown.htm>

[Silverhair]

140. I have already demonstrated the number to be realistic.

It is roughly consistent with a defensive use being a once-in-a-lifetime event for the typical gun owner.

You are going in circles and repeating yourself.

[billbuckhead]

141. Thats' not demonstrating that's fabricating

That 2.5 million stat is unprovable and meant to to be that way by the NRA spin machine. The gun lobby and their camp followers figure that if they lie enough, people will be scared anyway. terror! terror!

[Silverhair]

143. Again, instead of debating on the merits, you resort to name calling. NT

[billbuckhead]

145. How did I call you a name? You lost the debate and now complain

Guns are dangerous to their owners. You didn't put a dent in that at all.

[Silverhair]

146. You called the authors of the studies names.

And you are again changing your statement.

You first said that guns are more dangerous to the owner than to the criminal. I tore that one to pieces. You lost badly. Now you are changing it to "Guns are dangerous to their owners." That I will not argue with. They are a very dangerous tool that must be used correctly or not at all.

I have to run some errands. I won't have time to play again until tonight.

[billbuckhead]

148. John Lott is a throughly discredited liar Nice try at reframing the debate

Guns are dangerous to their owners. Nice try at reframing the debate.

[ManiacJoe]

118. Lots of fairly accurate numbers but

most have wrong labels on them. Please review the original studies.

[billbuckhead]

98. That's still 25% of a trained force and another 300 year commit suicide.

POLICE SUICIDE IS AN ALARMING PROBLEM RARELY DISCUSSED PUBLICLY
by Claude Lewis, The Philadelphia Inquirer

Stress is taking its toll on police officers throughout the nation, though it is a problem that many departments are loath to talk about publicly. And that includes Philadelphia's.

"It's difficult to put your arms around the problem, when so few people are willing to talk about it," said Councilman Michael Nutter. "Everyone knows it's a serious problem, but not many will discuss it."

New York City has a different attitude. Last week, police brass became so alarmed at the number of suicides among officers that it set in motion a new program to recruit and train cops as peer counselors.

In a police force of more than 30,000, suicides among officers have been on the rise. Fourteen uniformed men killed themselves last year. Others atempted suicide but were thwarted by alert officers who intervened in time.
http://www.handgunfree.org/HFAMain/topics/home/default.htm

[Silverhair]

100. You are badly twisting the stats.

It is NOT 25% of a trained force that was killed by their own guns. It is 25% of those who were killed by felonious gunfire were killed with their own guns. That's 12 officers out of how many millions of violent encounters annually in the country? The police are doing an excellent job of keeping control of their guns.

Suicides. So if you take a guy's gun away they won't kill themselves using another means. Did you know that women rarely use a gun on themselves but prefer quieter methods of suicide? Yet many women kill themselves every year. Removing guns would do nothing about that.

Accidents. That comes from being an idiot with a gun.

[billbuckhead]

130. 1/4 of the murders of policemen were with their own guns FACT

If you tell people that criminals will never get their guns, you are misleading them but then that's what RBKAers do. If your failed gun policy worked the USA wouldn't have the highest murder rate of advanced nations by multiples. The blood of thousands of innocent victims are on the crime appeasing hands of the gun lobby and their camp followers.

[Silverhair]

132. Already refuted.

12 incidents for one year for the entire nation. Out of how many millions of violent encounters? And how many perps are killed annually by the police? Of course you don't count those.

If it were actually true that guns were more dangerous to the user than the person they were to used against, then wouldn't we see a lot more people taking the gun away from the criminal.

By your twisted logic, the criminal should be trying to make a victim take the gun if it placed the gun user at a disadvantage.

[billbuckhead]

135. You didn't refute it, You trivialized the murders of 12 cops

But then that's a big part of the RBKA "culture of life". Trivilize deaths by guns. No ones life is as important as a cool assault rifle.

What about all the terror your gun culture causes in this troubled land. The kids scared to go to school? The wives abused by their abusive gun owning husbands? The general fear of being shot Americans have that Europeans and Canadians don't. Then there is 100billion dolars in costs according to the Brookings Insitutte that the RBKA crowd leaves on the tab of the taxpayers.

[Silverhair]

139. NOT trivialized. I placed it in context, which you did NOT do.

You are attempting to use those 12 murders of cops with their own guns to prove that guns are more dangerous to the possessor than to the other. I pointed out that held true only 12 times out of the millions of violent encounters annually for the country.

You act like that 12 was the only stat that said anything. ALL stats always have to be taken in context of other stats.

How about digging up the stat on how many bad guys are killed annually by the police?

[billbuckhead]

144. You trivialized the threat guns have on their owners

If these death machines weren't dangerous, y'all wouldn't need all this endless training and the gun industry wouldn't have to be exempt from being sued.

Even NRA hotshot Bob Barr accidentally fired off a gun at a fundraiser. Guns are dangerous and it's a lie to state otherwise.

Here's a reality check for RBAers who understate the dangers of guns to their owners.

Pro-Gun Experts Prove Handguns Are Ineffective Self-Defense Tools, New VPC Study Reveals

WASHINGTON, DC—In response to the reported spike in handgun sales since the September 11th attacks, the Violence Policy Center (VPC) today released Unintended Consequences: Pro-Handgun Experts Prove That Handguns Are a Dangerous Choice For Self-Defense. The 90-page study demonstrates through the writings of pro-gun experts the ineffectiveness and dangers of handguns as alleged self-defense tools.

"While the gun industry has greedily hawked its wares in the aftermath of the September 11th tragedy, they have worked even harder to keep hidden from the American public a secret they readily share among themselves—handguns pose grave dangers to their owners and families," states Tom Diaz, author of Unintended Consequences and VPC Senior Policy Analyst. "This study is comprised substantially of writings from pro-gun experts who readily admit handguns are basically impossible to use effectively in self-defense."

For example, Massad Ayoob, a legendary firearms instructor and respected pro-gun author has cautioned, "The uninitiated tend to make two kinds of mistakes with firearms: they either use guns when they shouldn't, or do not use them properly in the rare circumstances when they should." Ayoob has pointed out that, "The average American has more misconceptions about lethal force in the home than in any other self-defense situation. He not only has little understanding of his legal position under these circumstances; he has no idea of how to conduct himself if, by infinitesimal chance, the day comes when his home actually is turned into a battleground he must defend against armed criminals."

In fact, in 1998, for every time that a civilian used a handgun to kill in self-defense, 51 people lost their lives in handgun homicides alone. Yet, there have been an increasing number of news reports that women are a prime target for the gun industry as first-time handgun buyers. Left out of those reports is the fact that in 1999 for every one time a woman used a handgun to kill in self-defense, 120 women were murdered with handguns.

Handguns in the real world—as opposed to the industry's fantasy world of virtuous defensive gun use—make people who own them much less safe. The study reveals that according to leading pro-gun experts the overwhelming majority of people who own handguns:

* are ignorant of—or ignore—basic handgun safety rules;

* do not have the necessary handgun combat marksmanship skills to effectively defend themselves without harming innocent others; and,

* are not prepared for the extreme physiological and psychological effects that the experts, many of whom have on-the-street law enforcement experience with firearms, agree inevitably occur in an armed life-or-death confrontation (the only situation in which lethal force is justified in self-defense).


The Violence Policy Center is a national non-profit educational foundation that conducts research on violence in America and works to develop violence-reduction policies and proposals. The Center examines the role of firearms in America, conducts research on firearms violence, and explores new ways to decrease firearm-related death and injury.

