Skip to main content

View Diary: Home Defense Without a Gun, helping those scared their castle may be breached. (124 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  what's your point? The 12-year-old girl is (9+ / 0-)

    going to call her dad, ask where the key to the gun closet is, load the thing up with ammo and blow the guy away?

    Or should she just have been packing to begin with, just in case a guy with a history of kidnapping underage girls happens to drop by?

    This comment makes zero sense.

    Yes, crime sucks.  Arming this kid isn't the answer to it.

    •  The point is, that what works for you... (17+ / 0-)

      ...doesn't work all the time for everyone else.  Like the woman in a major city (heavily patrolled by officers) who dialed 9-1-1 and waited for police for 11 minutes.  The 9-1-1 operator recorded this woman being murdered while she waited 11 minutes for the cops.  

      So really, yeah things like security systems do help.  Nasty plants by windows do help.  Dogs do help.  But despite those things, if someone wants to get in your house, they will.  And if they do, do you want to wait 10 minutes for the cops?  Do you want to tell someone else that their only option is to sit on the phone and die?    

      The point really is, where do you get off insisting that whatever works for you is the universal panacea for the problem, and nobody else should be permitted to do anything different?    

      If my parents who live in rural far northern Wisconsin called 9-1-1 now, I'd be willing to bet you $1000 that a cop would not get there for a minimum of ten minutes.  Probably more like 15.  Unless one of the five deputies that patrol a county 3/4th the size of the state of Delaware just so happened to be nearby.  

      So why do you get to tell anyone else "This works for me in my situation, therefore, you can't do anything different."  

      This is why people don't trust gun control advocates.  A vast majority of gun owners in this country have some common ground with you.  They're interested in ways to keep guns out of the hands of criminals.  But instead of seizing on that, gun control people start the invective and the ridicule.  They say stupid things like "this works just fine for me in my dense urban area.  Why shouldn't it work for the guy in rural Wisconsin who lives 30 minutes from the local cop shop and whose neighbor almost got shot after he accidentally stumbled upon some meth cooks on his own property?"  Many gun owners would even agree that "assault weapons" are a patently absurd thing, and nobody really has any real use for them.  But they don't trust you:  they worry that if they give you an inch, you'll take a foot.  And if it continues, 2014 is going to be a bloody midterm for the Democrats, especially in rural and suburban districts.  

      •  are you aware of how often kids are shot by (6+ / 0-)

        accident because guns are completely unsecured in the house?

        Too much.

        Or our astronomical suicide rate because guns are so easy to come across?

        Too high.

        Good for this 12-year old for poise and presence of mind--and maybe she lives in a really remote area in which help wasn't available if she were to get out of the house (I live in a neighborhood so I would be much safer leaving the house than hiding in a closet)

        I didn't say to outlaw all guns.  Just that your example doesn't strengthen any argument.

        •  Great, you don't need a gun. (12+ / 0-)

          Good for you.  So why the invective:

          I think we can do a favor for our friends who are scared that their home, or castle because a man's home is his castle, is under attack.  I am not talking about the jackbooted thugs in their stylish black helicopters.  I want to focus on the barbaric hoards of criminals out their.[sic]
          ^^^^ That is why people do not trust people who talk about gun control.   You're lumping people I know into that crowd.  people who, much to your surprise, might agree with you on a ton of gun related issues, like background checks, keeping them out of the hands of people who are not functioning at a capacity to use them, and even the assault weapons issue.  

          Not everyone who owns a gun thinks the way your invective seems to portray them as thinking.  That may come as a shock to you.  What also may shock you is that many millions of people in this country live in places where the police are not 2 minutes away.

          Why are you trying to paint everyone that owns a gun as a conspiratorial nutjob afraid of black helicopters?  Why do you paint everyone with the same brush as believing the castle doctrine?  (FWIW, I don't agree with it and have said so in comments months ago after the Trayvon Martin murder, and even pointed out how the Castle Doctrine of English common law has been grossly twisted.)

