Talked about guns with an anti-gun waitress

[bnc]

So if a tourist is walking about London and gets mugged, if he lands a punch or two he gets locked up in a foreign prison? If so, it doesn't sound like the kind of place I would want to visit.

[chasfm11]

So if a tourist is walking about London and gets mugged, if he lands a punch or two he gets locked up in a foreign prison? If so, it doesn't sound like the kind of place I would want to visit.

Many European countries share the same pacifist philosophy, at least at a governmental level. I spent time in Denmark and Amsterdam and the pervasive attitude is similar. I wouldn't have wanted to have tried to deal with a mugger in either place, from a legal perpective. There were many people in both countries who, because of our movies, still think that Texas is the wild west.

[sjfcontrol]

So if a tourist is walking about London and gets mugged, if he lands a punch or two he gets locked up in a foreign prison? If so, it doesn't sound like the kind of place I would want to visit.

Many European countries share the same pacifist philosophy, at least at a governmental level. I spent time in Denmark and Amsterdam and the pervasive attitude is similar. I wouldn't have wanted to have tried to deal with a mugger in either place, from a legal perpective. There were many people in both countries who, because of our movies, still think that Texas is the wild west.

wild-west statistics

In Abilene, Ellsworth, Wichita, Dodge City, and Caldwell, for the years from 1870 to 1885, there were only 45 total homicides. This equates to a rate of approximately 1 murder per 100,000 residents per year.
In Abilene, supposedly one of the wildest of the cow towns, not a single person was killed in 1869 or 1870.

Zooming forward over a century to 2007, a quick look at Uniform Crime Report statistics shows us the following regarding the aforementioned gun control “paradise” cities of the east:

DC – 183 Murders (31 per 100,000 residents)
New York – 494 Murders (6 per 100,000 residents)
Baltimore – 281 Murders (45 per 100,000 residents)
Newark – 104 Murders (37 per 100,000 residents)

[chasfm11]

I find it amusing how quickly they can tie themselves up in mental knots and resort to "feeling". The next question is "why are your feelings better than mine?"

I am totally stealing that for future use!

Your've very welcome to it, Andy. I'll warn you in advance, however, the answer that I have gotten:

"My feelings are better than yours because you are totally unfeeling, uncaring person. Anyone who worries about facts and logic just isn't capable of the right kind of feeling like the rest of us. You Conservatives are just so cold and calculating. You have to really learn to care about other people more."

I never expect to win these discussions. My follow up was to ask the person if she thought charitable giving was a sign of caring about other people. When she said yes, I asked if she would like to compare her charitable contribuitons to mine. Suddenly, we were off in a different direction in the conversation and I had smile on my face. Another thing that I've learned about many Liberals is they want to be very generous with someone else's money.

[chasfm11]

So if a tourist is walking about London and gets mugged, if he lands a punch or two he gets locked up in a foreign prison? If so, it doesn't sound like the kind of place I would want to visit.

Many European countries share the same pacifist philosophy, at least at a governmental level. I spent time in Denmark and Amsterdam and the pervasive attitude is similar. I wouldn't have wanted to have tried to deal with a mugger in either place, from a legal perpective. There were many people in both countries who, because of our movies, still think that Texas is the wild west.

wild-west statistics

In Abilene, Ellsworth, Wichita, Dodge City, and Caldwell, for the years from 1870 to 1885, there were only 45 total homicides. This equates to a rate of approximately 1 murder per 100,000 residents per year.
In Abilene, supposedly one of the wildest of the cow towns, not a single person was killed in 1869 or 1870.

Zooming forward over a century to 2007, a quick look at Uniform Crime Report statistics shows us the following regarding the aforementioned gun control “paradise” cities of the east:

DC – 183 Murders (31 per 100,000 residents)
New York – 494 Murders (6 per 100,000 residents)
Baltimore – 281 Murders (45 per 100,000 residents)
Newark – 104 Murders (37 per 100,000 residents)

Thank you very much! I wish that I had had that kind of information at my finger times when I was talking to some of those folks. I'm definitely going to use them with our NJ friends who are antis.