<http://www.vpc.org/press/0111unin.htm>

[Silverhair]

147. Will get back to you later tonight on this post. No have time now. NT

[billbuckhead]

177. Chippewa Falls firearms instructor shoots himself in the leg

Posted on Tue, Jul. 26, 2005
Chippewa Falls firearms instructor shoots himself in the leg

Associated Press

CHIPPEWA FALLS, Wis. - A firearms instructor and gun collector shot himself in the leg after he thought his new pistol was in the locked position.

Martin Brill, 55, of Chippewa Falls, was treated at St. Joseph's Hospital Sunday for an accidental self-inflicted gunshot wound to his thigh he suffered while practicing his "quick draw" technique.
------------snip----------------
<http://www.duluthsuperior.com/mld/duluthsuperior/news/politics/12228268.htm>

Yep, guns are so dangerous that even firearms instructors and crufflers shoot themselves.

[Solo_in_MD]

44. That does not match what I have seen

The Pink Pistols members I met at the range were quite legitimate. They certainly were not astroturf or a NEOCON marketing ploy. Their lack of total adherence to traditional credos clearly upsets some people though.

[billbuckhead]

49. Here's a link showing PP being used by the rightwing

<http://www.classicalvalues.com/archives/001856.html>
------------------------------------------------------------------------
"The point is not whether this unconstitutional ordinance will pass. I think it will. The point is, it is a major propaganda opportunity for gun owners and Second Amendment supporters to show brazen, politically incorrect defiance in the belly of the beast. But most important of all, it presents an opportunity to smash the stereotype of gun owners as ignorant, stupid, trailer park wife-beaters."
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Gee,I wonder how they got that stereotype? i guess they thinkscaring a bunch of gays into buying guns will change their repugnant image.

[Solo_in_MD]

52. A seven month old post in a blog?

I don't find blogs all that credible be it DailyKos or Powerline.

Again, my experience is that the Pink Pistols and other progressives are no less progressive due to their gun onwership. To the contrary, their stepping away from the standard dogma in this area has caused them to rethink how and why they are progressive and reinforces it.

[billbuckhead]

53. Who are the PinkPistols officials and what are their policies?

Their website looks like an ad campaign guaranteeing that gays won't get bashed if they have guns. Reeks of propaganda.

[iverglas]

54. they're official, self-proclaimed loonytarians

The only candidates they endorse in US elections, many of whom are among their membership/leadership, are of the right-wing Loonytarian Party variety.

It's really perfectly obvious what the organization is for and about, for anybody who cares to look. Why we must have this noise inflicted on us down here, month after month, thread after boring and disingenuous thread, I have yet to figure out.

If those Log Cabin Republicans start up a gun club, can we expect to be subjected to thread after thread about it too?

[billbuckhead]

65. It's queer eye for the gun guys.The RBKAers are trying to upgrade

their poor image. Maybe this explains it.

"Everyone has a different style though. This being a media war and a propaganda war, intelligence and style are everything.

Homosexuals, whether you like them or not, are hopelessly wedded to the middle class. Through a poorly understood, tough-to-explain form of symbiotic shaman ism, they are both followers and leaders of the middle class. They decorate the houses, wait the tables in expensive restaurants, teach the kids, sell the makeup and perfume at Macys, style the hair, write the scripts for the shows on TV, tell people what to wear, help women lose weight, and assist generally with countless other middle-class-bolstering pastimes. I really don't like the stereotype because I don't fit it, but it really doesn't matter whether I or anyone likes it, because the close connection between homosexuals and middle class America is there, and ineradicable.

What is not ineradicable is the illogical tendency of homosexuals (and many other trendy types) to dislike guns, and consider them un-cool, un-hip, un-stylish. Every homosexual like Jeff Soyer is a dagger in the heart of the plan to disarm middle America. Because of this, those who want to arm middle America would do well to remember that the Second Amendment is no one's exclusive turf, nor should it be a battleground for culture wars which, if they must be fought at all, are best fought in some other arena.

One last observation: I am in no way suggesting that homosexuals are better qualified or more capable of leading the opposition to gun control. Such a thing would be as absurd as suggesting that they lead the country away from draconian anti-pit bull legislation. I am saying that they are a useful, very disarming weapon to confuse, frustrate (and, well, even emasculate) the politically correct -- and they counter a ridiculous, deliberately misleading stereotype which has not been countered, and which often turns off the middle class."

----snip----------------------------------
<http://www.classicalvalues.com/archives/001856.html >

[billbuckhead]

67. Are you a Pink Pistol?

I never actually had a discussion with any Pink Pistols. it always seems to friend or a friend of friend.

[Solo_in_MD]

103. I ran into them a couple of years ago

My practice night coincided with theirs. Originally thought they were a women's pistol team. They had about a half dozen people show for practice night as I recall. They told me I was welcome to join, but since I knew I was leaving in a few months I declined.

They are a small and controversial group, but my experience is that the ones I met and practiced with were both sincere progressives and sincere RKBA people.

[Solo_in_MD]

151. Why did you leave out several heavily armed European nations?

You ignore the very high levels of gun ownership in Switzerland and Israel. Furthermore England is now banning/registering knives and swords to stop violence. Lets not forget happy slapping there too.

The Pink Pistols I knew were no ones astro turff. They just don't agree with your dogma in this one area. The progressive movement is either a broad umbrella or its not.

Intolerance of differences is not a progressive value. That to me is more of a litmus test of being a progressive than gun control.

[billbuckhead]

153. Switzerland has a well regualted militia program

Last i looked Isreal isn't in Europe. "Gun rights" is just a contrived front for reactionary white guys to play victim. Real Progressives aren't gun nuts. WWJD? No, gun guys look to Mao for guidance.

[Solo_in_MD]

170. When I lived in

Switzerland it was pretty much wide open. No Federal laws, rules varied by Canton, some of which did not require registration. Changed in the late 90s. IIRC retired soldiers keep their personal weapons. Just about everyone had firearms at home.

What I have found interesting is despite having a much larger percentage of guns in homes than the US, there is a much lower frequency of gun crime and accidents in Switzerland.

I'm not a follower of Mao or Jesus, nor am I a reactionary white male looking for victim status. I'm progressive and a gun owner. The latter does not run my life, but it has given me pause when it comes to supporting certain candidates, and I am not alone in that.

To me tolerance of differences is a key progressive value and I tolerate a divergence of views on firearms. Others clearly do not, so I wonder just how progressive they really are.

[LoZoccolo]

32. There are dozens of variables involved in freedom and repression.

Also, Canada is very pro-gun, but it didn't make the list of examples in your hand-picked poor correlation.

[dsc]

34. Canada all but bans handguns

they do permit wide ownership of rifles though.

[LoZoccolo]

33. Besides, you changed the subject.

As was pointed out. I still don't get how you can say that people are bashing gays to get gays to arm themselves against gay-bashers. It seems a little circular to me.

[billbuckhead]

50. For the same reason government have false flag operations

To terrorize the public into agreeing with them. Many people would rather leave America than carry a gun around. I have friend from Venezuala who left because he had to carry the burden of a gun around with him. Fix the real problems, don't shoot at them.

Can you guarantee that arming everyone will stop crime? Of course not, much of the worst gay bashing is in areas that have weak gun regs and that doesn't stop it from happening.

