Might Makes Wrong

[SecularMotion]

The Failure of Right Wing Conservative Values and Assumptions:
Conservative Religion, Ideology, Violent Coercion, and Authoritarianism

The premise of the rush to buy so many more guns has been the claim of needing personal protection.

Underlying that notion is the idea that we all have to be free to shoot someone to protect ourselves, because law enforcement only acts after a crime, and that we should all have the option to escalate to lethal violence rather than use alternatives, if we want to or think we might need to, without accountability for using other, less violent or non-lethal alternatives. Shoot first laws remove the legal premise that has been at the core of Castle Doctrine and Self-defense laws for centuries - the duty to retreat if possible, the requirement to try to avoid lethal violence.

The right demands the right to use violence, including lethal violence, and opposes any measures on any level that obstruct it by requiring non-lethal alternatives as preferable.

The reality is that the efforts of law enforcement have resulted in a steady decline in crime over the past several decades. Clearly, investing in law enforcement works, when not gutted by the ill-conceived cost cutting of the right. The statistical evidence is irrefutable that law enforcement prevents crime.

http://penigma.blogspot.com/2012/10/might-makes-wrong.html

[4th law of robotics]

1. I was wondering how that was going to be spun . . .

MORE GUNS = MORE CRIME!

(crime rates continue to drop as guns become more common).

Uh . . . uh . . . well you see: The reality is that the efforts of law enforcement have resulted in a steady decline in crime over the past several decades. Clearly, investing in law enforcement works, when not gutted by the ill-conceived cost cutting of the right. The statistical evidence is irrefutable that law enforcement prevents crime.

[Dog Gone at Penigma]

3. Look at the patterns

Crime has not dropped uniformly; the prevalence of guns does make a difference, and not for the better.
The differences in law enforcement strategies also has not been uniformly successful.

so, yes - more guns has resulted in more gun violence; an example would be the marked increase in shootings - overwhelmingly highly questionable shootings - in stats which have enacted shoot first legislation.

Otherwise we wouldn't have the issues that garnered national attention in the Trayvon Martin shooting.

[4th law of robotics]

5. You throw around the word stats a lot

but I don't think you know what it means.

Crime has not dropped uniformly; the prevalence of guns does make a difference, and not for the better.

According to your opinion. Not according to reality.

The differences in law enforcement strategies also has not been uniformly successful.

Why is it that when crime goes up that is proof it's all about guns, but when it goes down you guys scramble about to find a thousand other causative agents?

so, yes - more guns has resulted in more gun violence; an example would be the marked increase in shootings - overwhelmingly highly questionable shootings - in stats which have enacted shoot first legislation.

Right, except this is BS. You just made it up. There were no "marked increase in highly questionable shootings" in those states. There were a few highly publicized anecdotes, but that's not the same thing. Just like people who claimed after Aurora that mass shootings are increasing exponentially when really . . . it's staying pretty constant. Big news =/= big trend.

Otherwise we wouldn't have the issues that garnered national attention in the Trayvon Martin shooting.

Yes clearly without guns we wouldn't have anecdotes and people would understand things like statistics, and trends, and significant (in the mathematical sense).

/someone who understands stats: http://boston.com/community/blogs/crime_punishment/2012/08/no_increase_in_mass_shootings.html

[Atypical Liberal]

7. "crime has not dropped uniformly"

Crime has not dropped uniformly; the prevalence of guns does make a difference, and not for the better.

You are right - crime has not dropped uniformly. And interestingly, it remains highest in places where gun control is the strictest.

But the undeniable fact is that national violent crime is continuing its decades-long decline, while the number of firearms in circulation increases.

[glacierbay]

14. You're kinda right

the rise in violence is mostly associated in the gang infested neighborhoods. The battle for the drug trade is fueling most of the violence.
Most of the rest of the nation is quite safe to live in. Violent crime is is declining in most of the nation.
The vast majority of gun owners are not the problem.

[PavePusher]

28. Cite your evidence, please. n/t

[4th law of robotics]

41. See post 4

She is well educated. So she doesn't need to post citations.

[PavePusher]

52. See post 33. It's even documented. n/t

[4th law of robotics]

53. You mean 45?

[PavePusher]

55. Well yeah, that one too.

I smell a superiority complex in the room....

[oneshooter]

37. Do you activly support the Brady Campaign or the VPC?

[ManiacJoe]

2. It makes for a good rant,

but the author really needs to educate himself.

[Dog Gone at Penigma]

4. NO.

I'm well educated, and have educated myself fairly well in the subject matter.

Why do you assume a man wrote this, btw? You are incorrect, on both points - my education, and my gender.

