2A Interview with popular magazine

CHL discussions that do not fit into more specific topics

Moderators: Charles L. Cotton, carlson1


Topic author
locke_n_load
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 3
Posts: 989
Joined: Tue Apr 09, 2013 3:35 pm

2A Interview with popular magazine

#1

Post by locke_n_load » Sat Sep 08, 2018 9:18 am

Update: Time Magazine was the name of the magazine.
if you want to see the online version:
http://time.com/guns-in-america/
after intro (or click skip), keep scrolling until the text disappears. You can hear my statement by clicking on my image, I'm on the far right, last guy on the 2nd row, Carlyle Locke. More info on my last post in this topic. They had both pro and anti gun folks here, but I liked how it turned out.

All, I have an interview today with one of the largest magazines company today (will name said magazine post interview). I will be speaking for the 2nd amendment, it is a 10 minute video interview followed by some pictures. I don't want to get roped into a corner, or say something the wrong way. Can anyone think of some arguments anti 2A people make, that are decent arguments, and how you feel about it? Or things you see 2A people say that make you cringe (maybe their argument could be said better?).
I know that schools need to be hardened, just like airports and the capitol, and I believe that all laws against gun ownership/carrying are infringements. I don't think an individual should be able to own a nuke, because it's not really an arm (but hopefully that question does not come up). We have the 2A to fight tyranny, the right to keep/bear is for individuals (the bill of rights was written to protect rights of citizens, not the govt).
I'm also an LTC instructor and have a good grasp on current Texas law.
What you got?
Last edited by locke_n_load on Thu Nov 08, 2018 12:03 am, edited 1 time in total.
"They that would give up Essential Liberty, for a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety"

EDC - Glock 26 Gen IV
CHL Holder since 10/08

User avatar

Jusme
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 1
Posts: 5063
Joined: Tue Jan 19, 2016 4:23 pm
Location: Johnson County, Texas

Re: 2A Interview with popular magazine

#2

Post by Jusme » Sat Sep 08, 2018 9:35 am

Since you didn't name the magazine, I don't know how they may come at you regarding the 2A. I do know that most media outlets, will try and "edit" what you say, and may do so, to fit a narrative.

My argument for securing schools, is to treat them at least well as we treat, our money in banks, our politicians, and celebrities, and jewelry, in jewelry stores, and that is with armed protection. We protect all of the other things with guns, but we try to protect our children, with signs.

Don't get roped into, defending your reasons for why you feel you "need" a gun. The 2A guarantees, that the government, cannot take away, an inalienable right, that of self protection, against, anyone, including a tyrannical government. These rights were granted by our Creator. We don't need guns to be men, we need guns to be free men.

If they ask you about banning any type of gun, ask them where the line to do so will stop. AR 15s, are not used, as the left want us to believe, in most shootings.

More gun restrictions, have not prevented, anyone from carrying out acts of evil. Most gun control measures, are steeped in racism, and elitism. The first gun control laws were passed, to prevent freed slaves from owning them. The gun control act, of 1968 was in response to Black Panther members, carrying shotguns in public. Adding restrictions creates, higher prices, which cut out lower income,single mothers, from being able to afford guns to protect herself and her children, just as raising the age to purchase to 21. No other Constitutional right is denied those under 21.


Be concise, watch for traps, and good luck. JMHO
Take away the Second first, and the First is gone in a second :rules: :patriot:


MaduroBU
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 3
Posts: 536
Joined: Sat Nov 12, 2016 9:11 am

Re: 2A Interview with popular magazine

#3

Post by MaduroBU » Sat Sep 08, 2018 1:38 pm

Gun violence doesnt correlate with gun ownership. When you look at the numbers from too far away, gun ownership and gun deaths seem to correlate. When you zoom in to the precinct level, that correlation disappears and indeed reverses. Gun homicide in America is highly focal to very small places while the areas where people own most of the guns are extremely safe.