[LoZoccolo]

60. Can you guarantee that disarming everyone will stop crime?

Let's not hesitate to apply our standard fairly, if you don't mind.

[billbuckhead]

62. Japan, Ireland etc has almost no guns and almost no gun crime

That's a better proof than this dubious absolute claim that "Armed gays don't get bashed"

[LoZoccolo]

68. You said crime, not gun crime.

Remember it was in reference to gay bashing, which many times is not a gun crime.

[billbuckhead]

69. It is well known that the places pushing for gay marriage

have tough gun laws, Spain, Canada, Netherlands, Massahussetts, New York and San Fran.

[LoZoccolo]

70. Strike one. Can you guarantee that disarming everyone will stop crime?

Document or retract.

[billbuckhead]

75. Home run! All the places where there is gay marriage are gun unfriendly

Retract that fact! Do you deny that red states are gun friendly and gay unfriendly?

Netherlands
Spain
Canada
Massachussetts
New York
San Francisco

[LoZoccolo]

79. Fuck it, you lose.

Everyone else can see that you held gun ownership to a standard that you would not hold gun control to, that of a guarantee. I don't need to argue with you; everyone else sees that your argument is bunk, and a parody of gun control activism, intentional or not.

[billbuckhead]

85. Pink Pistols make a promise they can't keep. They advertise an absolute

They brag that "Armed Gays don't get Bashed". They can't keep that promise and they know it. That's why LoZoccolo is desperately trying to reframe the argument, even playing himself into baseball umpire. Those for sensible weapons regulation have never promised they could stop murder, only that they could eventually bring the numbers down to worldclass standards. No amount of statistics or blood in streets and homes of America is enough to satisfy the koolaid drinkers of the RBKA extremists. It's well known around the world America has the highest murder rate and incarceration rate supercharged with the help of guns. No matter how far organizations such as the NRA and GOA dive into the very lowest gutters of American politics to win elections for the worst regime in America history, those who think they are entitled to by any weapon they want any time they want with no oversite, will let these gun waving demons such as Tom DeLay off the hook as just a little white Christian pride acting up.
<>

After all Chairman Charlton said:
"Heaven help the God-fearing, law-abiding, Caucasian, middle
class, Protestant, or-even worse- admitted heterosexual, gun-owning or-even
worse-NRA-card-carrying, average working stiff, or-even worse-male working
stiff, because not only don't you count, you're a downright obstacle to
social progress."
<http://www.americancivilrightsreview.com/docs-folder-gu.>

[Blade42]

89. Really Bill ?

Where has a Pink Pistol or any armed LGBT been killed or injured from a antigay attack? None that I know of.....but unarmed gays get stomped everytime.

[billbuckhead]

102. So all gays can't defend themselvesOnce again you say something impossible

"But unarmed gays get stomped everytime." Sure sounds like your selling a product. BTW, a product so dangerous that you can't even sue the manufacturer.

Once again a claim is made that is impossible and but now offensive as well. "Unarmed gays get stomped everytime." "We all know that gays can't defend themselves." Those weak gays need to buy a solution from the gun merchant.

Reality is that Gay people do just as good as straight people at defending themselves.

[Blade42]

108. unarmed anybody's

Are going to lose against armed attackers....like the two lesbians that got whacked in Kansas City. They are lucking to still be alive,what help do you offer them Bill? If it where me the attacker would have been easy to find.....she would be the dead body with the baseball bat in her hand and a stupid look on her face.

[billbuckhead]

128. So all the bashing is done by armed attackers?

Where YOU there to help them with your big bad gun? Were there to save the 2 year old who was recently murdered by someone who shouldn't have had a gun. Superman can't be everywhere and even people with guns lose fights.

Did you ever think that macho American gun culture causes much of this bashing? It's like Tom DeLay swinging that bat.

[Blade42]

165. Bill

If they had been armed they wouldn't have needed me to come to their rescue. That's the whole point of SELF DEFENSE...because the cops are most likely not going to be there to help.Hate crimes laws ain't going to protect anybody either,just make sure said scumbag goes to jail.That doesn't do a whole lot for the poor victim now does it? Myself I would much rather have mister gay basher going to the hospital then me thank you very much!!

[Silverhair]

112. You need to read up some on the crime of gay bashing.

Usually it is a group of young men hunting for a lesser number of gays. A gay, even a strong one, even a gay with martial arts training, is in a bad situation if he is being faced by several guys with clubs and tire irons.

For that matter, many straight citizens can't defend themselves without tools.

Due to my age, I would be helpless in a fight against a young hoodlum. But I am still an expert shot and can draw a pistol rather quickly. I practice and hope that I will never need to.

[billbuckhead]

133. "A gay, even a strong one, even a gay with martial arts"

Gee, since when did gays becomes so different than other humans.

[Silverhair]

134. They aren't. That's my point.

However, they are targeted far more by certain sections of our culture. So they are at a higher risk of being attacked. In ordinary language: Gay bashing is something that happens. Hate-crime laws do not seem to be having any effect. For various reasons, some groups are targeted more than other groups.

As a senior citizen, I am in a targeted group. Street criminals like to attack us because they know that we are rarely able to put up much of a fight. My gun changes that.

Of course, first I try to avoid dangerous situations. I don't want to have to pay the legal bills that would come from having to use the gun. But I would rather pay them than be killed or seriously injured by a mugger.

[billbuckhead]

138. Any proof that hate crime laws have no effect but guns work?

[Silverhair]

142. Have hate crimes gone down?

It is already against the law to beat up another human. A person who is going to gay-bash is not detered by that law. Making a new law won't stop them since they are already breaking the law to begin with.

Bashers generally look for an easy target, and armed person is NOT an easy target.

This has been backed up by numerous studies. However, any study that has a conclusion that you disagree with you refuse to accept. Instead of debating the merits of the study, you call them names. You have even call the Pink Pistols a front for the NRA.

[billbuckhead]

152. With CC how do you know smeone is armed?

The hate crime law puts hate crimes perps away for longer period of time so they have less chance of doing hate crimes. IHow can you prove that it wouldn't be wrose withour hate crimes laws. You are alawys "proving" things that can't be proven and ignore real facts.

John Lott is widely proven discredited and I gave proof that he was. John Lott/MaryRosh deserves to be called names and far worse.

[Silverhair]

136. BTW - You twisted my quote. Here is the full quote.

A gay, even a strong one, even a gay with martial arts training, is in a bad situation if he is being faced by several guys with clubs and tire irons.

[LoZoccolo]

61. "Much of the worst gay bashing is in areas that have weak gun regs"

Prove it. With stats and not anecdotes.

[billbuckhead]

63. Out magazine says Alabama is worst place to be gay

"Anyone speculating about which state is the most homophobic in the nation probably needs to look no further than Alabama. Out magazine poses and answers the question -- "Is Alabama really the worst place to be a gay person in Bush's America?"

My wife Kate, a native Alabaman, escaped from the nightmare, and even she couldn't believe the depth of the hatred and homophobia exposed by this article, including the heinous statistic that 44% of gay Alabamans are physically beaten and assaulted -- by their own family members. It's truly upsetting, and depressing. You wish the queer community would just get the hell out of there, but as with all stories like this, there are those that still want to stay and fight for their rights. I would consider this an almost insurmountable mountain of intolerance that runs both deep and high -- and all the way to the state house. Judge Roy Moore, famous for wanting to keep a gigantic slab of the Ten Commandments in the courthouse, is planning to run for governor. He says some frightening things about gays in this story that make you wonder what could happen if he is elected -- and he just may be."

