Welcome to Common Gunsense

I hope this blog will provoke some thoughtful reflection about the issue of guns and gun violence. I am passionate about the issue and would love to change some misperceptions and the culture of gun violence in America by sharing with readers words, photos, videos and clips from articles to promote common sense about gun issues. Many of you will agree with me- some will not. I am only one person but one among many who think it's time to do something about this national problem. The views expressed by me in this blog do not represent any group with which I am associated but are rather my own personal opinions and thoughts.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Thursday, August 11, 2011

NRA Board member rants

It's a wonder the NRA retains Ted Nugent on its' Board. He should be an embarrassment. But maybe the NRA agrees with the extremist nonsense and offensive language spewed by this man. It's good to have someone on your Board to stir up the ranks of the members. Do they really think this kind of talk is O.K? Once again Nugent has decided to enlighten readers of  the Washington Times with this editorial piece attacking the United Nations. What is it about the United Nations that the gun guys and conservatives love to hate? I have never been able to understand this feeling of anger towards a world-wide organization devoted to peace keeping. From Nugent's latest rant in the Washington Times:The despots, thugs, scoundrels, punks and various crooks at the United Nations have it all wrong again. Imagine that." Can you imagine using those words to describe representatives to the United Nations from Finland, France, Italy, Germany, Luxembourg, Maldives, or Switzerland? Nugent paints a broad brush when talking about the U.N. member countries. It is certainly possible that some of the rulers of some of the member countries have terrorized and controlled citizens with weapons. How do the weapons get into these countries in the first place? Isn't that what this treaty is all about?


And then there's this: " Let’s cut to the chase. The reason the U.N. may pass such an agreement is because many of the nations that belong to the U.N. either directly or indirectly support terrorism and are viciously opposed to liberty and freedom. At its core, the U.N. is not about promoting freedom and liberating people by killing bad guys. It is about controlling people by limiting their ability to defend themselves against tyranny and slavery imposed by evil and maniacal regimes." These words come mainly from the NRA who fears "gun grabbers" even amongst the U.N. member nations. Really? Read more of what Nugent has to say: " Eliminate evil people, and good people live. Enable evil people to control people, and good people are slaughtered. It’s so simple it’s stupid." I wonder to whom Nugent is referring here. Or do we really want to know? Oh yes, and then there is the personal hygiene of the U.N. members- " Perhaps some of the soulless voodoo punks at the U.N. can’t read. Based on their personal hygiene shortcomings, it wouldn’t surprise me." Right. 


That about sums up the intemperate complaints against the U.N. by an NRA Board member. At the end Nugent invokes Charleton Heston's famous words: " Paraphrasing the words of the late freedom addict and American hero Charlton Heston, a U.N. stooge or anyone else can have my gun when they remove my cold dead fingers from around it. Know it." Freedom addict? What does that mean? And more Nugent "unplugged" from this ESPN article gives us this quote: "Numerous people have asked me, "If you could only own one gun, which would that be?" I say, "Well, first of all, I'd shoot the guy that told me I could only have one. Then, I'd continue to have the hundreds I own.""This comment came in the middle of musings about his family and the military and didn't fit with anything else but Nugent did manage to get in his extremist views again about guns. Common sense tells us to reject the rantings of this man as should the organization he represents.


Here are more of Nugent's rants, some unrelated to guns. He appears to think himself an expert in all areas and runs his mouth off inappropriately about subjects he should leave for others who can talk about them without being offensive. There must be some people who think what he says is O.K. with them. That's sad and actually scary. More recently Nugent turned down an e-mail interview with a writer for Media Matters. His offensive comments are indefensible so I can see why he may not want to repeat the offensive comments already made and, most especially, when the one asking the questions does not share his views. 