[rrneck]

6. So

do you have a solution for defense against assault by another who might be using a knife, club, or fists?

[oneshooter]

16. Of course she does, but if she told you then everybody would know, and then it won't work!

[ileus]

20. Bleed....maybe die.

doesn't sound like much of a defense, but it would make some people feel better...and safer.


death provides a stats...stats make stories.

[Dog Gone at Penigma]

22. Several

Best defense is prevention; we could do much more than we are doing to prevent crime.

There are plenty of alternative solutions that are non-lethal. Pepper spray, tasers work well.

Each assault is different, and requires different responses; this is as true if you're armed with a gun as well as any other problem
The question is -- is there an alternative OTHER than lethal force?

Too many people are being shot as threats who clearly are unarmed, and have no hostile intentions, under the shoot first premise, where simply waiting five more minutes with the door locked would resolve the problem without killing anyone. A perfect example would be the shooting of Bo Morrison in Wisconsin is a perfect example.
http://fox6now.com/tag/bo-morrison/

As was the case in the Trayvon Martin shooting, the victim was unarmed. It is inappropriate to shoot someone for unarmed, harmless trespassing. Law enforcement was already there, outside, not far away. There was no threat when the homeowner was behind a locked door.

When crime is going down, including assaults, we shouldn't be escalating or increasing the number of people who are going about armed. We don't need it, and the risk FROM it isn't constructive or positive.

There is an inherent willingness that too often accompanies being armed, that provokes and seeks out conflict. It is reflected in people using poor judgment instead of avoiding or de-escalating that conflict. An example would be George Zimmerman chasing Trayvon Martin, a kid who was minding his own business, who had every right to be where he was, doing what he was doing. I doubt Zimmerman would have been as eager to go after Martin in the dark unarmed. He shouldn't have been harassing the kid at all; and had he not been following him the way he was, there would have been no interactions between them.

Another example would be the road rage shooting in Isanti County MN. Old white crabby flabby man - the classic NRA member profile - shot a man in the face IN THE PARKING LOT OF THE SHERIFF's DEPARTMENT, which was staffed, as law enforcement came outside.

Without a firearm, this man, Kadlec would have behaved not just differently, but less aggressively.
http://www.startribune.com/local/north/172310611.html?refer=y

There is a lot of behavior that is punitive or vengeful that tries to use defense for a justification, but where other defensive actions are much better. It is the desire for that punitive and vengeful action that I wrote about. Courts and law enforcement aren't allowed to act that way, they have to be more proportionate in their response to threats or to crime.

[glacierbay]

25. Hasn't been my experience with CC permit holders.

I've dealt with hundreds and they are well mannered, thoughtful, law abiding citizens who want nothing more than to not have to ever draw or shoot anyone, however, they also know that the police are not responsible for their personal safety and they have taken the necessary steps to have the option and means to protect themselves if all else fails.
And your depiction of the typical NRA member is pure bullshit, the NRA has a diverse membership, I don't belong, never have, never will, but you're dead wrong about how a member looks.

[MicaelS]

27. You whole attitude here and on your blog

Reminds me of a quote from one of my favorite authors, Lois McMaster Bujold author of the The Vorkosigan Saga.

In here novel Falling Free a race of genetically engineered humans called Quaddies has been created. The Quaddies have a second pari of fully functional arms and hands in place of their legs. The Quaddies are being raised in microgravity abroad a space station to serve as workers who could live and work in microgravity without the side affects that plague normal humans in long term microgravity. They have been deliberately created to be intelligent but docile, and are being raised to place the interests of the group above that of the individual. They are carefully schooled and educated such that they not be exposed to violent literature.

The main character, Leo Graff, a man, is told that he must be very careful lest he "contaminate" the Quaddies with his planetside culture. He make the comment, one I have long remembered. And is promptly reprimanded for it by the head psychologist, a woman.This is a quote written by a woman who obviously understands men, and their mindset quite well.

It's a woman's idea of a perfect society. Everyone is so well behaved."

In other words, your mindset is that if we poor, testosterone addled males would only behave as precisely as women like yourself tell us to, America would have the perfect society.

Well guess what. We reject your philosophy. And we are not going to "behave" ourselves to meet your standards and expectations.

Having a Social Conscience does not mean having to sacrifice everything for the group. While I am quite willing to sacrifice a number of things to the group, in exchange for living in the US, one of the things I am not willing to sacrifice is the RKBA. And I’m not alone in this.

“People not getting hurt” is the not the only thing that matters in this country. Despite all your fantasies to the contrary, freedom is sometimes more important than safety.