<http://www.pamspaulding.com/weblog/2004/12/out-mag-is-alabama-really-worst-place.html>

[Silverhair]

72. All the MORE reason for an AL gay to be armed. NT

[billbuckhead]

76. Being armed sure helped MOVE, Koresh. randy weaver, symbionese army, etc

i'm sure the authorities and thugs in Alabama will just use gay people having guns as an excuse to give them no quarter. Like almost everything else that guns become a factor in , they will raise the violence level from bashing to murder.

[Silverhair]

81. Those organizations were up against the gov't, not against individuals.

You are making apples and oranges comparisons. A handgun on a person won't help any at all against the gov't, but it will do a LOT to deter an individual or small group of men from bashing a gay.

[billbuckhead]

91. You gun guys sell guns as if the average person could stop stormtroopers

The Pink Pistols brags that"Armed gays don't get bashed" and they can't guarantee that. Then their website links to the NRA, the most openly fascist reactionary organization that brags about putting in a regime that gay bashed to get elected. That's circular logic for you.

[Silverhair]

92. Since when is a typical gay basher trained at "storm trooper" level?

Most of them are such cowards that they have to attack in packs, or if the attack is singular they pick on an obviously weak person to attack.

No, we don't sell the idea of trying to fight "storm troopers" with pistols. We do sell the idea that guns are extremely effective against the common hoodlum.

[Solo_in_MD]

110. Odd, I don't think I have an FFL

There are a number of verified accounts of a single sniper holding up and even destroying the military effectiveness of entire units. However, I am not suggesting it is acceptable for a civilian to open fire on civil authorities.

Guns are not a cure all for bashing, but its a lot harder to bash, rape, assault, home invade...someone who is prepared. If something bad happens, someone who is armed and trained is going to stand a much better chance of coming out alive and in one piece.

I am not and never will be a member of the NRA. However clearly the NRA is not the worst "openly fascist reactionary organization" out there. I can think of many much more vile and any number of them claim credit for getting shrub elected. The NRA is a single issue group and stick to their guns on it (sorry for the pun). They have rated some Democrats highly in local races, something I did not believe until it was shown to me by an NRA member.

I too was disappointed in the Pink Pistols supporting Libertarians. Then again, none of the national Democratic candidates have come down on the side of gun ownership, as you pointed out. That they had to choose between what they consider to be an essential freedom and throwing their votes away is disheartening.

I believe that the current anti-gun posture of the democratic party has cost it a number of close elections. While others decry the republicanization of the the Democrats, guns rights is one issue I wish the party would reconsider.

I stand by my earlier statement the private gun ownership is a progressive value and should be encouraged.

[iverglas]

121. "throwing their votes away"?

Hmm ... did you mean "engaging in a concerted effort to siphon votes that would ordinarily be expected to go to Democrats off into a black hole of nothingness, leaving Republican votes intact and thus enhancing the chances of Republicans being elected"?

I kinda think you did, but I'm open to enlightenment.

The NRA is a single issue group and stick to their guns on it (sorry for the pun). They have rated some Democrats highly in local races, something I did not believe until it was shown to me by an NRA member.

Yeah, and I guess you're just that little bit too much of a noobie to have seen the analysis I did of one such election a couple of weeks ago, eh?

North Carolina it was. The NRA supported Democrats, like the incumbent governor. Meanwhile, the trade unions were campaigning against him and a number of other incumbent Democrats whom the NRA was actively endorsing and supporting, because said Democrats were pretty hard to distinguish from right-wing Republicans when it came to things like health care and other social policy-type stuff.

You guys do have such interesting politics down there. But I really fail to see how anybody who actually lives there can miss the great big obvious things that even I can see. Really ... not all Democrats are "liberal", or even mildly progressive, or very democratic. And the damn funny thing is how it's the ones who aren't at all who get those A ratings from the NRA, isn't it just?

[Solo_in_MD]

150. My words were clear enough.

Hmm ... did you mean "engaging in a concerted effort to siphon votes that would ordinarily be expected to go to Democrats off into a black hole of nothingness, leaving Republican votes intact and thus enhancing the chances of Republicans being elected"?

I kinda think you did, but I'm open to enlightenment

Anyone who voted Libertarian at national level threw their vote away. If a local contest was already a done deal, that would be a different matter. Demonstrating increasing support for progressive alternatives may move the existing parties to reform.

Single issue groups have a real problem within the current two party structure. Their overall sympathies lie with one party but that party is ignoring or opposing their key issue. This is not unique to the Pink Pistols. Greens and others have the same problem.

[iverglas]

154. the words may have been clear ...

... but the thinking behind 'em looks damned muzzy.

Anyone who voted Libertarian at national level threw their vote away.

Anyone who voted Loonytarian at the national level did not vote Democrat.

Now, there are always going to be handful of hard-core Loonies who will do that no matter what.

And they know perfectly well that they're not going to acquire any power via the electoral process. So the point of their proselytizing is what I'm curious about.

I've actually looked at their idiot platforms from your last elections. And I've seen how they just didn't really want to talk about little facts like how they don't think the public should fund the public schools. I shudder to think what fits of hysteria the notion of public health care must give 'em.

There are libertarians, and there are Libertarians. Clever people can tell the difference. You don't even really have to be all that clever, actually.

It's like how there are liberals and there are (up here at least) Liberals. "liberals" are apparently those nice folks who think that gay men and lesbians should be able to marry whomever they like, and the schools shouldn't hold prayer sessions, and like that. "Liberals", I can assure you, are opportunist corporatist-capitalist piggies, who just have a high level of tolerance for things like same-sex marriage if it keeps 'em in power.

"libertarians" are people who think that individuals should have the greatest possible amount of autonomy in matters personal to them. "Libertarians" are hard-core right-wing neo-liberal scumbags who don't give a shit about other people's well-being as long as they're not being required to contribute to it.

So ... why exactly would these Libertarians be going after the traditional left-liberal voters in the US? Their natural constituency is very obviously on the right wing of the economic spectrum. And given how people pretty obviously vote for their own economic interests, despite how they dress what they do up in "values" talk, why not go after them? The Libertarian Party has precisely nothing to offer the traditional Democratic base: the trod-upon and passed-over in varyious ways and to varying degrees.

Single issue groups have a real problem within the current two party structure. Their overall sympathies lie with one party but that party is ignoring or opposing their key issue.

You imply that the overall sympathies of the movers and shakers in the Pink Pistols lie with the Democratic Party, and I reply bullshit.

There really are Log Cabin Republicans, right? And Clarence Thomases, and Condoleeza Rices, and all sorts of people from the trod-upon and passed-over populations who find ways to do the treading and passing (hee hee) instead. The fact that a person, or a gaggle of people, is or are gay or lesbian (or people of colour, or women ...) tells me nothing at all about their aims. People can make the most amazing accommodations if it gets them what they want.

There is not the smallest similarity between Democratic Party and Libertarian Party policy, except within the narrow segment of the political spectrum that relates to contentious exercises of personal liberties where there is no economic fallout from the position: same-sex marriage, abortion, religious carryings-on in public. Even in those areas, the Democratic Party, despite its growing and unforgivable lack of commitment, would do a thousand times more for women in terms of their ability to actually exercise reproductive rights, for instance, than the Libertarian Party would even consider. Imagine Libertarians agreeing that reproductive health services should be provided at public expense. And look what a mess women are in when they aren't. And look how much Libertarians care.