As a post script to this blog post, here are the remarks made to the United Nations by NRA Executive Vice President Wayne LaPierre about the Small Arms agreement. In LaPierre's own words: "The cornerstone of our freedom is the Second Amendment. Neither the United Nations, nor any other foreign influence, has the authority to meddle with the freedoms guaranteed by our Bill of Rights, endowed by our Creator, and due to all humankind. Therefore, the NRA will fight with all of its strength to defeat any treaty that includes civilian firearms within its scope." Right. Here is a fact checking article about the U.N. Small Arms Treaty that corrects the misinformation spewed by the gun rights extremists. Given that there is no official treaty at this time and that the U.S. has signed nothing, the fear mongering coming from the NRA just does not make sense. What is this all about really? From the Snopes.com article linked above, it is clear that second amendment rights could not and would not be altered or taken away by any U.N. treaty. The American Constitution supersedes International Treaties. I am betting that Wayne LaPierre and the other folks crying foul about this treaty know this. Is this about the NRA trying to protect the sales of guns rather than protecting the lives of human beings all over the world? The U.S. gun industry provides a lot of guns legally, and in some cases illegally. ( see my post about illegal gun dealers)The proposed treaty would go a ways to stopping that.


And just one more about the U.N. and the NRA- we can follow the money yet again. From the article: "Private security companies (PSCs) have also been fighting this legislation to protect their booming businesses. PSCs reportedly control 1.7 to 3.7 million firearms and employ 19.5 to 25.5 million people globally, according to the 2011 Small Arms Survey. The report contends that increased transparency requirements would drastically improve the United Nations’ ability to hold the private security sector to more stringent international standards." Here's my question. What's more important? Human life or the "booming business" of the private security companies? Perhaps people wouldn't need their services around the world if we didn't have so much trafficking of small arms. " While countries like the UK and other supporters argue there is nothing in the treaty that specifically threatens the Second Amendment to the Constitution or other national gun ownership policies, the NRA has predictably taken up the fight against the ATT." If the NRA doesn't want something, it will be hard to make it happen. Their influence even extends beyond our borders. Common sense tells us that human lives are more important than gun sales.

49 comments:

  1. Setting aside Mr. Nugent's rather intemperate style of speaking (he's a rock star, after all) just what is incorrect about his statements?

    That historically, governments are the greatest murderers of their own citizens is without dispute. Countless millions have been slaughtered by their own governments over the last century, and in nearly every case, the massacre was preceeded by one important fact: the intended victims were disarmed.

    Should it ever arrive, this treaty should be, and will be, rejected by the Senate. Frankly it does little but enable some governments to wrap the veneer of respectablity around their attempts to disarm and, in some tragic cases, murder their own citizens. It has happened before, over and over again.

    Have we learned nothing?

    If nothing else, the experience of Europe's Jews should have taught us all: Never again.

    Never.

    Personally, I'd advise each and every American gun owner to take a paper bullseye of his choosing, place a nice tight group of bulletholes in it his or her favorite caliber, and send same (with a notation of the caliber and range) to the U.N., along with these words written on the bottom: A well regulated milita being necessary to the security of a free State, the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed..

    No threats. No rants. Just a simple statement of fact: we are armed, and we know how to use them. There will be no acceptance of any arms control, treaty or not. There will be no compromise on fundamental principles.

    We will not disarm. Molon labe.

    ReplyDelete
  2. All I can say to the above is- Wow- are you serious?

    ReplyDelete
  3. All I can say to the above is- Wow- are you serious?

    Absolutely.

    And you've declined to answer: setting aside the language, just what is incorrect about Mr. Nugent's statements?

    Do you deny that historically, governments are the greatest murderers of their own citizens? Need you be reminded of the Soviet gulags, the death camps, the killing fields of Pol Pot, the slaugher in Ruwanda, the "ethnic cleansings" in the former Yugoslavia, etc., etc., etc.?

    Why would we enable governments to continue to do just this?

    The right to self-defense, and the maintenance of the tools to do so, is an inalienable fundamental right, not subject to any treaty or, frankly, any Constitution. It exists separate and apart from its Constitutional protection (though Constitutional recognition and prtection of same is certainly a major step forward), and it is non-negotiable. Period.