We live in a country with a Constitution, BOR and a legal system designed first and foremost to guarantee and protect the Right of the Individual, not the Safety of the Group.

[friendly_iconoclast]

56. I disagree slightly, I think the mindset is like that of some conservatives re HPV vaccine.

That is, they truly believe the object of their ire (guns in the hands of CCW holders in the one instance, HPV vaccines in the other) cause antisocial behavior.

It's prohibitionism cloaked as concern.

[PavePusher]

31. One of your biggest mistakes is confusing "unarmed" with "helpless" and "harmless".

The rest of your assumptions fall apart from that point.

[Glaug-Eldare]

35. "Unarmed" is also distinct from "known to be unarmed"

Police officers are trained to recognize armed suspects, but even the most cooperative, ordinary-seeming suspect is assumed to be armed until they are searched. Even then, they are considered potential threats until restrained. Police officers don't have X-ray vision, and neither do CC permitees.

[glacierbay]

36. Correct.

As far as I'm concerned, any encounter I have with a citizen is consider to be armed and I will act accordingly.

[rrneck]

38. You get one chance.

That person, whoever he is, whatever happened to him to make him what he is, plans to kill or injure you for reasons beyond your control. If he kills you, you're dead. If he injures you, along with the pain and consequences of the injury to your person, you and your family will probably suffer serious if not irreparable financial devastation. There won't be anyone there to help, it will be just you and him, because he planned it that way.

Tasers can be defeated by heavy clothing or multiple assailants. Also, tasers are not necessarily non lethal. And it's not that difficult to fight through the effects of pepper spray if you have to. Now, at this point I could dig up a bunch of Google links, but there's no point. You could find them if you would take the time to look. And if you took the time to look, you would see almost any police officer wearing something like this:



See that thing on the right side of the belt? That thing that is closest to the right hand of the probably right handed officer? That thing that is located where it is the easiest to get, indicating that it is probably the preferred option for the officer should he or she need to use force for self defense? Yep. It's a gun. When the police forsake a firearm for some other preferably non lethal means of self defense, then the rest of us might notice.

Now, you can use the firearms issue as fodder for assorted jeremiads against anybody you don't like. By all means, dance around and shake bones and feathers at the evil totem of the conservative tribe. Nobody cares. Fence and snark and insult all you want on the internet. Nobody cares. Build a fortress of faith around your belief that people are somehow fundamentally different if they have a gun. Nobody cares. The rest of us will just walk by and smile at the screwy architecture. Some may roll your yard or soap the windows to annoy you, but you will just be providing entertainment for puckish kids. Nobody cares.

While you fume about statistics, constitutional law and the finer points of political ideology, real people with real lives will do what they have always done for a million years. They will equip themselves with whatever works best in the event they need to fight for their lives. Here in the twenty first century that means a gun. Fortunately, here in the United States the need to fight for one's life is pretty rare. While it's true that there are waaaay more guns than any need for their use, we don't know who will need them or when that need will arise. One thing's for sure, you won't be there to help when that happens. You'll be busy with you blog.

[Glaug-Eldare]

39. Not to mention that

those who agitate for firearms prohibitions are first in line to advance taser prohibitions and mace prohibitions. After all, criminals could use tasers or mace for an attack, too!

[oneshooter]

42. Gun control is never about GUNS.................It's about CONTROL.

[rrneck]

43. Yep. There's no such thing as a benign bullet. nt

[gejohnston]

47. wake me up after the trials

As was the case in the Trayvon Martin shooting, the victim was unarmed. It is inappropriate to shoot someone for unarmed, harmless trespassing. Law enforcement was already there, outside, not far away. There was no threat when the homeowner was behind a locked door.

that is not what the evidence suggests. So far, the evidence shows that Trayvon was pounding Zimmerman's head in the concrete while Zimmerman was walking back to his car after being told "you don't need to do that". Bare fists can be lethal weapons. Pepper spray would not have worked.

Of course a couple of cases reported in the media, which may or may not be accurate, are not representative of such cases. Wake me up after the trial, and if the transcripts are made public.

There is a lot of behavior that is punitive or vengeful that tries to use defense for a justification, but where other defensive actions are much better. It is the desire for that punitive and vengeful action that I wrote about. Courts and law enforcement aren't allowed to act that way, they have to be more proportionate in their response to threats or to crime.

Defense and revenge are two completely different concepts. A highly educated person such as yourself should know the difference.

[gejohnston]

11. educate yourself on the issue

Shoot first laws remove the legal premise that has been at the core of Castle Doctrine and Self-defense laws for centuries - the duty to retreat if possible, the requirement to try to avoid lethal violence.