Everyone knows that. I wish that someone would point it out. People's homes are usually the most expensive thing that they buy, and they will pay huge amounts of money to live in nice, low crime areas. The same or nicer lots are available for far less in "bad neighborhoods", but that doesn't stop people from paying 10-20x more for the same property in a "nicer area". This decision is extremely smart and makes the home buyer virtually immune to violent crime. This decision is never based upon gun ownership data (because such data doesn't really exist), and from what we know, good neighborhoods correlate with far higher rates of gun ownership (i.e. living in the suburbs of Chicago or Houston vs the city proper).

Gun violence is a behavior problem. Shooting another human being is nearly always one of the most deeply wrong things that you can do, and even if justified that act will have profound psychological implications for the shooter. There are tiny areas of the US where that act is so common as to be expected, set against a backdrop of a huge country where people own enormous amounts of guns but almost never shoot one another. All of us avoid the high violence areas to the best of our ability and do so despite the enormous financial cost of doing so when buying a home. We all know where the violence problem is and what to look for when avoiding it, and gun ownership rates can't and don't factor into that decision.

If we want to stop gun violence, then the very first step is admitting how focal it is. Antagonizing gun owners doesn't help. Rather, from an epidemiology perspective, we should examine all if these high gun ownership areas to see why they own so many "deadly" guns and yet don't have high rates of firearms homicide. Some research (https://news.yale.edu/2013/11/14/study- ... y-violence) says that even in areas with extreme crime rates, most folks are good people caught up in it. Tiny social networks of hyperviolent individuals draw tons of other people who wouldn't have committed violent crimes otherwise into the fray and terrorize everyone else. Put another way, there isn't even really a racial component to gun violence; rather, some communities don't or can't ostracize these tiny groups of people and as a result often suffer under barbaric social power structures based upon violence. Breaking up those social conditions and jailing those violent individuals does far more than telling people who will statistically never shoot someone that they can't have guns because they just might.

Sucide is a totally different animal. Our suicide rate isn't exceptional (we're ranked in the mid 50s), and if you look at the list its a mashup of countries with extreme rates of gun ownership and no gun ownership all over the place. First, to really impact suicide you'd have to ban everything on down to muzzleloaders that anyone can buy online if an 18 or 21 year old signs for it at the door. Second, even then people are substituting methods. Among suicides under 18 years old, hanging has become the most common method reflecting less access to firearms, without any decline in the suicide rate. Sucide is a mental health problem, and we as a nation DRASTICALLY UNDERFUND mental health.

The false dichotomy between "gun rights and freedom from violent crime" is a complete fabrication: we can have both and in fact nearly all Americans do.


rotor
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 1
Posts: 3326
Joined: Tue Dec 18, 2012 11:26 pm

Re: 2A Interview with popular magazine

#4

Post by rotor » Sat Sep 08, 2018 2:09 pm

When you accept the term "gun violence" you have lost the battle. Guns don't spontaneously do anything. It is people violence that is the problem. I would ask before the interview that you have the right to review and correct the article if need be. Remember the news story by Katie Couric and how anything can be slanted by edit. Expect the worst when it comes to the media. No interview unless you approve final results.

User avatar

bbhack
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 1
Posts: 314
Joined: Thu Feb 16, 2012 12:34 pm
Location: San Antonio Area

Re: 2A Interview with popular magazine

#5

Post by bbhack » Sat Sep 08, 2018 2:24 pm

rotor wrote:
Sat Sep 08, 2018 2:09 pm
When you accept the term "gun violence" you have lost the battle. Guns don't spontaneously do anything. It is people violence that is the problem. I would ask before the interview that you have the right to review and correct the article if need be. Remember the news story by Katie Couric and how anything can be slanted by edit. Expect the worst when it comes to the media. No interview unless you approve final results.
Good point. I would say there is such a thing as "drug violence", since drugs can change the mental processes of a sane person. Gun violence is the same as car violence and baseball bat violence.
No Trespassing Violators Will Be Prosecuted


MaduroBU
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 3
Posts: 536
Joined: Sat Nov 12, 2016 9:11 am