    We will not disarm. Molon labe.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Dear readers, I wonder why some of you keep asking what I think Nugent said that was wrong. I believe, if you read the post, that I provided the reasons why he was wrong. Enough said. What I wrote is what I think. You can keep harassing and asking but my answer is in the post. For some of you, that is never enough.

    ReplyDelete
  5. "I have never been able to understand this feeling of anger towards a world-wide organization devoted to peace keeping."

    Maybe it's awareness of what the UN peacekeepers [sic] have been actually doing, rather than what they were intended to do.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Srebrenica_massacre

    The UN declared Srebrenica a "safe area", disarmed the Bosnians who took shelter there, then stood aside and watched as the Serbs invaded - and did nothing, as they massacred thousands.

    But it's not just that they forcibly disarm the weak, and then do nothing to protect them once they are defenseless.

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/2032996/Six-year-olds-sexually-abused-by-UN-peacekeepers.html

    You, as always, seem to judge them by their declared intentions. Ted is judging them by their actions and their results.

    ReplyDelete
  6. The article about sexual abuse of children by U.N. workers is awful and should be stopped post haste. Jdege, I'm aware of atrocities around the world. That doesn't mean we shouldn't try to stop illegal trafficking of weapons all around the world. The U.N. does a lot of good all around the world- http://www.un.org/en/peacekeeping/resources/statistics/factsheet.shtml

    Conservatives have never liked the U.N. We have a philosophical difference of opinion. The U.S. military has committed its' own atrocities in Viet Nam and Iraq and who knows where else? There are bad things happening in places in the world where despots rule or in war zones. That still does not negate what the Small Arms Treaty is about.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Ted Nugent was elected as a board member by the members of the NRA. The "NRA" didn't appoint him to the position...

    ReplyDelete
  8. Well, you were not aware of Rwanda, Cambodia, Liberia, Croatia, and Armenia until we told you about those places. We also explained how the disarming of villagers in Darfur has resulted in another Genocide.

    The base fact is simple, if a person is unable to defend themselves adequately, in time, harm will seek them out.

    Please pay attention to London as it burns tonight. What has been the single most troubling aspect of it? All proper means of self defense have been legislated out of existence there, even the will to fight back. Why? because in the 50's and 60's laws were enacted secretly by the home office which directed full weight of law against anyone who attempted to exercise self defense at first of property, and later, of them selves and loved ones. Thats right, in Britain now, its illegal to defend oneself in a meaning way.

    There are anecdotal reports based on people who can do such things, that the most active sales right now in England are such things as stout shovels, American Baseball bats, and other objects which can effectively be wielded in self defense.

    See here... http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v99/smallestminority/UK_Bestsellers-1.jpg

    Here is an article from ABC

    http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/london-riots-police-warn-vigilante-groups/story?id=14272037

    The police are telling people they can not reasonably defend themselves or their homes.

    As to the NUGE, or Mr Nugent if you prefer, He says what is politically incorrect, but factually correct. His comment about shooting the person who said he could only own one gun, was not a threat to a single person, but the response of a free man to the imposition of tyranny. Had the questioner asked, "Mr Nugent, of all your many firearms, what is your favorite?" he would have gotten the answer perhaps he was looking for, or asked "if you were to be marooned in a wilderness, which weapon would be most like to have with you?" he would have gotten an answer to his asking. But Mr Nugent has faced the media before, and has had his words twisted and pulled out of context many times, and he has a way of saying things that leave no equivocation on the meaning of those words.

    As to the UN, They are a pitiful failure in almost every arena they have been employed as peace keepers.

    Please read about General Romeo Dallaire, of Canada, who was in Rwanda about his views on UN peacekeepers.

    Read what Carl Bildt and Brig. Gen. Alain Fourand have to say about the UN in Croatia/Serbia.

    Here's a page from Yale, not exactly a bastion of republican or teaparty extremists, breaking down not only the Killing Fields, but many other locations of Genocide. If you look at the locations, and then at the prevailing internal politics, you will find that in ALL cases, the civilian populace had been disarmed.