Castle Doctrine has been called "shoot first" in the US, even though it dates back to English common law, and is the law in commonwealth countries like Canada. Even though duty to retreat does date back to English common law, Stand Your Ground started to appear in US common law during the Progressive Era. US federal law, California, Utah, and Washington are examples. The first state to pass a SYG law that I know of is Illinois in 1961.

Based on your rants, your education on the issue comes from VPC or a some of the lower quality progressive sites. That is like watching Fox and calling yourself "well informed".

[Reasonable_Argument]

13. SYG

Is a media generated hype anyway. I only have a duty to SAFELY retreat even in states without a specific SYG law. If you pull out an AR-15 even in a state that doesn't have a specific "stand your ground" law I can still take cover and return fire. I have no obligation to run. Don't get me wrong, I like shows like Rachel Maddow's too, but on these subjects she's about as accurate as Rush.

[ManiacJoe]

15. I made no assumptions.

> I'm well educated, and have educated myself fairly well in the subject matter.
> Why do you assume a man wrote this, btw? You are incorrect,
> on both points - my education, and my gender.

Call me old-school: When the sex of the person is not known or not relevant, use the masculine pronouns. If you want to use the feminine pronouns instead, that is not a problem for me. And, yes, I did look up your bio; now I know.

According to your blog post, you are not that knowledgeable about firearm laws related to self defense, including the Castle Doctrine and "stand your ground". However, you are in a good forum with lots of knowledgeable folks who are very happy to answer any questions you choose to ask.

[DWC]

17. About Dog Gone at Penigma

Statistics and Information
Account status: Active
Member since: Sun Oct 14, 2012, 06:55 AM
Number of posts: 24
Number of posts, last 90 days: 24
Favorite forum: NA
Favorite group: Gun Control & RKBA, 23 posts in the last 90 days (96% of total posts)

A member for about 2 days with at least 24 anti-gun post. Self proclaimed female; obvious elitist; and a screed virtually identical in tone and texture to a banned, Canadian, female, quasi-lawyer.

Same stuff just a different user name. Looks like "Ivy" is back.

Semper Fi,

[glacierbay]

18. Also

when she gets her backside kicked at Mike's blog, she disappears, as she seems to have done here. Some really nasty people over at Mike's blog, JadeGold, Laci the Dog, a couple others.

[ileus]

24. I don't know...

She hasn't told us how morally superior she is to gun owners yet.

I'll hold out judgement on this one for a while.


If she starts talking about how our opinions don't matter until we have a decade of troll hunting service then I'll be ready to declare.

[PavePusher]

32. I don't know either....

iverglas was far more shrill and vitriolic.

But it's early days yet....

[Eleanors38]

21. Please note: Zimmerman's attorney is using a standard

Self-defense theory which predates recent Flodida law, be it castle or SYG. Oddly, this requires the state to prove a crime was committed.

[Trunk Monkey]

29. Off topic but how do you feel about SM stealing your stuff? NT

[ManiacJoe]

34. Stealing may be a little harsh

since the quote is fully attributed.

[SecularMotion]

40. Off topic and out of line, typical of your posts.

I have permission to share material from Penigma here.

[Trunk Monkey]

60. Feel free to hit the alert button NT

[ProgressiveProfessor]

58. Yes

Your gender is indeed irrelevant, but your education in these matters is sorely lacking or you would not be making such unsupported assertions.

[ileus]

23. It's all they have left...

Rants and misguided feelings.

[Remmah2]

8. Hollow points and blanks.

Critique of the article.

What's the average wait time for a 911 response? Assuming you have a phone and know where you are.

[Reasonable_Argument]

9. I have the right to use lethal force

If I feel I'm in danger of seriously bodily harm or death, I will use deadly force in defense of me and mine. I will also use deadly force in defense of others, but I do not desire either. Sadly sometimes we are not given a choice. BTW, since this author seems to want to portray themselves as knowledgable... if I can put in touch with someone like Massad Ayoob on another forum, would you care to debate the issue with him? I will happily repost the discussion here

[Trunk Monkey]

30. Missed it by that much

I have the right to use lethal force if I'm in a position where any reasonable person would feel that they are in danger of seriously bodily harm or death.

Very important distinction

[Atypical Liberal]

10. Says who?

The premise of the rush to buy so many more guns has been the claim of needing personal protection.

Says who? I think it's pretty unmistakeable with the spike of firearm sales starting with the election of President Obama that the fundamental premise for the rush to buy more guns is out of fear of another ban, such as the one that the President campaigned on and that is currently part of the Democratic Party platform.

It's fear of further restriction that is driving purchases.