           

          •  that's not my invective. I didn't say that. (5+ / 0-)

            The diarist was sarcastically invoking Wayne LaPierre's obscene line that was denounced by George Bush and precipitated his renunciation of his NRA membership.

            So you have the gun lobby to think for that invective--not the gun control advocates or the diarist.

            Also your response doesn't respond to me at all--I never say anything you claim I said.  You seem to have either misread or responded to the wrong comment.

            •  So you excuse "sarcasm" as appropriate response (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              PavePusher, ER Doc

              to the "gun lobby" when the point of the diary is to ratify the the validity of home/castle threats ... by recommending "non-lethal" defense measures as viable alternative to gun ownership/use.

              Home/castle security is easy, so can we brainstorm to help those who need our help?
              You are being intellectually lazy and dishonest here -- and in more ways than I've bothered to point out.
              •  this comment is convoluted and makes no sense.nt (0+ / 0-)
                •  Quite right ... I'm sure it doesn't make (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  ER Doc

                  much sense to you since it was pointing out logical and factual fallacies you asserted.  

                  •  no, your confusion arises from the fact that (0+ / 0-)

                    you walked into someone else's exchange a bit too late to understand exactly what was going on.  The commenter thought I wrote the diary.  I informed him that I didn't.  I said that the use of the 'jackbooted thugs' line was an ironic twist of Wayne LaPierre's completely foolish and ill-conceived use of the term.

                    If the person I responded to can understand this, I'm assuming that you can as well.

                    •  No ... I followed that point as well and it (1+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:
                      ER Doc

                      is quite distinct from the one I addressed.

                      You rationalized the diarist's inappropriate and insulting sarcasm as an appropriate response to "the gun lobby" ... a broad brush characterization in several respects, lacking any sensible nuance and reflecting a stereotypic construct that is all too tiresome in these control vs. rights debates.  

                      Moreover, the diarist's insult implicitly ridiculed the rationale for household gun ownership because it was "fear-based" and yet he went on to provide "non-lethal" alternatives to address the supposed "fear-rationale" -- thereby validating the premise that he initially rejected.

                      And yet you gave a pass on this hodge-podge of insult, straw-men and evident error of fact and logic ... and now don't really seem much inclined to understand these reasonably obvious issues I raise or prefer to ignore them.

                      •  in many cases, it IS fear based. (0+ / 0-)

                        so I agree with the diarist on that point.  

                        Our gun culture--at least these days--is very much strengthened by often unfounded fears.  You don't see this sort of rush to self-protection by firearm in other countries comparable to ours.  

                        If the diarist wants to be a bit condescending, so be it.  It's a bit sarcastic, but not terribly inflammatory compared to other ones I've seen.

      •  also what's this 'gun control people' nonsense? (4+ / 0-)

        I'm not one of them, dude.  Yes, i advocate strict regulation (because it's constitutional and there are tons of dangerous people out there), but  I"m hardly a 'take away all the guns' type.

      •  First, take a breath, second, take anything (7+ / 0-)

        you might have forgotten this morning.

        I didn't say that people had to do it my way.  What I did say is there are many ways to protect oneself without having a gun.    Your Ma & Pa live in rural WI, good for them. Maybe they should think of moving if it is a war zone there in the North Woods. Maybe they should get a couple dogs

        The thing is, GUN ADVOCATES are the ones forcing the rest of us to live and die because you have a fetish about things that go bang.  Gun safety advocates are not talking about taking ALL guns away.  They ARE talking about reasonable measures to reduce gun violence.  One of the best ways is to reduce the number of guns, especially specific types, and make sure they are in the hands of responsible people who do own them.

        I also have the Google, and I can do a search and come up with a gazillion stories about the kid who got daddy's unsecured gun and killed themselves or someone else.  I too can find a gazillion stories about the person who shot their spouse coming home real late and mistaken for an intruder,.  I too can find a gazillion stories about bullets going through apartment walls and hurting or killing someone because the dumb ass who legally had a gun was drunk, discharged it while he was cleaning it, or missed his target for whatever reason.  