    If you do not know your history, you are doomed to repeat it. its a well known phrase. Its also repeated to show its very true.


    as to the last comment about atrocities and comparing US atrocities in Viet Nam and Iraq against those elsewhere in the world. Thats repulsive and intellectually dishonest.

    In every case, guess who broke the story, guess you prosecuted the individuals involved, and who convicted the guilty and sentenced them to long terms in prison? The US Armed Forces themselves. Whenever you have soldiers of a young age in a war zone, events will happen. Stress and frustration and revenge are incredibly powerful urges. However, beyond any doubt, the US Armed Forces have shown for over a century an abhorrence to criminal behaviors by its troops. Its Proven, its factual, and its not innuendo.

    ReplyDelete
  9. Hey, and don't forget Terrible Ted's experience with the Viet Nam era draft.

    Teddy boy is willing to wrap himself in a flag now that he is beyond draft age, but what he did to avoid having someone shoot at him when he was draft age was pretty low. As the Rutland Herald reported, Here's what Nugent said he would have done if he went to Vietnam:

    "… if I would have gone over there, I'd have been killed, or I'd have killed, or I'd kill all the hippies in the foxholes … I would have killed everybody," he told the Detroit Free Press in an interview published July 15, 1990."

    The Herald also noted that Nugent’s efforts to avoid the draft make President Bush look like a war hero.

    (Nugent claims) that 30 days before his Draft Board Physical, he stopped all forms of personal hygiene. The last 10 days he ingested nothing but junk food and Pepsi, and a week before his physical, he stopped using the bathroom altogether, virtually living inside his pants caked with excrement and urine. That spectacle won Nugent a deferment.

    I guess Ted likes to shoot anything that can't shoot back.

    One word comes to mind when mentioning Teddy:

    CHICKENHAWK

    ReplyDelete
  10. Ah- so Nugent's election says more about the members and their own willingness to put up with his rantings than the leadership at the NRA? Interesting.

    ReplyDelete
  11. Peter- first of all, England has an overall homicide rate three times lower than ours and a gun death rate 40 times lower! Second- at least baseball bats will not result in a mass batting as a gun would likely do ( mass shooting, that is). Third- do you think it's a good idea for vigilante groups to go after rioters? Chaos. Adding guns to the mix of civil unrest will not result in peace breaking out. It will likely result in more violence and more deaths. We will not agree on the role of guns for self defense in these cases. It is theory posted by gun rights extremists who are sure that more guns would make all the difference. There is no proof of that. The thought of rioters in London shooting at each other is pretty grim. As we all know, bullets often miss and hit other innocent people. I have written about incidents like that many times. All of those guns for self defense in the U.S. have not made our streets safer. We have the highest rate of gun homicide and overall gun deaths of all civilized countries not at war.

    ReplyDelete
  12. I voted for Uncle Ted in a membership election. I paid for my life membership and get to choose who represents me. Who on your board is elected by your members? That's right, I have over 4 million members on my team, while you struggle to keep 30,000.

    ReplyDelete
  13. "We have the highest rate of gun homicide and overall gun deaths of all civilized countries not at war. "

    Since Mexico is not at war, am I to assume you think them uncivilized?

    ReplyDelete
  14. Japete,

    The recent events in England have inspired me to support a local business. Yesterday on the way home from work I went to a gun shop. I walked in, showed my drivers license, two signatures and literally 5 minutes later walked out with an AR-15 lower receiver.

    Previously, I'd rationalized that "black rifles" are for insecure men, or those wanting to feel cool. A military patterned rifle, that uses standard capacity 30 round magazine wasn't something I *need*.

    I should feel safe with my revolver, deer rifle or shotgun. Right?

    Then I recalled the LA riots of the early 1990s, and how huge mobs moved through the city destroying all in their path. That actually happened in modern US society, so it's possible for them to happen again.

    Your progressive utopian agenda appeals to those with nothing to lose (an unfortunately large portion of the world), or those too absorbed with the bread and circuses to recognize what they stand to lose.