In terms of actual and intended use, I'm sure most people are like me - they are aware of the potential utility for self-defense that firearms provide, but in actuality they use them for fun.

Underlying that notion is the idea that we all have to be free to shoot someone to protect ourselves, because law enforcement only acts after a crime, and that we should all have the option to escalate to lethal violence rather than use alternatives, if we want to or think we might need to, without accountability for using other, less violent or non-lethal alternatives. Shoot first laws remove the legal premise that has been at the core of Castle Doctrine and Self-defense laws for centuries - the duty to retreat if possible, the requirement to try to avoid lethal violence.

The right demands the right to use violence, including lethal violence, and opposes any measures on any level that obstruct it by requiring non-lethal alternatives as preferable.

I don't think anyone would dispute that non-lethal alternatives are preferable. What is disputed is that non-lethal alternatives should be legally required.

If I am in a place where I have every right to be, and I am a victim of a violent crime, I should not be legally required to run away. Good people should have the right to stand up to violent criminals with deadly force if they see fit, and we should applaud them for it, not denigrate them. No one is expecting everyone to fight back against violent criminals, but those who do should be praised and encouraged. And the law should protect them.

There is nothing wrong with using deadly force to defend yourself from violent criminals.


The reality is that the efforts of law enforcement have resulted in a steady decline in crime over the past several decades. Clearly, investing in law enforcement works, when not gutted by the ill-conceived cost cutting of the right. The statistical evidence is irrefutable that law enforcement prevents crime.

The fact is, the causes of the decades-long decline in violent crime are greatly debated:

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702304066504576345553135009870.html

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-02-15/why-is-u-s-violent-crime-down-part-2-commentary-by-jeffrey-goldberg.html

http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Justice/2012/0109/US-crime-rate-at-lowest-point-in-decades.-Why-America-is-safer-now

There are many reasons cited as causing the decline in crime:

* We have incarcerated a huge swath of the most disenfranchised portion of our society who was, due to their disenfranchisement, more likely to get involved with crime.

* Stiffer sentences keep people in prison longer.

* Our society is aging - older people are less likely to be involved in crime.

* Drug trade territories have stabilized since the violent chaos of the 1990s.

* Decline of the crack epidemic.

* Decline of lead levels in children.

* Legalized abortion.

* Improved police databases to track criminals.

But here is one thing I have considered that I have not seen anywhere else:

It may be getting harder to get away with crimes, so people don't try.

Everyone is familiar with TV shows, fictitious or not, like CSI and others where the police use evidence to nail the bad guy. There is a growing perception (that has harmed prosecutors in courtrooms) by the people that police work can easily and definitively finger the bad guy. 50 years ago you could walk into a bank and have a hold up and get away and go live in another town. Today, that's unlikely. There's probably a dye pack and a GPS tracker in the money bag.

Also, just about everyone these days has a cell phone, usually with a camera in it. Any time something bad happens, we are able to record and report it virtually instantaneously. And what isn't covered by our portable cameras is often as not covered by a surveillance camera somewhere nearby.

In short, crime requires anonymity, and anonymity is going away.

But, as I have said before, all of this is largely immaterial.

The right to keep and bear arms is not related to crime, or even self-defense, even though self-defense is valid reason to keep and bear arms.

The right to keep and bear arms is about keeping military-grade small arms in the hands of the people so that they can function as soldiers in an emergency. This will be true regardless of what the crime rate is.

[rDigital]

12. When you throw around stats and don't even bother to provide any, you lose.

You can't ride in on the fail-boat and then tell everyone else that they are sunk, honey.

[ileus]

19. I'll keep my rights, thanks anyway.

[aikoaiko]

26. "Shoot first laws"? And you wish to be taken seriously?

This paragraph is rubbish. The laws that you refer to simply clarify when a shooting might not be worthy of prosecution and they generally include a reasonable person criterion.

Underlying that notion is the idea that we all have to be free to shoot someone to protect ourselves, because law enforcement only acts after a crime, and that we should all have the option to escalate to lethal violence rather than use alternatives, if we want to or think we might need to, without accountability for using other, less violent or non-lethal alternatives. Shoot first laws remove the legal premise that has been at the core of Castle Doctrine and Self-defense laws for centuries - the duty to retreat if possible, the requirement to try to avoid lethal violence.

[PavePusher]

33. Bu-bu-bu-but.....

she's highly educated!! She told us so herself! And she's better at decision-making than us! Weren't you paying attention?!?!

[Dog Gone at Penigma]

45. Apparently you weren't

Educated enough that I don't incorrectly expect people who aren't carrying to be an armed threat.