Re: 2A Interview with popular magazine

#6

Post by MaduroBU » Sat Sep 08, 2018 2:42 pm

rotor wrote:
Sat Sep 08, 2018 2:09 pm
When you accept the term "gun violence" you have lost the battle. Guns don't spontaneously do anything. It is people violence that is the problem. I would ask before the interview that you have the right to review and correct the article if need be. Remember the news story by Katie Couric and how anything can be slanted by edit. Expect the worst when it comes to the media. No interview unless you approve final results.
I agree, and I would argue that any successful debate would point out that the term "gun violence" is hollow and poorly descriptive. I think that a strong argument does a better job of that than quibbling over terms at the outset. I do think that pointing out AFTER presenting strong arguments that the term gun violence isn't very accurate.


Sport Coach
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 1
Posts: 331
Joined: Mon Oct 15, 2007 5:19 pm
Location: Washington, UT

Re: 2A Interview with popular magazine

#7

Post by Sport Coach » Sat Sep 08, 2018 3:46 pm

If guns kill people then all mine must be defective.

We can all agree that government wastes money so I want a smaller government and less regulations.

I want to be able to defend myself. If that means a giant que tip then I want one of those. If bad guys use guns I want one of those.

I'd love to talk to you about ridding society of guns just after you get ALL guns out of bad guys' hands. After that happens you can come talk to me.

Removing gang use of guns from statistics places the U.S. in one of the lowest positions in the world for crime with a gun.
“Hope is an expensive commodity. It makes better sense to be prepared.” - Thucydides


WildRose
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 2
Posts: 542
Joined: Wed Jan 31, 2018 1:30 am

Re: 2A Interview with popular magazine

#8

Post by WildRose » Sat Sep 08, 2018 10:00 pm

Sport Coach wrote:
Sat Sep 08, 2018 3:46 pm
If guns kill people then all mine must be defective.

We can all agree that government wastes money so I want a smaller government and less regulations.

I want to be able to defend myself. If that means a giant que tip then I want one of those. If bad guys use guns I want one of those.

I'd love to talk to you about ridding society of guns just after you get ALL guns out of bad guys' hands. After that happens you can come talk to me.

Removing gang use of guns from statistics places the U.S. in one of the lowest positions in the world for crime with a gun.
It may have changed somewhat over the last decade but the last time I dug hard into the numbers something like 90% of the murders committed with a fiearm in the US were committed in the nation's 100 most populous zip codes and around 75-80% were associated with gang activity.
NRA Life Member NRA Certified Instructor RSO, CRSO,
USCCA Certified Instructor
TX LTC licensed Instructor Personal/Family Protection and Self Defense Instructor.
Without The First and Second Amendments the rest are meaningless.


WildRose
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 2
Posts: 542
Joined: Wed Jan 31, 2018 1:30 am

Re: 2A Interview with popular magazine

#9

Post by WildRose » Sat Sep 08, 2018 10:04 pm

MaduroBU wrote:
Sat Sep 08, 2018 1:38 pm
Gun violence doesnt correlate with gun ownership. When you look at the numbers from too far away, gun ownership and gun deaths seem to correlate. When you zoom in to the precinct level, that correlation disappears and indeed reverses. Gun homicide in America is highly focal to very small places while the areas where people own most of the guns are extremely safe.

Everyone knows that. I wish that someone would point it out. People's homes are usually the most expensive thing that they buy, and they will pay huge amounts of money to live in nice, low crime areas. The same or nicer lots are available for far less in "bad neighborhoods", but that doesn't stop people from paying 10-20x more for the same property in a "nicer area". This decision is extremely smart and makes the home buyer virtually immune to violent crime. This decision is never based upon gun ownership data (because such data doesn't really exist), and from what we know, good neighborhoods correlate with far higher rates of gun ownership (i.e. living in the suburbs of Chicago or Houston vs the city proper).