    ReplyDelete
  15. Before the increase in gun deaths due to the drug cartels, Mexico's rate of gun deaths was lower than the U.S. http://www.medicinenet.com/script/main/art.asp?articlekey=6166

    In 2000, this chart shows that the rate of gun homicides per 100,000 in Mexico was higher than the U.S.

    Here is a chart comparing the U.S. to Mexico- gun homicides- The U.S. is still higher http://www.gunpolicy.org/firearms/compare/113/number_of_gun_homicides/194 (2001 numbers)

    Here is the dramatic difference in gun suicides between the U.S. and Mexico http://www.gunpolicy.org/firearms/compare/113/number_of_gun_suicides/194

    Will check on more current figrures

    ReplyDelete
  16. Forget about "gun deaths" for a second (unless that's the only measure of "civility" you know) and think about total violence.
    Rape, murder, assault, robbery, home invasion, stabbings, carjacking and whatever else you might want to throw in there (basically, if you wouldn't want it to happen to you, count it).

    Look at statistics outside of major cities, where ALL kinds of violence are higher.

    Imagine yourself faced with an assailant standing 6'4" who weighs 265lbs and is trained in lethal hand-to-hand combat...This is a person who could, literally, kill you with his bare hands. How would you even the odds?

    Remember, you can tell us anything you like...we're just faceless people on the other side of the internet...but be honest with yourself for a moment. Is it better to be a victim and, potentially, allow your attacker to go on to victimize others? Or would it be better to put a stop to his microcosmic tyranny NOW?

    ReplyDelete
  17. To the "faceless"people on the other side of the internet- Yeah, that sounds like a really scary scenario all right. I've lived quite a few years without something like this happening to me. I'm sure it could yet. I choose not to carry a gun nevertheless knowing that my chances of ever having to use it in public to defend myself are very slim compared to the chance of that gun being used against me or getting stolen or my not wanting to carry a gun around on my person or in my purse because it's inconvenient or heavy, etc. I also choose the places where I walk or go in large cities or at night. The odds of this mythical assailant with all of the descripters you have chosen attacking me with his bare hands are pretty slim. I love how you make it sound as if this "microcosmic tyranny" is going to happen to me immediately or tomorrow. Surely I WILL NEED TO PUT A STOP TO THIS IMMEDIATELY WITH MY GUN OR ELSE.

    ReplyDelete
  18. You have this odd belief that just because you, living in a relatively safe location, has never been exposed directly to violence, that it never happens. Yet you repeated talk with sorrow about your sister.

    A question if you had been there, would you have used a gun to stop him from hurting her?


    If the odds are so small, as you say in your 10:11 PM post, why are you adamant that the even lower odds of a misuse of a weapon by a PTC person are a greater threat. Crime happens far more often than PTC people are involved in responding to it, and even more rare is the misuse of that firearm or accidental use of that firearm by those people. So the odds of getting assaulted by a criminal are far greater than any of us Pro gun folks ever hurting you or yours with a gun.

    ReplyDelete
  19. No Peter, actually, your beliefs are odd. In poll after poll after poll over many years, the public agrees with my point of view. Even gun owners agree with my views when asked in polls. See Frank Luntz.

    ReplyDelete
  20. The entire UK murder rate is under the US knife murder rate alone. That's right, one type of weapon in the US comprises of a greater murder rate than every murder committed in the UK. Moreover, and this is the important part, there has not been a single statistically reliable and valid study that shows a medium correlation between gun control and less crime. The vast, vast majority don't even come up with a mild correlation(I can only ever remember coming across one).

    The only way to reduce gun homicides(not even total homicides) would be to properly seal the borders and inspect a much, much greater percentage of shipping than we currently do. having accomplished this impossibility, you would then have to utterly violate the 2nd, 4th, 5th 6th, 9th, and 10th amendments and confiscate every single civilian weapon(another impossibility, and one which WOULD spark civil war).

    After you magically managed to do that the gun homicide rate would drop precipitously.