Your Green Party example is à propos, actually. Where I am, and increasingly internationally, I gather, the Green Party is actually a right-wing formation. In Canada, its leaders make pronouncements about stay-the-course economic policy, and its leaders are in fact former Conservative Party movers and shakers. I don't see single-issue politics as the problem; I see opportunism among some and foolishness among others as the problem. And I actually know that the Green Party, at least in individual constituencies, has run candidates for no other reason but to siphon off enough social democrat votes to maybe enable a Conservative to win in one of our famous three-way splits.

And I see the Pink Pistols and their fellow travellers as the opportunists, hoping to scoop up enough foolish people to undermine the Democratic Party. In just one small way, certainly. But heck, when you've created as many single-issue voting blocs as the Republicans in the US have -- or at least given so many people the opportunity to frame their vile politics as being organized around a single pure issue -- you don't have to put all your eggs in one basket, after all.

[Solo_in_MD]

169. Single issue groups seem to offend you

And they know perfectly well that they're not going to acquire any power via the electoral process. So the point of their proselytizing is what I'm curious about.

IIRC there are thresholds that parities must meet to be given standing for matching funds, state supported primaries etc. Not sure what they are at the Federal level. By voting for a third party in local elections where the outcome is already determined can give credence to the third party, and at times leverage. This is not restricted to the Libertarians, there are also the Greens, progressive parties and reactionary ones. People here at DU who are disgusted with the DLC approach to politics have discussed breaking away as well. I am of mixed opinions on this. Something clearly needs to be done to shake up the current two party/barely tell them apart at times system, but if we are not careful, it could end up being a wholesale giveaway to the repukes.

Single issue groups have a real problem within the current two party structure. Their overall sympathies lie with one party but that party is ignoring or opposing their key issue.

You imply that the overall sympathies of the movers and shakers in the Pink Pistols lie with the Democratic Party, and I reply bullshit.

Best I can tell the only moving and shaking in the Pink Pistols is the slides on the handguns. They are scarcely a hierarchal group. The ones I knew and discussed politics with were hard core progressives who also were die hard RKBA types. Many were conflicted by that dichotomy when it came to voting.

Your cynicism about single issue groups in general does not match up with my experience at an individual level. You may well be right at a macro level.

[iverglas]

172. you seem to have an aversion to facts

It's a notorious fact that the founders/leadership of the Pink Pistols are overtly Libertarians, in some cases candidates under that party banner.

The ones I knew and discussed politics with were hard core progressives who also were die hard RKBA types. Many were conflicted by that dichotomy when it came to voting.

Gee, maybe someone here would like to engage in some of that psychoanalysis that they like to play at so much.

Cognitive dissonance, anyone?

Then again, it all does depend on how one is defining "progressive". I define it the way we did back when it meant something, and what it meant was political and economic, not touchy-feely. And it doesn't mean cutting taxes or any of that jazz.

Your cynicism about single issue groups in general does not match up with my experience at an individual level.

And your allegation that I am cynical about single issue groups in general is based on no evidence whatsoever, and is entirely false.

[Solo_in_MD]

175. I enjoy facts, do you have any to share?

Then again, it all does depend on how one is defining "progressive". I define it the way we did back when it meant something, and what it meant was political and economic, not touchy-feely. And it doesn't mean cutting taxes or any of that jazz.

Is that small "p" or big "P" progressive?

Your cynicism about single issue groups in general does not match up with my experience at an individual level.

And your allegation that I am cynical about single issue groups in general is based on no evidence whatsoever, and is entirely false.

Your prior post seemed fairly cynical to me.
--
Private firearm ownership is a progressive value

[iverglas]

179. do I want to do your research?

Nah. Or perhaps: do I actually think that you are unaware of the facts in question? Hmm.

Your prior post seemed fairly cynical to me.

Yeah. I just don't always take stuff at face value. I'm a great big cynic, that's me.

Better to be called a cynic than to be a fool, sez I. There are some things that can only be swallowed with a grain of salt so big that anyone but the non-culpably naive would choke.

Private firearm ownership is a progressive value

"Ownership" is a "value"? Hmm; which one doesn't belong in this list:

truth
beauty
justice
private firearms ownership

Values are not generally acts. Acts are not generally values.

Perhaps you meant: "non-interference in individuals' discretion regarding firearms ownership is a progressive value".

And all I could say is to that is: little fringe groups in the US of America don't get to define the words that all the rest of us use.

[iverglas]

120. oh yes indeed

Toting a pistol in yr pants is the best way to deal with FAMILY VIOLENCE, yes indeedy.

You did notice that that was what much of the violence in question consisted of, right?

And you seriously think there is some merit in the idea of encouraging young people to arm themselves against their parents -- or adults to arm themselves against their partners?

What has happened to all that "rooooot causes" stuff we're always hearing in so many other contexts?

It's wrong and bad to try to address the HARM done by people who use firearms to do it by reducing their access to firearms, because we should all be out there engaging in urban renewal projects or some damn thing to address those roooooot causes of the violence.

But when it comes to parental or intimate-partner assault, we should just give 'em guns and let 'em look out for themselves? Never mind offering safe havens; never mind making anti-homophobia education mandatory in the schools, never mind enforcing existing laws and encouraging victims to report offences or at least seek assistance in dealing with their situations. Nah. Give 'em guns. Like they don't have access to them already, pphft.

Those rooooot causes are only the business of the liberals trying to devise measures to protect people from victimization. They should do nothing until utopia on earth as been achieved, for then there will be no bad people, and lions will lie down with, uh, sheep, and an armed society will be a polite society, and there'll be no need for all that gun control horseshit.

And while we're waiting for that to happen, we should all just go around firing "warning shots" off into the air, I guess.

Wake me when we get there, will ya?

[Blade42]

116. Because Bill

Most of LGBT doesn't carry guns and the gaybashers know it.Gay bashers don't just pick on us because they don't like queers. You think that the scumbag that attacked the two lesbians would have if one or both had drawn down on her? or even got out of the truck if she even thought they where armed?

[Blade42]

86. Gee Bill

What does gay marriage have to do with self defense? also I live in Ohio not Canada, Spain, Netherlands so what I'm just SOL? Sorry we all can't move to Canada or somewhere else more gay friendly. So what are those in red states suppose to do till 2008? Just hide out and hope for the best, well sorry I'm going to defend myself. If some gay hating freak tries to crush my skull with a tire tool I'm going to shoot him/or her dead.

[billbuckhead]

93. How will you feel if your gun ownership has unforseen consequences?

There's always a good chance that gun ownership will turn out bad.

Here's one unforseen consequence that happened today.

Girl, 2, dies after shooting
Toddler was hit in a flare-up over a broken window
By MIKE GLENN
Copyright 2005 Houston Chronicle

A small girl died today from a gunshot wound inflicted by a man who had confronted a group of teenagers after one sent a football crashing through the window of his southwest Houston apartment, officials said.

http://www.chron.com/cs/CDA/ssistory.mpl/metropolitan/3280208

[Silverhair]

95. How do you feel about people who misuse other tools.

A gun is a tool, and can be misused.

There was an item on the local news yesterday about a guy that left his infant daughter in a locked car in the sun and forgot about her for several hours. She died. Should we get rid of cars because of that unintended consequence? What about all the accidents with knives, boats, cars, bicycles, baseball & other sports in which kids get killed? Should we ban all of those activities and items?