Chas

[psijac]

I find it amusing how quickly they can tie themselves up in mental knots and resort to "feeling". The next question is "why are your feelings better than mine?"

I am totally stealing that for future use!

Your've very welcome to it, Andy. I'll warn you in advance, however, the answer that I have gotten:

"My feelings are better than yours because you are totally unfeeling, uncaring person. Anyone who worries about facts and logic just isn't capable of the right kind of feeling like the rest of us. You Conservatives are just so cold and calculating. You have to really learn to care about other people more."

I never expect to win these discussions. My follow up was to ask the person if she thought charitable giving was a sign of caring about other people. When she said yes, I asked if she would like to compare her charitable contribuitons to mine. Suddenly, we were off in a different direction in the conversation and I had smile on my face. Another thing that I've learned about many Liberals is they want to be very generous with someone else's money.

I just realized that I need to get more volunteer work done. I dont have a lot of money but i do have a lot of sitting around time.

[VMI77]

I don't want to get off-topic for long, but:

To VMI77: I like your postings and your writing style ...

... but your avatar creeps me out - just a little!!!

What is that image from? Also, has anyone noticed that those are two (2) right hands?

Thank you. It's a ventriloquist dummy I picked up for $5 at a Goodwill thrift store --with two right hands (very observant of you). Photography is a hobby and I bought it as a photo prop. The avatar is the product of some photo experimentation. I guess I'm suggesting I feel like a blindfolded dummy at times.

[VMI77]

Very interesting discussion.

As a Brit who went from neutral/slightly-anti to very strongly pro-armed-self-defense after I had moved to the US and investigated the various issues of firearms and their use - ethically, legally and mechanically - I would say that (in addition to the very well written comments thus far regarding the liberal-leaning attitudes to firearms and self-defense) there is also ALOT of misunderstanding outside of the gun-owning community regarding the actual firearm 'machine' itself.

People that are wholly unfamiliar with firearms have most (if not all) of their foundation of beliefs about firearms gleaned from TV and movies; guns are sensitive, complex devices full of explosives that go off at any time (and always when knocked/dropped), are invariably all full-auto, are so inaccurate/difficult to control that they shoot uncontrollably like an unheld garden hose, and that live rounds are as delicate as nitroglycerine and explode when tapped or warmed in the sun. Firearms take a massive amount of training to use, and a person is completely incapable if they are not ex-SWAT or SEAL with 25 years of service. The thing here is that if these things were true (and in my experience, alot of people from outside the US think they are true), then you could see why someone would be so adverse to the idea of an armed citizen.

My family were incredulous that I would carry a firearm at all, much less with a magazine inserted and then - good grief you maniac - a round chambered ('...it's like carrying around a sweating stick of dynamite in your back pocket...') in an IWB ('...that's going to make a mess of your leg when it goes off...') in a gun with no manual safety ('...what stops it from going off when you accidentally pull the trigger ?...'). Once I had actually set them straight on these kinds of misconceptions such that they understood a little more about the actual mechanics of the firearm, it was then quite an easy discussion regarding the benefits of armed self-defense.

So that is certainally something I bear in mind when talking with antis - it is quite likely that they have not the slightest notion of the mechanics of the firearm and if they really think it is like carrying around a sweating stick of dynamite, or a hand grenade waiting to explode, it's difficult to actually get to a point when the logic of armed self defense can be discussed...

...just my 2 pence worth :-)

How long have you been in the US? My impression of the UK is that the culture has become not just anti-gun, but anti-self-defense --to the point of empowering and emboldening all manner of criminal and thuggish behavior. Anthony Burgess was already writing about this attitude decades ago and I see it expressed in recent British television programs, like Peep Show (which also expresses that ignorance and mistrust of guns, and is unable to make the connection between one thing and the other).

I've been here several joyful years

You are correct regarding the anti-self-defense attitude; it's state-mandated pacifism encouraged through ludicrous zero-tolerance policies where homeowners are just as likely prosecuted for physically defending themselves, than the intruder is for breaking in, and old ladies carrying knitting needles just as likely to be busted for 'carrying an offensive weapon' as a gangbanger with a flick-knife.