    ReplyDelete
  21. "Third- do you think it's a good idea for vigilante groups to go after rioters? Chaos. Adding guns to the mix of civil unrest will not result in peace breaking out." Why do you equate 'vigilantes' with normal people who don't want to get beaten up or killed, or will not allow that to happen to their family?

    ReplyDelete
  22. "The odds of this mythical assailant with all of the descripters you have chosen attacking me with his bare hands are pretty slim."

    So, because you don't anticipate ever having a gun, then it's ok to make it inconvenient for everybody else to own them as well?

    I don't have much use for archery, should I advocate background checks on all private sales of bows? A ban on crossbows because they sort of look like guns?

    Or, I like to write with fountain pens, should I try to ban all ballpoint pens, citing the space they take in landfills?

    The attitude that rubs us gun guys the wrong way is that because you personally don't like guns, you are working to make it harder for EVERYONE to have guns. You say that you are trying to prevent gun deaths, we argue that we carry guns to prevent our own deaths. You don't like the idea of someone carrying a gun in a public place, like their kid's school or Applebee's, does that mean my life is worthless if I want to attend a University or take my family out to eat?

    Well, if anything bad happens, you can just call the police, right? When Suleman Talovic began shooting people at Trolley Square, it took a couple of minutes for someone to call the police. After they got word of it, the police were there in 3 minutes. That is an incredible response time. Credit goes to SLPD for getting there so quickly.

    But 5 to 6 minutes had passed from the time the attack started to when the police showed up. In that short time 6 people were killed, 4 more were shot. And the police weren't the ones that stopped the attack, a man who was already there stopped it. Ken Hammond was having dinner with his wife, at a restaurant that serves alcohol, by the way, and he drew his own gun and confronted Talovic. Talovic stopped shooting people and retreated into a store. Then the police arrived.

    Yes Ken Hammond was an off-duty police officer, but in this capacity he was only a citizen with training.

    I tell this story not to say that all concealed carriers are just waiting to swoop in and save the day, but just to show that it is possible to use a gun to stop an attack, and that it's possible to do so even before the police arrive.

    But you probably won't approve this comment because it doesn't portray gun owners as lunatics screaming about the U.N. or insulting you personally, which seems to be the pattern you've got going on your blog. Portray your view as the only reasonable one, then only allow the comments that are unreasonable or extreme, thereby enforcing your narrative of the lone reasonable person valiantly battling the crazy, scary gun owners.

    ReplyDelete
  23. Because that is what they were.

    ReplyDelete
  24. The guy from Lebanon, Oregon just never learns that his rude, sexually explicit and offensive comments won't stop me from writing my posts. I really wonder about people like him. What is his life like when he is trolling my blog late at night trying to intimidate me? Yuck is all I have to say.

    ReplyDelete
  25. Joan, self-defense is not vigilantism. Period.

    ReplyDelete
  26. See title of the article linked to above sent by Peter- " 'Vigilante' Groups Turn on London Rioters"

    ReplyDelete
  27. Read the contents of the article:

    "Tuesday night, hundreds of Sikhs gathered outside a Sikh temple, some standing defiant with swords raised or their arms crossed over their chest.

    Sikh Satjinder Singh told the BBC the group gathered because they had been tipped off looters may come to attack the neighborhood.

    "The feeling was that [the police] were spread so thin that there needs to be a community presence," Singh said. "It is not vigilantism, but it is effectively just protection of property."

    Then look up "vigilante" in the dictionary. Singh is right - protection of self, others, or property is not vigilantism.

    ReplyDelete
  28. Listen, jdege. You can stop sending these articles. I didn't write the headlines on that article that I didn't post. One of you guys sent it to me. This article proves nothing. What's your point?

    ReplyDelete
  29. It proves that there may be some vigilante groups in London right now, but the majority of people who are standing up to the rioters are just regular people protecting their businesses and families.

    It also proves that you started making assumptions and basing arguments on just the headline alone, without reading the contents.