Every year some infants died by drowning in 5-gallon buckets. Should we ban them?

While it is indeed tragic when any child is injured, we accept all of those things because the good that comes from them outweighs the bad.

Guns are used abut 2.3 million times a year to PREVENT crimes. Of course those preventions are not placed on your scale when you weight the value of guns.

[billbuckhead]

106. Guns are different than other tools since they're designed to kill

That's why there are so many special rules about them all throughout history.

Why not regulate them like cars?

You can't prove that 2.3 million number.
<http://www.whoismaryrosh.com/motherjones.html>

[Silverhair]

109. I can easily show the number is realistic.

Let's run the numbers. For ease we will round them off.

There are about 100 million guns owners in the US.

Divide that by the claimed number of defensive uses and you get an average of one defensive use annually per every 43.4 gun owners.

Let us assume that they will have an average life span after age 21 (legal gun ownership)of 50 more years.

That means that a typical gun owner will need his gun for defense about once in his lifetime. Some, with higher risk lifestyles or living locations will need theirs more often.

So the 2.3 million usage is consistent with a once-in-a-lifetime event.

I have already used one once to prevent an attack on myself. My wife, long ago, before we were married, used one to prevent forcible rape. So we have had our once events. In both cases, no shots were fired. The assailants fled and were never captured.

[billbuckhead]

114. Total bullshit

Then what about all the times guns are used for evil and those times aren't reported? There has to be 2.5 million of those as well. The scared wife. Little kids afraid to go to school. The terrorized neighbors. The disappeared.

[MrSandman]

167. The disappeared...

:wtf:

[Loki Coyote]

194. Ok, let's regulate them like cars.

Why not regulate them like cars?

Ok, let's regulate them like cars.

Cars have no waiting period before taking possession in most states. You do not have to fill out a 4473 form during a dealer sale of a car to attest that you've never been convicted of a felony, DV misdemeanor, or adjudicated mentally incompetent.

If you are properly licensed to drive and the car tags are valid and current, you can drive in EVERY US State. Try carrying your handgun for personal protection in every state in the US. Not going to happen, though there's usually methods of getting seperate licenses from other than your home state that will cover you in nearly all of the shall-issue concealed carry states. Car owners would rise up in revolt if they needed to get driver licenses in different states to be able to drive there like those of us who carry for their personal protection have to get licensed in order to carry.

In order for me to be able to carry in 37 states, I'd have to spend over $1000 every 5 years. Yet my $35 5 year WA DL covers me in every state as I travel, and no law enforcement officer would challenge the validity of my driver license, whereas there's been reports of people being arrested even though they've carrying on a non-resident license to carry in a state where it's legal, due merely to the cops thinking it's fake due to the fact that the address on a Florida or whatever state concealed cary license is not in Florida, and so on, and so forth.

Licenses to carry firearms in public would be the same as driving in public: Denials of licenses can only be based on objective criteria. Comparison example: DUI revokation is based on you coming up positive on a blood screen and convicted of a DUI, and would result in you not being able to get a license to drive on the public streets. With a license to carry a firearm in public, you can only be denied if you're a felon, a DV misdemeanor, or adjudicated mentally defective, or you've not had the proper training, or you're too young (21 is the typical age to be able to get a license to carry a handgun, with perhaps 3 notable exceptions, whereas, any 16 year old with parental permission can get a driver license, 18 if the parent completely refuses consent).

So, are you SURE you want to regulate guns like cars? :D

-Loki Coyote
Member of the Pink Pistols of Tacoma, WA, proud liberal, and proud queer.

[Silverhair]

195. Welcome to DU, Loki coyote. NT

[Loki Coyote]

196. *nods*

You should read the reply I wrote in the other thread. :)

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=118x111445#111617

If anyone ever tells you that the Second Amendment was ruled not an individual right by US v. Miller, smack them with that thread.

[mitchtv]

8. Don't forget Gay Guns

established in SF in the 80's, but didn't catch on. Times change

[puddycat]

5. its in liberals best interests to support the 2nd amendment

some of us have been saying this for a long time, but get bashed regularly for saying it. One thing's for sure, I have no intention of being unarmed in this crumbling society.

[KarenInMA]

6. I support anyone who practices gun safety.

Liberals and Democrats need to get rid of this "anti-gun" label we've had thrown on us. I doubt anyone here would be upset to think of a potential victim protecting themselves.

[Solo_in_MD]

45. The Anti Gun label is costing us votes and probably elections

Seen stories time and again how the strident nature of the anti-gun portion of the Democratic party has cost it votes esp in blue collar and rural areas, where it should be strongest.

I've stayed the course in the general elections, but it has influenced my vote in the primaries.

[billbuckhead]

55. Good article in Raw story about white male victimization

Say what's unpopular, get to what's popular

By Michael Sherrin | RAW STORY CONTRIBUTOR

Liberal government happens. Imagine 69 Democratic Senators. Imagine, at the same time, a second term Democratic President. Imagine a time when that Democratic President feared Southern Democrats more than Republican sound bites.

This was the case a short 60 years ago. Franklin Delano Roosevelt and the Democratic Party commanded such popularity that there was no state where they weren’t competitive. When FDR concerned himself with the social issues of the times, the conservative Southern Democrats threatened his agenda more than any Republican.

The Democrats were in power and they can be in power again. Unfortunately, the current strategy of the Democratic Party seems ineffective at combating the ever-dominant social issues. Try to explain the Democratic Party’s stance on same-sex marriage in under 30 seconds with enough time to explain how you’re going to provide health insurance for all Americans. While the Republicans have simple, conservative answers on abortion and school prayer, Democrats flounder in the center with no one to represent the left. By swinging to the left, the Democrats can deliever short, simple positions on these controversial social issues, giving them time to turn the subject to what Democrats have always won on–economics.
----------------snip--------------------------
<http://www.rawstory.com/exclusives/sherrin_advice_072405.htm>

[Wickerman]

10. Nice Libertarian organization that hasn't updated it's site since 2003

[Blade42]

88. Pink Pistol board

Is in the process of being updated we are a nonpaying membership so stuff is a little slow on the upgrades.

[dsc]

12. gays are honestly starting to become more afraid

as are other people. I am not enamored of the idea of getting a gun but admittedly the people who hate us are getting very emboldened. I still won't get a gun as I doubt I could ever learn to shoot accurately enough for me to be sure I wouldn't hit innocents, but I can some others are.

[Silverhair]

14. Learning to shoot accurately is not that hard.

Also, most self defense shootings are at point blank range. And there are special bullets that don't over penetrate or ricochet.

However, the decision to get a gun is a deeply personal one with great responsibility and I would not try to force my choice on anyone.

[dsc]

15. Let's just say I am close to the least athletic person on planet earth

I know that shooting isn't total rocket science in that regard but I still would be pretty leary of it.

[Silverhair]

17. I respect your decision.

And reading in a different thread of your childhood experience I can understand.

[dsc]

19. Actually it was an incident in MS which sort of sealed it for me

I was sharing a room for a class with a friend but I usually lived alone. Since I had been broken into I started putting a knife under my bed which was the first thing I went for when he came back while I was sleeping. It wasn't there since I didn't take it with me. Had it been a gun I probably would have had it. I shudder to think what I would have done (I was a drinker back then so I was drunk as well). A gun is one of those things you have to be perfect with one mistake and you have fucked up someone but good.