Gun violence is a behavior problem. Shooting another human being is nearly always one of the most deeply wrong things that you can do, and even if justified that act will have profound psychological implications for the shooter. There are tiny areas of the US where that act is so common as to be expected, set against a backdrop of a huge country where people own enormous amounts of guns but almost never shoot one another. All of us avoid the high violence areas to the best of our ability and do so despite the enormous financial cost of doing so when buying a home. We all know where the violence problem is and what to look for when avoiding it, and gun ownership rates can't and don't factor into that decision.

If we want to stop gun violence, then the very first step is admitting how focal it is. Antagonizing gun owners doesn't help. Rather, from an epidemiology perspective, we should examine all if these high gun ownership areas to see why they own so many "deadly" guns and yet don't have high rates of firearms homicide. Some research (https://news.yale.edu/2013/11/14/study- ... y-violence) says that even in areas with extreme crime rates, most folks are good people caught up in it. Tiny social networks of hyperviolent individuals draw tons of other people who wouldn't have committed violent crimes otherwise into the fray and terrorize everyone else. Put another way, there isn't even really a racial component to gun violence; rather, some communities don't or can't ostracize these tiny groups of people and as a result often suffer under barbaric social power structures based upon violence. Breaking up those social conditions and jailing those violent individuals does far more than telling people who will statistically never shoot someone that they can't have guns because they just might.

Sucide is a totally different animal. Our suicide rate isn't exceptional (we're ranked in the mid 50s), and if you look at the list its a mashup of countries with extreme rates of gun ownership and no gun ownership all over the place. First, to really impact suicide you'd have to ban everything on down to muzzleloaders that anyone can buy online if an 18 or 21 year old signs for it at the door. Second, even then people are substituting methods. Among suicides under 18 years old, hanging has become the most common method reflecting less access to firearms, without any decline in the suicide rate. Sucide is a mental health problem, and we as a nation DRASTICALLY UNDERFUND mental health.

The false dichotomy between "gun rights and freedom from violent crime" is a complete fabrication: we can have both and in fact nearly all Americans do.
Good points. One of the most dishonest arguments made relative to guns is including suicides committed with a firearm with homicides committed with same.

Anyone serious about committing suicide will do so with or without access to a firearm. Japan has among the most restrictive firearms laws and lowest firearms ownership rates of any first or even second world country yet their suicide rate ranges between 7-9x higher than ours in the US.

There's no evidence to suggest that the elimination of civilian firearms ownership in the US would have any significant effect on the suicide rate yet it's one of the biggest arguments made by the anti gunners in justifying their desire to disarm us.
NRA Life Member NRA Certified Instructor RSO, CRSO,
USCCA Certified Instructor
TX LTC licensed Instructor Personal/Family Protection and Self Defense Instructor.
Without The First and Second Amendments the rest are meaningless.


Richbirdhunter
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 1
Posts: 1106
Joined: Mon May 18, 2015 7:45 pm
Location: DFW Denton County

Re: 2A Interview with popular magazine

#10

Post by Richbirdhunter » Sun Sep 09, 2018 8:24 am

I would video the whole interview, it will be harder for them “edit” what you say out of context.
Disclaimer: Anything I state can not be applied to 100% of all situations. Sometimes it's ok to speak in general terms.


Scott Farkus
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 2
Posts: 406
Joined: Tue Jul 13, 2010 7:18 pm
Location: Austin

Re: 2A Interview with popular magazine

#11

Post by Scott Farkus » Sun Sep 09, 2018 9:59 am

Richbirdhunter wrote:
Sun Sep 09, 2018 8:24 am
I would video the whole interview, it will be harder for them “edit” what you say out of context.
This.

The interview is likely already done, so this is probably too late, but one of the things I get sick of hearing is "97% of gun owners support Universal Background Checks". It's hard for me to imagine that that's true, but even if it is it's irrelevant. UBC cannot be enforced without universal registration almost certainly at the federal level, and I doubt (hope?) very many gun owners would support that. I don't know what poll got that 97% figure, if one even did, but I doubt it included a question about universal registration.

Besides which, a federal UBC requirement is likely unconstitutional as an infringement on state's rights (not that we care about those anymore). And for the record, I find the current federal background check laws largely unconstitutional for the same reason, although a legitimate interstate commerce argument can be made for those transactions that are truly interstate commerce.