An example is this ex-soldier who found an abandoned firearm, turned it in at the local police station - and was promptly arrested and prosecuted for gun possession;

http://www.thisissurreytoday.co.uk/news ... ticle.html

(The Judge's comment "The intention of anybody possessing a firearm is irrelevant" pretty much sums up the lack of significance that is placed on actual 'intent' in all areas of English law, these days)

This general fear of prosecution and creeping pacifism has soaked into the UK culture to such an extent that there seems to genuinely be no expectation that someone would attempt to defend themselves or others (even the family). And those that do are generally derided as either foolhardy or having a barely-suppressed, easily triggered, proclivity towards violence themselves.

...which brings me to a final point; those that have absolutely no urge to defend themselves or their loved ones, really cannot acknowledge - at all - that there may be others that do. So instead of being a law-abiding realist who has merely chosen the best tool for the job, you're actually a blood-thirsty gun owner just looking for the opportunity to shoot someone and hide behind the law to 'get away with it'.

I've read about the soldier-shotgun episode before and it was on my mind when I asked you the question. I've also read various stories about homeowners, especially farmers, it seems, being prosecuted for defending themselves against intruders. It's so obvious that this kind of culture empowers thugs and encourages criminality that its development has to be a deliberate, cynical, and insidious process of demoralization and subjugation by those in power --sort of an orchestrated degeneracy.

[VMI77]

It is terrifying that this mindset is creeping into our own culture--the idea self defense is just as wrong as criminal aggression. If you think about it, this is EXACTLY what our public schools are teaching our children right now. If two kids get into a fight, both are disciplined. They don't take the time to investigate who started it. The mere fact the one attacked fought back is enough to get him/her in trouble too. When I was in first grade, I once cleaned the plow of a bully who physically attacked a defenseless little girl right in front of me. The principle interviewed the witnesses, talked to both of us and then proceeded to give the bully three licks . I got not so much as a stern talking to. He had it coming to him both ways. If the same thing happened today, I would be punished the same as him. Interesting thing is I went to school with that kid for 8 more years and he never caused any more trouble. Today's zero tolerance policies don't seem to have that effect.

You nailed it when you described the way lack of understanding of firearms themselves keeps people in a mindset you must be crazy or dangerous to want to carry one around. I found learning about them made a huge difference to me in the beginning.

Glad you made it out of the UK to come live where defending yourself has not completely become illegal (except in the well known places ).

This attitude came to some parts of the country long before others. I'm not exactly a youngster. I attended junior high school in Southern California. We had drug sniffing dogs on campus, fights that had hundreds of students following the belligerents off-campus to watch them --especially girl fights (subsequently broken up by police), kids under the influence of drugs at school, trash can fires, etc --and it was very dangerous to enter a restroom on school grounds (restrooms were the favored location for gang assaults).

If you defended yourself in a fight you got suspended from school. This policy is far more insidious than the immediately obvious element of injustice: it actually puts the wanna be thugs at an advantage. Good kids worried about a constructive and responsible future avoid defending themselves because they don't want a suspension on their record. The bad kids don't care. So, the People's Republic of California is sort of a pioneer in the public schooling of moral degeneracy, and we see where that has gotten them.

Years before I attended junior high in California, my much older brother defended himself against a high school bully --and pretty much beat him up. The school Principal drove him home. He complimented my parents for having a son who stood up to a bully and told them he had done the school a favor. He drove my brother home so the bully and his friends wouldn't be able to jump him on his walk home from school. We homeschooled our kids so I don't have much personal experience with the public schools today, but I have a hard time imagining a similar outcome now, and at the same time, I also don't believe the average kid today is getting a better education than my brother got way back when.

[chasfm11]

Thanks for your post VM177. I've had conversations with some from Washington State who share the California attitude.

There are a couple of things that I'd like to tie together. First, the waitress in the OP's example is NOT typical of those who oppose guns.

Second, while there are the Brady types out there, many of the anti-guns are also anti-self protection. In another thread on bullying there were posts from those who could not understand why anyone put up with bullying. My answer was that, in many cases in the schools, the bullying was institutionalized. Those who fought back were punished. The bullies, as you have pointed out, didn't care about any punishment which meant that the good students and people are victimized more by the system than those who were at fault.