[davsand]

16. Old house mate of mine was gay and ex-military.

His philosophy was (and I am quoting him here!) "I might be queer as a three dollar bill but I ain't gonna let you beat the fuck outta me without leaving a few bruises on you." Seems like a few other folks have picked up that sort of attitude.

I can see how putting the fear of getting shot into the equation might just slow down the gay bashings. Makes sense to me, but I am another "librul" that thinks gun ownership is not a bad thing at all.

Webster said "An armed society is a polite society." and I'm not sure but what maybe he had it right in more than a few ways.


Laura

[billbuckhead]

21. Here's how the right intends to use the "PinkPistols" against liberals

"Everyone has a different style though. This being a media war and a propaganda war, intelligence and style are everything.

Homosexuals, whether you like them or not, are hopelessly wedded to the middle class. Through a poorly understood, tough-to-explain form of symbiotic shaman ism, they are both followers and leaders of the middle class. They decorate the houses, wait the tables in expensive restaurants, teach the kids, sell the makeup and perfume at Macys, style the hair, write the scripts for the shows on TV, tell people what to wear, help women lose weight, and assist generally with countless other middle-class-bolstering pastimes. I really don't like the stereotype because I don't fit it, but it really doesn't matter whether I or anyone likes it, because the close connection between homosexuals and middle class America is there, and ineradicable.

What is not ineradicable is the illogical tendency of homosexuals (and many other trendy types) to dislike guns, and consider them un-cool, un-hip, un-stylish. Every homosexual like Jeff Soyer is a dagger in the heart of the plan to disarm middle America. Because of this, those who want to arm middle America would do well to remember that the Second Amendment is no one's exclusive turf, nor should it be a battleground for culture wars which, if they must be fought at all, are best fought in some other arena.

One last observation: I am in no way suggesting that homosexuals are better qualified or more capable of leading the opposition to gun control. Such a thing would be as absurd as suggesting that they lead the country away from draconian anti-pit bull legislation. I am saying that they are a useful, very disarming weapon to confuse, frustrate (and, well, even emasculate) the politically correct -- and they counter a ridiculous, deliberately misleading stereotype which has not been countered, and which often turns off the middle class."

----snip----------------------------------
<http://www.classicalvalues.com/archives/001856.html>

Once again the "gun rights movement" is shown to be a front for neocon schemes. rather than work on societies problems, the neocons cynically use problems to sell guns and gun culture. Guns are a cheap diversion for all societies problems. The neocons cynically laugh at society from behind their bulletproof glass and gated communities, while they trade the working poor guns for them to vote against their ecomomic and patriotic interests like they traded smallpox blankets with the native Americans. It's no accident that the most pro gun American regime in history is also the most progun.

[Maurkov]

157. Step Zero

Weld liberalism to gun control.

People who cannot rely on numbers or physical strength to thwart potential attackers may naturally look towards equalizers, like guns. Who is at risk? Gays, the elderly, women, and minorities, ie, the liberal base. If you can convince them that they can't be liberal and still defend themselves, you win.
---

How do we as liberals evade this nefarious plot? Recognize the false choice. Gun control has nothing to do with liberalism. Stop handing conservatives the weapons they need to defeat you.

[SlipperySlope]

56. Why was this moved out of "General Discussion"? - NT

[billbuckhead]

59. Possibly cause it's propaganda for astroturf?

What's next? Iraqis for RBKA?

[LoZoccolo]

73. Maybe because someone went and turned it into cliche gun dungeon material.

It was an interesting discussion up until it started looking like dozens of other threads in this same forum that you see over and over.

[billbuckhead]

77. Yeah it was as exciting as NRA advertisement by Jeff Gannon

:puffpiece:

[CarinKaryn]

74. Urban Myth

Are YOU a pinkpistol? Have you ever MET a pinkpistol? Ever been to on e of their meetings?

This "national" organization is 2 idiots who made a web page to advance a "guns for all" agenda. Probably not even gay! :crazy:

[Silverhair]

83. You need to do some fact checking before leaping to accusations.

Obviously you didn't check any facts. I did provide several links. Whether I personally am gay or straight is irrelevant to this discussion.

[billbuckhead]

104. Pink Pistols sounds like marketing ploy

The pink triangle is being used to market weapons and bring respectability to suburban gun owners. In a way it's hillarious. Then you think about all the tens of thousands of American families robbed of loved ones or crippled because the USA lacks worldclass gun regulation.

[iverglas]

119. and great links they were!

(html fixed)



I especially enjoyed the one to the NATIONAL FUCKING REVIEW, one of my favourite bathroom shelf stockers. (Actually, I'm so old that I remember when it *was* respectable to read it; but I'm also wise enough to know that that time is not now.)

Do you have any CLUE how many times we have been subjected to this anecdote?? --

... the case of Tom Palmer, a Washington-based think-tank scholar. Palmer and a male friend were in a rough section of San Jose, California when a gang of 20 hoodlums started taunting them.

"Hey, you f***ing faggots!" one yelled. "When we're done with you, they'll never find your bodies." Palmer and his pal ran for their lives, with the thugs in hot pursuit. Palmer pulled a semi-automatic handgun from his backpack. He stood and waved it beneath a street light. His tormentors swiftly retreated.

If that guy had a loony for every time some NON GAY RKBA-HEAD has posted that tale on an internet forum, he'd have no pockets left to hold anything in.

Who the hell, in this world, has NOT experienced a threat of violence? Can't someone come up with a new and different story once in a while?

And hey -- wanna buy a bridge? --

This deterrence policy already may have curbed anti-gay violence. According to Doug Krick, 31, the Boston-based dot.com engineer who founded Pink Pistols in July 2000: "While I can't say that we are completely responsible for it, I can say that there has not been a 'fag bashing' in any of the towns where we have chapters after our chapters were founded."

May I quote that little gem every time that someone tells me that measures to reduce access to firearms by people at risk of using them to cause harm DO NOT LOWER CRIME RATES? Pretty please? Or even just next time somebody tells me that my not stepping on cracks is *not* why my mother's back is still intact?

I'll just be sure to say that firearms control measures aren't COMPLETELY responsible for lower crime/homicide rates, and then I'll be, er, bullet-proof, right?

Oh look, there *is* a different tale told in that article:

Washington lobbyist Austin Fulk, 31, recalls a close brush with a hate-filled mob back in 1987. "I was 17 years old and living in Little Rock," he says by phone. "I was in a park where gay people too young to get into the bars would hang out and talk. Some people came by in a car and yelled at us, 'F**king faggots. Get AIDS and die.' I was standing beside the pick-up truck of a guy who had driven in from a rural part of Arkansas. He verbally responded to the people in the car. Four of them came piling out of their vehicle with baseball bats and tire irons. My friend reached under the seat of his truck, removed his pistol, aimed it at them and fired a warning shot over their heads. They basically decided that they would rather not attack people who would fight back. They jumped back into their car and fled."

I mean, it's FROM 1987, so I'm not persuaded that it's actually *new*, but what the heck.

Now, mind you, it did strike me that the way to reduce the risk of suffering harm in that particular situation would have been to SHUT THE FUCK UP, for crying out fucking loud. I'm really just not quite sure how antagonizing a bunch of yobs into making threatening advances on one, and then SHOOTING A FUCKING GUN INTO THE AIR IN A CITY, quite qualifies as the kind of behaviour that *I* want to be encouraging ... but then again, that's just me ...