    ReplyDelete
  30. To be specific, this one posted by Peter,
    http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/london-riots-police-warn-vigilante-groups/story?id=14272037

    ReplyDelete
  31. I read it. Did you? I have the same opinion I had when I first posted my comment. What do you call these groups of people?

    ReplyDelete
  32. Definition of vigilante- " : a member of a volunteer committee organized to suppress and punish crime summarily (as when the processes of law are viewed as inadequate); broadly : a self-appointed doer of justice" from Merriam Webster on-line.

    This could be instructive- http://bjc.oxfordjournals.org/content/36/2/220.abstract

    And this one- http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-14473781


    And this one- http://articles.cnn.com/2011-08-11/world/uk.riots.vigilantes.looting_1_rioters-looters-london-streets?_s=PM:WORLD

    Don't you find it interesting that the folks in London don't need guns to protect themselves. Bats, pots and pans, golf clubs and the like seem to be doing the job nicely. And even better, people are not being shot to death by the "vigilante" groups, as they are described in most articles I have read. That would have made matters so much worse.

    ReplyDelete
  33. Who, the shop owners? Or the anti immigration idiots? I think the idiots are a small segment of the population, like they are here in America, and that if they start doing vigilante crap then they should go to prison. I also wouldn't feel too bad for the vigilantes if they got whapped a few times by their intended victims.

    As for the other groups like the shop owners or the Sikhs, standing ready to prevent a mob from destroying your livelihood or attacking your community is not vigilantism. They were standing ready to repel a threat, not going out to nip it in the bud, so to speak. That's preparation, not vigilantism.

    Do you distinguish between the two groups?

    ReplyDelete
  34. So, since we agree that vigilantism is bad, how do you feel about the Sikhs and other shop owners standing ready to fend off the mob?

    ReplyDelete
  35. Good grief, Dave. I am done with this thread. I believe I have stated my positions about this enough. You can stop badgering me now and go have a nice Sunday evening. It's a beautiful evening where I live. I don't need to keep fighting with you.

    ReplyDelete
  36. "This article proves nothing. What's your point?"

    It proves that when the police or the main-stream press throw around the term "vigilante", what they are objecting to is anything but.

    ReplyDelete
  37. Sorry Joan, when I posted, I hadn't seen your links. I have to say that I'm not impressed by a british professor who wants to redefine the term vigilante. Dictionary.com lists multiple definitions of vigilanteism, one is a group of citizens taking the protection of their community upon themselves, but others include "done violently and summarily, without recourse to lawful procedures: vigilante justice." and "any person who takes the law into his or her own hands, as by avenging a crime."

    The paper that was published in the oxford journal wants to expand the definition of vigilante. "This approach is distinct from attempts to define vigilantism as mere ‘establishment violence’ and neither assumes vigilante engagement to be extra-legal nor to involve the necessary imposition of punishment on victims."

    So he says that vigilante should cover actions that are legal, and that aren't meant to punish criminals. Legal self defense, such as shooting someone who is threatening your life, or using force to discourage a violent mob from destroying your business or harming your community, would likely fall into Johnston's attempt to redefine vigilantism.

    I of course don't have access to the full text, and I don't really want to subscribe to the journal just to read one paper. On the website for the journal, there is a listing of articles that have cited Johnston's. I don't know if it is a comprehensive list, but if it is, then I'm even less impressed. In 15 years since the essay was written, it has been cited 8 times. That's once every other year. There are articles and essays in the communication field that have been cited hundreds of times.

    So I wouldn't say that this article is considered an authoritative definition of vigilantism. But apparently you believe it, so I guess it makes sense for you to call concealed carriers vigilantes. After all, we are threatening violence against criminals, we've prepared beforehand, and enough people do it, that you could call it a social movement. Plus we are prepared to act within the legal system, and we aren't out to punish anybody either, which falls under Johnston's expanded definition of vigilantism. This actually explains a lot about the way you think and view concealed carriers or the group of Sikhs in Britain that stand ready to fight off a mindless mob.


    But it still doesn't mean that your views are consistent with reality, or with the views of most people in America.