Or as my dear co-blogger on penigma (and mikeb302000) has noted already in the blogosphere, some of us are clever enough o notice firearm carry 'printing'.

http://mikeb302000.blogspot.com/2012/07/exercise-your-property-rights-to-bar.html

You prove my point, that you are inappropriately and inaccurately looking for people to be a danger, when they aren't, thereby precipitating trouble where it is avoidable.

A perfect example of what I wrote about as might makes wrong was when in Florida crabby mean old guy Trevor Dooley got in the face of a very nice man, an Iraq war vet, who was minding his own business in a public park, playing with his daughter.

Dooley decided to order another kid not to skateboard.

It was not against the law for the kid to be skateboarding, it was not against any ordinance, or park policy either. Dooley just decided not to allow it, which exceeded any authority on his part to do.

Next he got into an argument with David James, and grabbed for his gun. James was not a threat to Dooley, but I can easily see how James saw Dooley as a threat to his daughter, to the kid on the skateboard and to himself.

Dooley shot him -- and got off on the claim that he 'felt' threatened, even though all the witnesses stated the person who was belligerant and confrontational was Dooley.

Without Dooley having a firearm and a bad attitude about using it -- like some of the attitudes expressed here, making assumptions which are not necessarily accurate or appropriate to the circumstances, assumptions made about EVERYBODY, when clearly not everybody is any kind of threat -- there would have been no killing of a nice man who was a husband, father, and a patriot.

http://www.ksdk.com/news/world/article/311679/28/Widow-says-Floridas-Stand-Your-Ground-law-is-free-pass-for-murder

Now that little girl has to live the rest of her life without her dad, and with the memory of seeing him shot right in front of her -- for NO GOOD REASON.

THAT is what I mean about the avoidable and unnecessary escalation of violence when firearms are involved that would NOT occur without them.

Had the mean old man not had a gun, he'd have had o rely on calling he cops who would have told him he was wrong and to leave the two kids and dad alone. Which is what HE SHOULD HAVE DONE. DOOLEY, not the kids or dad, initiated the conflict, DOOLEY, not the kids or dad escalated the level of violence against unarmed innocent people.

That is wrong, that is tragic, that is unjustified, that is the failure of our gun culture. And that is what you are trying, unsuccessfully, to defend. It is indefensible.

It is completely avoidable.

[glacierbay]

46. So you're comparing all CC Permit holders to this one asshole?

I've dealt with hundreds of permit holders and I can say with certainty that this idiot is the exception not the norm. The majority of permit holders are law abiding citizens who know that the police are not responsible for their personal safety so they took the step to provide for their own safety. All your dithering isn't going to change that fact.

[4th law of robotics]

48. Apparently in all that schooling you received

you never once learned the difference between anecdotes and data.

[friendly_iconoclast]

49. ...or the difference between anecdotes and statistics, as her posts are deficient in the latter.

[4th law of robotics]

50. Pretty much anything with numbers

let's say the broad field of math.

Or maths as our former colonial oppressors would say.

/nah screw that, math, we drove them out with guns so we wouldn't have to pluralize that word.

[PavePusher]

54. No, that's not at all what I'm defending and I dare you to cite to such.

But you won't because you can't.

You are the one throwing up non-relevent anecdotes, claiming they are representative of all, refusing to supply statistical data to support the claims you make about such data, and then throwing verbose tantrums when called out on your failures of rational debate, all while claiming to be smarter and more knowledgeable than the rest of us. In fact, that seems to be a bit of an obsession for you, this claiming of mental and moral superiority.

Good luck with all that.

[rrneck]

57. Awww now...

This is a tough room for antis. You should expect a tantrum or five.

[PavePusher]

59. I think this one's already had her quota.

And all in her first week. How very ambitious...

[DWC]

61. In her first week ?????

The user name is new but the screed is coming from the the same old Banned-From-DU, narcissistic, elitist, pseudo-intellectual, Canadian, quasi-lawyer.

Changing her user name is like covering a piece of do-do with a band-aid. You may hide it but it still puts out the same stink.

Yup, Yup

"Ivy" is back

Semper Fi,

[Trunk Monkey]

62. That never even occurred to me NT

[rrneck]

63. Not too sure.

I was aware of her when our itallian friend first appeared. I checked out his blog when he first appeared and as I recall they were linked then.

The "penigma" blog dates to 2008. If it's our Canadian she's even more obsessive than I thought.

[KamaAina]

64. Canadian?

Last edited Wed Oct 17, 2012, 05:16 PM - Edit history (1)

If you actually go to Penigma, you'll quickly see that Dog Gone is from Minnesota.