I guess whoever might have had his/her head pierced by that "warning shot" when it came down would have got a message, tho I'm not quite sure it would have been the one these loons are supposedly attempting to convey.

Yobs with guns. It quite evidently makes no never mind whether they're gay, straight, or just sucking up to a traditionally Democratic constituency in the belief that its members will be stupid enough to give them a chance to siphon off some votes. Interestingly, I'm just not seeing that happening as yet.

[Wickerman]

125. So... firing a gun in the air is bad?

In a city?

[iverglas]

126. what ...

you think I stayed up all night again and got irritable?

[Wickerman]

127. shoot-fire no

its how we celebrate down South.

In San Antonio years back we had a child killed in a NYE celebration by some yokel a few blocks away firing a hand cannon into the air for the passing of midnite.

I believe Newton said it best, what goes up is gonna come down.

Why are you staying up all night? Rest is important.

[Blade42]

84. I'm a Pink Pistol

so now you have met one CarinKaryn :hi:

[Solo_in_MD]

113. I have met 8-10 of them

where I used to live. Predominately women. Like I said elsewhere in this thread I first thought they were a women's shooting team. None of them claimed national officerhood. A couple of them were very good, and I think were competing as well.

[JimGrey]

96. RE, pink pistols, self defense, et al

Self-defense is an obligation for anyone that is charged with the care of others. Anyone that is too incompetent to own a gun is also too incompetent to vote. The ballot in a democracy is far more powerful that a gun.

Safe firearms usage is simple and can be learned in a few minutes of training. Self-defense training with a firearm is likewise simple and effective.

I've personally used a firearm to stop the carjacking and abduction of my wife and infant daughter. A large group of people on this forum use and own guns and support the RTKBA. However, they are beat down and forced to a small corner of the forum. I guess you can call it riding in the back of the bus for not being “blue” enough. Many just give up and either don't vote or vote conservative. Don’t forget that JFK was an NRA member.

[iverglas]

129. wal howdy Ms. Pistols and Mr. Defence!

"Et al." is an abbreviation of the Latin "et aliae"/"et alii", and is properly used in English pretty much exclusively to refer to people, not to those damned inanimate objects some folks get so riled up about.

You were looking for plain old "etc.", I believe.


Self-defense is an obligation for anyone that is charged with the care of others.

Now, here's the bit I'm not getting (apart from why someone uses "et al." to refer to inanimate objects, and then uses "that" to refer to a person ...):

I've personally used a firearm to stop the carjacking and abduction of my wife and infant daughter.

Was your wife not "charged with the care of" your infant daughter?

Assuming that she was, what the heck was she doing, being a great big old victim/burden, instead of whipping out that pistol herself and doing the job?

Or is it just that you're the one charged with the care of your womenfolk?


However, they are beat down and forced to a small corner of the forum. I guess you can call it riding in the back of the bus for not being “blue” enough.

Awwww.

I guess you could. If you were a drama queen. Or one of those backlashy hard-done-by whining white males I hear about.

I'm sure you aren't, though.

[billbuckhead]

149. Here' what the NRA really thinks about gays

NRA Launches Hate Campaign Against Gays & Lesbians

Annual Gun Rights Convention Vents Homophobic Rage

Rosie O'Donnell called 'A Freak' for Her Honest Stance

By Stephanie Donald


Reno, Nevada-- The National Rifle Association, holding its annual convention in this dry desert city, took an opportunity Sunday to demonize the gay and lesbian community with inflammatory homophobic rhetoric.

Anti-gun talk show host Rosie O'Donnell was called a "freak" by one speaker for her recent admission that she's a lesbian. O'Donnell had a much publicized disagreement with pro-gun actor Tom Selleck in 1999 on her talk show. Selleck walked off the show during taping over O'Donnell's remarks.

Debbie Schlussel, a frequent guest on The Howard Stern Show and an avid supporter of the NRA referred to O'Donnell when she said, "She's not cool. She's a freak." Schlussel went on to bash actor Jude Law who recently admitted in an interview that he hesitated to handle a gun in the filming of his latest movie fearing it would contribute to people thinking guns were cool. Schlussel referred to the heterosexual Law as a "girly-man"
------------------snip-------------------------
<http://gaytoday.com/garchive/events/050102ev.htm>

[slackmaster]

159. Red Herring, another classic logical fallacy

The conversation was about the Pink Pistols.

[billbuckhead]

162. NRA ought to do a "pink pistols" comic book to go along with that website

If you gun guys are really ambitious, I bet you could make some campy movie classics. I know Jeff Gannon will be available. "Pink Pistols to the Rescue" it really is being sold as if buying a gun will make someone a superhero.

<http://www.pinkpistols.org/>

But in all life and death seriousness, I just hope you aren't selling my neighbors a lie. "Armed Gays don't get bashed" is unrealistic and untrue. Just because someone has a gun doesn't absolutely guarantee they won't be killed or "bashed". Many people have buyers remorse from having the burden of a gun or thru accident or incompetence are injured.

[Name removed]

176. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

178. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[iverglas]

180. re: RE wal howdy Ms. Pistols and Mr. Defence! by iverglas, by iverglas

Silly children’s games with semantics are the typical reaction of someone with no facts and an irrational opinion.

Failing to respond to the words in favour of offering malicious characterizations of the speaker are the typical reaction of someone who has no interest whatsoever in genuine discussion of an issue, and of someone who has no respect for civil discourse. Just as a general observation like, y'know.

Consider yourself ignored.

I guess now I'll never know what my punishment will be if I breach that obligation to protect someone with whose care I am charged. Or why you were talking about people too incompetent to own a firearm (and how they were too incompetent to vote). Or when you might be giving up and voting "conservative" ...

Oh well. I'll just have to soldier on.

[Name removed]

161. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[billbuckhead]

163. A quarter of police that were murdered, were murdered with their own guns

Do you think that in close quarters you will do as well as trained cop? Maybe, usually not. What if a child finds your gun, what if you somehow shoot an innocent person or some domestic fight goes nuclear? What if it is a target to be stolen?

Even NRA board member honcho congresscritter Bob Barr accidentally shot off a gun at a gun oriented fundraiser. Lucky he just killed a window.

[Lazpash]

181. Yeah, but I'm not a Police Officer

And I do NOT ever intend to subdue, nor "arrest", "pat-down" nor HANDCUFF an assailant. Just STOP the assailant. THAT is why police are MUCH more "vulnerable" to getting their gun taken away, they HAVE to get "up close and personal". I do NOT.

And WAY more police are killed (not sure about the accidental to "murder" differential, but hey, dead's dead.) by MOTOR VEHICLES than by GUNS. I mean there was an article not that long ago in Ohio stating 9 out of 13 officer deaths were caused by VEHICLES. I THINK 2 or 3 of the remaining 4 deaths was caused by a firearm.

The OTHER very interesting fact that the anti-gun crowd seems to duck is that Police shoot innocent bystanders 5% of the time, verses 2% for private gun owners, and remember - that WOULD include criminals who don't CARE if they hit "innocents".

Basically, though there ARE "exceptions" on BOTH sides, most gun owners I know go to the range to shoot WAY more often than their Law-enforcement counterparts. And I only know of ONE officer who I would RATHER have in a firefight than MOST of my friends (who own firearms and I KNOW that they are proficient with them... some "scary-proficient" ;).

[Name removed]

166. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Silverhair]

168. OK. Thanks. NT