    ReplyDelete
  38. Dear anon who commented at 1:39- I won't be publishing your remarks because they are accusatory and belittling to me and the organizations to which I belong. You can actually address me directly rather than using the third person- she and her, as if I am not the one who wrote the post.

    ReplyDelete
  39. Dave- Please find somewhere where I have called permit carriers vigilantes. You won't. I don't have access to that entire article either. I was using it as an example of definitions of vigilante groups. There is no point in furthering this thread. It is going nowhere.

    ReplyDelete
  40. Based on some of your previous articles and comments, I was under the impression that you weren't comfortable with regular people being able to carry guns in public. Then you posted the link to the journal article saying, "This could be instructive."

    I just assumed that it was an article that you knew about or had a copy of. I apologize for my mistake. The article's definition of vigilante is so broad that he probably would lump legitimate self defense in with the actions of the EDL.

    You used the article to prove your point, so I just thought that you were aware of it's contents.

    My mistake I guess.

    ReplyDelete
  41. Strike my last comment.

    It's true you weren't calling concealed carriers vigilantes, but you did lump the Sikhs in with EDL as vigilantes going after the london rioters. Then to further your point you linked to an article that wants to expand the definition of vigilantism to people who work within the law, and who aren't trying to punish criminals. I made a bit of a leap to say that concealed carriers would also fit that definition. But no, you never in this thread said that concealed carriers are vigilantes.

    ReplyDelete
  42. Dear anon who commented at 1:39-I won't be publishing your remarks because they are accusatory and belittling to me and the organizations to which I belong.

    Oh dear.

    They're also accurate, of course. Which is really why you won't post them.

    ReplyDelete
  43. "The odds of this mythical assailant with all of the descripters you have chosen attacking me with his bare hands are pretty slim. I love how you make it sound as if this "microcosmic tyranny" is going to happen to me immediately or tomorrow. "

    I have absolutely no problem with you going unarmed. I'm glad you avoid places that you believe to be unsafe. I give my wife, kids, and students the exact same advice. I try to never go places that I think are dangerous. The problem is that *you* don't get to decide when violence happens. The bad guy does and he picks the location. You could do everything right, every day, and still walk into the drug store at the wrong moment.

    My wife did before I met her. The outcome was ok. They were leaving as she came in. It was in a student housing area of a campus.. (no gun zone? right...)

    I worked at a grocery store when I was in high school.

    Got robbed at gun point while I was watching the cash register. It wasn't a bad neighborhood, it was just a mom and pop size store. I was 17 years old.

    DId I make a BAD decision to take a part time job bagging groceries?

    This is as personal to me too. I personally know that bad things can happen to people doing nothing wrong and are not in the wrong place.


    There is an inherent conflict with you mentioning the FACT that the US has an exceeding high violent crime, specifically gun crime rate, and your BELIEF that it won't happen to you personally.

    The 2009 violent crime rate in the US was 429.4 per 100,000 people

    So for any given year you have about a .5% chance of having a violent crime committed against you.

    Spin a wheel with 200 slots. If it comes up "1" you lose. Perhaps you lose everything..

    I would never prevent you from taking that chance. It's your life, you know the odds and accept them.

    It's your choice.

    That's not the problem, It's that you would prefer that *I* not be allowed to go armed because you fear me mishandling a firearm more than you fear violence from an evil person.

    When MY wheel comes up "1" me having a gun may make no difference AT ALL. None. Sometimes, you can't win. Just like you, I hope that it never comes up "1" again. OTOH, if having a robber point a gun at you counts then it has come up "1" for me once... So I KNOW it can happen.

    The CHOICE is the difference and it is non negotiable to me.

    ReplyDelete
  44. I'm glad that nothing really terrible happened to either you or your wife in the incidents you mentioned. And you didn't even need your guns!

    ReplyDelete
  45. Yeah, and most police officers never have to shoot anybody, so I guess they don't guns either.

    ReplyDelete
  46. Woops, that should say, they don't need guns, either.

    ReplyDelete