Oh, sure. You-Know-Who hates you SO MUCH that she went to some blog, made up an identity, and gave a false location just so she could get back on DU and poke you in the eye. Uh-huh.

[DWC]

65. Just savor the aroma. n/t

[rrneck]

66. Actually

"you know who" did exactly that with her own forum for quite some time.

I don't think this is her though.

[PavePusher]

69. Ummm, yeah... that never happens....

Ever.

Amirite?

Note: I'm not saying that's what's happened here, just that it's entirely possible. Or am I misunderstanding the direction of your sarcasm? (If so, oops, my bad...)

[PavePusher]

68. See my thoughts on that here:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1172&pid=79639

We'll see....

[GreenStormCloud]

67. My CC gun doesn't "print".

Unless I drew the gun, you would have no way of knowing that I am armed.

[spin]

44. You state ...

Shoot first laws remove the legal premise that has been at the core of Castle Doctrine and Self-defense laws for centuries - the duty to retreat if possible, the requirement to try to avoid lethal violence.

I disagree.

"Stand your ground" governs U.S. federal case law in which right of self-defense is asserted against a charge of criminal homicide. The Supreme Court of the United States ruled in Beard v. U.S. (158 U.S. 550 (1895)) that a man who was "on his premises" when he came under attack and "...did not provoke the assault, and had at the time reasonable grounds to believe, and in good faith believed, that the deceased intended to take his life, or do him great bodily harm...was not obliged to retreat, nor to consider whether he could safely retreat, but was entitled to stand his ground."[2][3]

Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr. declared in Brown v. United States (256 U.S. 335, 343 (16 May 1921)), a case that upheld the "no duty to retreat" maxim, that "detached reflection cannot be demanded in the presence of an uplifted knife".[4]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stand-your-ground_law

Obviously there is some legal precedent for not requiring a duty to retreat when attacked by an individual who intends to seriously harm or kill and has the capacity to do so in our nation' legal history.

I will agree that proactive law enforcement is largely responsible for the decrease in violent crime in this nation. Improvements in technology including better forensics, the advent of cell phones and cell phone cameras and the use of street cameras are also important factors but there are many other reasons.

Still the spread of Castle Doctrine Laws, "stand your ground" laws and "shall issue" concealed carry has not caused violence to skyrocket as was predicted by the media. In recent years firearm sales have set records but still violent crime has decreased. More guns may not equal less crime but more guns does not mean more crime.

I will also agree that there has been an effort by firearm manufacturers to increase profits by stressing that a firearm is an excellent tool for self defense. They may have exaggerated the danger but it still is true that a firearm in experienced hands is an excellent tool to stop a violent attack and is superior in many cases to less lethal methods such as pepper spray or martial arts in some extremely serious incidents. For example a woman may well be able to avoid a rape if she is armed with a handgun or a homeowner may save his family from home invaders. While not frequent such incidents do occur as our civilization has not advanced to the point where all people are "civilized."

Manufacturers often portray their products in a manner that increase sales. For example it is obvious that there is little reason to manufacture a car that can double the speed limit in most states but if you watch TV commercials you will see numerous examples of a car shown preforming in a manner that would lead to a very expensive fine in most cities or interstate highways. While I personally like a vehicle that does offer performance and handling I try to obey the speed limits.

Your article states:

The conservatives would have us believe we have to give up safety, we have to give up spending on law enforcement and first responders, further to enrich the wealthy. They posit that unemployment is a greater problem than crime, and in doing so they enrich the gun manufacturers and empower the NRA who are the manufacturers puppets. They would rather put money in the pockets of the rich, who have NOT been creating jobs with that additional money, because they incorrectly believe we have to choose between enriching the wealthy, and spending money on public sector jobs.

The underlying premise of that choice is that we can all DO the role of protection just fine without bothering with the courts - so the right also under funds THEM. And we can do it without law enforcement as well, by taking the law into our own hands, not only in our homes, but in public places.
http://penigma.blogspot.com/2012/10/might-makes-wrong.html

While I am not a conservative I feel that it is unfair to accuse all conservatives as wishing to gut law enforcement spending or to not properly fund the courts. I along with most people who strongly support gun rights (RKBA) are strong supporters of efforts to improve law enforcement and strong punishment for those who violate gun laws. The majority of those I know who own firearms are extremely conservative but some like me are liberal Democrats. Those of us who enjoy the shooting sports and even carry a legal firearm on a regular basis wish to see those who misuse weapons caught and punished. We realize that armed criminals and those with serious mental issues who use firearms for mass murder make all responsible firearm owners look bad. I should also point out that many of my friends who own and enjoy shooting are retired cops or currently serve and protect our society.