For more open minded among the antis (is open minded anti an oxymoron?), there is a chance that their rejection of guns is based on a fear of guns and that helping them get familiar with safe handling of guns will help. When I've talked with people like this, I've talked about some of the more dangerous professions like those who work on downed electrical lines in storms and how it was very rare out of the 10s of 1,000s of them to hear about an accident. If I can get the listener to understand that the reason is safety procedures, there is a chance that I can get them to understand that guns have safety procedures, too, and that there a millions of gun owners who follow those procedures.

For many antis, however, the root of their beliefs seems to be the same pacifistic dogma that was articulated in VM177's last post. They just dislike guns because guns are the most blatant example counter to that dogma. Many of the antis would disarm our police, as they have done for some of the LE in the UK, if they were given the chance to do so. I'm never found any clever techniques for discussing guns with an anti when they are such blatant pacifists. Having spent time in PA and having lived in Amish area there, I understand that there are those who have a religious basis for their pacifism. I taught at a Friends (Quaker) school near Philadelphia and I came to understand that type of pacifism, too. It is interesting that many of the antis are as anti-religious as they are are anti-gun. I have no clue where they are coming from.

[lan40583]

Here's a bit of an update on my original post:

I went back to the pizza place today to give the waitress my copy of "More Guns, Less Crime." I asked my waitress (not the same one) whether or not she was working today, and was told that she doesn't usually work on Mondays. Kind of odd, considering she said she'd be working today. Anyways, I asked my waitress if she could make sure she received the book, so with any luck she'll give it a look.

[Abraham]

Pacifism: The doctrine that all violence is unjustifiable

This doctrine promotes the idea that everything is negotiable and if it turns out not to be, you as a practicing pacifist are willing to lay down and die cuz you're the proud owner of a facile, morally elitist, superior attitude and are always willing to sacrifice yourself for your holier than thou philosophy...

There are many examples revealing this doctrine for the moral cowardice it is i.e., you're family is gravely at risk and you could do something to protect them, but hey, it means you will be involved in violence in order to do so, so sorry family, you're all gonna be sacrificed in order to uphold this dopey philosophy (and pssst, there's a fairly high probability of personal cowardice within the equation, no matter how much those who espouse pacifist ideals care to intellectualize it.

Stating one is high minded and couldn't hurt a fly, with nose tilted at a 45 degree angle up, is a nifty way of getting around being pointed out as a gutless puke...

[VMI77]

Pacifism: The doctrine that all violence is unjustifiable

This doctrine promotes the idea that everything is negotiable and if it turns out not to be, you as a practicing pacifist are willing to lay down and die cuz you're the proud owner of a facile, morally elitist, superior attitude and are always willing to sacrifice yourself for your holier than thou philosophy...

There are many examples revealing this doctrine for the moral cowardice it is i.e., you're family is gravely at risk and you could do something to protect them, but hey, it means you will be involved in violence in order to do so, so sorry family, you're all gonna be sacrificed in order to uphold this dopey philosophy (and pssst, there's a fairly high probability of personal cowardice within the equation, no matter how much those who espouse pacifist ideals care to intellectualize it.

Stating one is high minded and couldn't hurt a fly, with nose tilted at a 45 degree angle up, is a nifty way of getting around being pointed out as a gutless puke...

This attitude is promoted by the media. For example the Hollywood trope of "I didn't want to sink to his level" --nearly always used in the context of a refusal to take appropriate violent action against a predator, and almost always morally equating using violence against a predator with violence by a predator.

While I do agree that most of the time pacifism is a corrupt and depraved attempt at striking a pose of moral elitism, I do think there are some true believers in pacifism who are not cowards and are prepared to die for what they believe. Even so, that doesn't change the fact that such pacifism is usually an abdication of morality and a capitulation to evil.

[Purplehood]

There are pacifists in my mind that are extremely personally courageous. But they are all deceased.

Revealing my liberal tendencies, it is my belief that non-violence and living as a true-pacifist would be wonderful. But only if every single human that I was ever going to come into contact with shared and practiced the same beliefs.

They don't...so I don't.