AND, perhaps most importantly, there is no evidence that I am aware of that UBC's would result in any measurable decrease in gun violence. It would have prevented exactly none of the recent mass shootings - ZERO - and it's hard to imagine gang members who largely steal or obtain their guns on the black market are going to suddenly comply with a UBC. I don't know the statistics but the number of guns sold privately and legally without a background check has to be minuscule compared to the number sold through licensed dealers. Take out family transfers and the number is even more minuscule.

In short, UBC's are a liberal feel good, borderline unconstitutional solution in search of a problem. They would penalize law abiding gun owners and ultimately result in a federal registry (probably the real goal), while doing essentially NOTHING to reduce gun crime.

User avatar

KLB
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 2
Posts: 810
Joined: Mon Jan 11, 2016 10:57 am
Location: San Antonio

Re: 2A Interview with popular magazine

#12

Post by KLB » Sun Sep 09, 2018 11:04 am

I'm also late to the party, but the pro control argument I found most troubling myself is that guns are unique: they are designed specifically to kill. From that, the gun controllers want you to conclude that widespread gun ownership lacks social utility.

I have addressed guns' intended purpose by embracing it. Yes, they are designed to kill, but the law recognizes circumstances when we may kill, and if we lack the proper tool when the circumstances arise, we may ourselves be killed. As such, in my view, my ownership of guns has high social utility.


Scott Farkus
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 2
Posts: 406
Joined: Tue Jul 13, 2010 7:18 pm
Location: Austin

Re: 2A Interview with popular magazine

#13

Post by Scott Farkus » Sun Sep 09, 2018 12:11 pm

^^That reminds me of another one. In reference (ostensibly) to "assault rifles", you hear a lot of "These are weapons of war that are designed to kill!! Citizens have no right to own them!!!" hysteria.

Well, if "weapons of war" is the standard, virtually every firearm was originally designed to be a "weapon of war". And if "designed to kill" is the standard, well, that's the whole purpose of a firearm. So, taken to a logical conclusion, citizens have no right to own anything. Which as most of us know or at least strongly suspect, is the end game with these people.

User avatar

Take Down Sicko
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 1
Posts: 817
Joined: Sat Mar 19, 2016 8:01 pm
Location: Houston Tx
Contact:

Re: 2A Interview with popular magazine

#14

Post by Take Down Sicko » Sun Sep 09, 2018 2:34 pm

locke_n_load wrote:
Sat Sep 08, 2018 9:18 am
All, I have an interview today with one of the largest magazines company today (will name said magazine post interview). I will be speaking for the 2nd amendment, it is a 10 minute video interview followed by some pictures. I don't want to get roped into a corner, or say something the wrong way. Can anyone think of some arguments anti 2A people make, that are decent arguments, and how you feel about it? Or things you see 2A people say that make you cringe (maybe their argument could be said better?).
I know that schools need to be hardened, just like airports and the capitol, and I believe that all laws against gun ownership/carrying are infringements. I don't think an individual should be able to own a nuke, because it's not really an arm (but hopefully that question does not come up). We have the 2A to fight tyranny, the right to keep/bear is for individuals (the bill of rights was written to protect rights of citizens, not the govt).
I'm also an LTC instructor and have a good grasp on current Texas law.
What you got?
lock n load....How did the interview go if we may ask?


Abraham
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 1
Posts: 8399
Joined: Tue Aug 14, 2007 8:43 am

Re: 2A Interview with popular magazine

#15

Post by Abraham » Mon Sep 10, 2018 11:26 am

Some have apparently never heard of target shooting, clay shooting sports, long distance target shooting all in the name of fun, not killing, sheesh...!

And yes, some are willing to defend themselves with a gun - a policy not sanctioned by commies. You're just supposed to accept being (according the them) killed.

Some of us ARE willing to defend ourselves with a gun, but if you disagree...ok, accept your potential fate with your head bowed...

Post Reply

Return to “General Texas CHL Discussion”