Your article states:

The notion that violence, including lethal violence, against anyone who is seen as 'other' and therefore threatening must be condoned extends to race as well by the right. In the case of George Zimmerman, every time he saw a young black man, he assumed he was a criminal. It may very well be that Zimmerman did not harbor antagonism towards black women, or black children; but he clearly did so towards black teens who were male, or black men. That set of assumptions about a group of people, the automatic and deeply held belief they are criminals, reflected in Zimmerman's prior 911 calls, and his calls about Trayvon Martin are clearly racist. That racist assumption that Trayvon Martin was a criminal, when he was not, was a fundamental part of the shoot-first decision rather than letting law enforcement deal with Martin. It was the foundation for Zimmerman harassing and stalking Trayvon Martin that led to their confrontation, and the fatal shooting.
The notion that violence, including lethal violence, against anyone who is seen as 'other' and therefore threatening must be condoned extends to race as well by the right. In the case of George Zimmerman, every time he saw a young black man, he assumed he was a criminal. It may very well be that Zimmerman did not harbor antagonism towards black women, or black children; but he clearly did so towards black teens who were male, or black men. That set of assumptions about a group of people, the automatic and deeply held belief they are criminals, reflected in Zimmerman's prior 911 calls, and his calls about Trayvon Martin are clearly racist. That racist assumption that Trayvon Martin was a criminal, when he was not, was a fundamental part of the shoot-first decision rather than letting law enforcement deal with Martin. It was the foundation for Zimmerman harassing and stalking Trayvon Martin that led to their confrontation, and the fatal shooting.
http://penigma.blogspot.com/2012/10/might-makes-wrong.html

I have yet to meet ONE person who legally carries a concealed weapon in Florida who feels that Zimmerman was entirely within his rights to pursue and confront Trayvon Martin. I refuse to speculate on if Zimmerman is a racist who feels that all "black teens or who were male or black men" were dangerous. While I can't know anything on Zimmerman's mindset that fact remains that the news media portrayed his description of Martin in an unfair light.

Zimmerman was accused of being motivated by racism[3][163] and of having racially profiled Martin.[3][123][290][317] During early media coverage of the incident, Zimmerman's call to the police dispatcher was edited by NBC, shortened such that it appeared that Zimmerman had volunteered Martin's race. The unedited audio recording proved that the police dispatcher specifically asked about Martin's race, and only then did Zimmerman reveal that Martin was black. NBC apologized for the misleading edit and disciplined those involved.[318]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shooting_of_Trayvon_Martin#Allegations_against_Zimmerman

I personally feel that Zimmerman should have his day in court as there are many valid questions about his actions. I should also point out Zimmerman is NOT using a "stand your ground" defense. Therefore your linking Zimmerman to either castle doctrine or "stand your ground" is largely irrelevant.

George Zimmerman's attorneys won't use "stand your ground" defense
AP/ August 13, 2012, 7:32 PM

(AP) ORLANDO, Florida - The attorney for the man who shot and killed unarmed Florida teenager Trayvon Martin said Monday he'll seek to get the case dismissed using a traditional self-defense argument and not the state's "stand your ground" statute.

Mark O'Mara, who is defending George Zimmerman against a second-degree murder charge in the fatal February shooting, said the traditional self-defense approach is appropriate because the facts suggest his client couldn't retreat from a beating Martin was giving him.

Zimmerman's attorneys had said last week that they would use Florida's controverial "stand your ground" law, which allows people to use deadly force - rather than retreat - if they believe their lives are in danger.

"The facts don't seem to support a 'stand your ground' defense," O'Mara said.
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-201_162-57492488/george-zimmermans-attorneys-wont-use-stand-your-ground-defense/

Over 800,000 resident Floridians have concealed weapons permits and perhaps 10% carry a handgun on a daily basis. Statistics and commonsense prove that that the Zimmerman shooting is an aberration. The overwhelming percentage of those who legally carry concealed in Florida do NOT consider themselves to be vigilantes or cops. We do not seek confrontation and most are extremely hesitant to engage in any argument that might potentially turn violent. I, like most others who carry, will walk away from any situation that might lead to violence even if it makes us look cowardly.You may disagree but I will point out that if your contentions were even marginally correct we would have had at least several more instances in recent months similar to the Trayvon Martin shooting.

While I may disagree with your post and many of the "facts" that you have posted, I feel that you are sincere in your beliefs and I welcome future discussions. I can only ask that you carefully consider my viewpoint as I will yours.

[Callisto32]

51. In many jurisdictions, demonstrably false in the first paragraph.

In the others, I don't know.