        So when the NRA and the manufactures who support them get real, and want to talk about reasonable ways of reducing senseless deaths and injuries due to guns, we will be here to have a reasonable dialog.

        When you say it is "common sense" what you are really saying is "I don't have any evidence to back up my argument", because it is quite often neither common nor sense.

        by kaminpdx on Thu Jan 17, 2013 at 12:01:31 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  Quite good. (10+ / 0-)

          I especially like the "take anything you forgot to take this morning" bit.  Quite a reasonable conversation you're setting us up for.  Much the same way as the first paragraph of the diary.  

          Ma and Pa live in Northern Wisconsin.  Not much happens up there.  But if it does (and I'm not saying it will, but it could), the police are 20 minutes away.  ADT ain't going to help them.  Their two labrador retrievers ain't gonna help them.  Rose bushes ain't gonna help them.  My dad is a 67 year old former Marine officer with gold wings and multiple combat tours.  He's survived 67 years with some of them in the most decrepit and insane shitholes you can imagine, all without your help, and that's exactly the way he likes it.  I've been working for years to get him to vote Democrat, because despite his bluster, he really is pretty liberal.  He likes the Universal healthcare system I and my brother were born under when they lived overseas.  He thinks everyone should have that.  He thinks college ought to be free, just like it was for him when he got his master's at University of Michigan (thanks to NROTC).  He's an atheist and thinks repubs spend too much time shoving religion down people's throats.  And he thinks a woman's uterus and what she does with it - as well as what two consenting adults do in their own bedroom - is none of his business.  But he's not going to vote for Democrats either if they also start trying to tell him how to live.  My guess is, he won't vote at all...

          But again, I love the suggestion that "they should think of moving."  Maybe they can move where you live and act just like you, and then everything will be peachy, won't it?  

          Anyway, I Just wanted you to know a bit about the people whose lives - and votes - you so casually dismiss as you paint them as "gun fetishists" and "people who forgot to take something this morning."    

          Find all the anecdotes you want.  For every one you find, I can find another.  For every city I can find with lots of gun ownership and lots of gun deaths, I can find another with lots of gun ownership and relatively few gun deaths.  For every city I can find that has strict gun control and low rates of gun death, I can find another that has strict gun control and has some of the most atrocious gun violence rates in the world.  We can go all day in that manner and still not solve any problems.  

          Now, the NRA is a despicable outfit.  I can't stand them.  I never could.  But really, after such statements deriding gun owners as nuts who need to be medicated, and having the temerity to suggest that people just move away from their homes so they can live in your image, how can you expect anyone to trust your word for anything when you say "oh, we're not taking all guns away?"  

           

          •  In the event I get banned for another post (0+ / 0-)

            you are correct.  I did cross the line in my reply to you. For that I apologize.

            When you say it is "common sense" what you are really saying is "I don't have any evidence to back up my argument", because it is quite often neither common nor sense.

            by kaminpdx on Thu Jan 17, 2013 at 09:26:48 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

    •  Are you really serious? (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      PavePusher, ER Doc
      Arming this kid isn't the answer to it.
      Except for the unassailable fact that it was -- in this exact case and outcome.

      Talk about zero sense.

      •  laughably weak response. (0+ / 0-)

        gun legislation doesn't rely on the isolated anecdotal story of a single 12-year-old kid who happened to be in the right place at the right time.

        •  Laughably weak? (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          ER Doc

          ... with respect to your bob and weave, I agree.

          Dismissal of this factual case as mere isolated anecdotal story is simply an empty gesture of the intellectually lazy and uninformed.  You should study up on FBI crime data involving defensive use of firearms ... and get back to us.

          •  i just wrote an essay in response and deleted (0+ / 0-)

            it...

            I will sum it up instead.

            By fixating on the very small number of cases such as these (which are significantly outweighed by those cases in which accidental death or some other tragedy was the result of an easily accessible firearm), you use a very small set of data points to contribute to a culture of largely mythologized terror that contributes to an obsession with firearm based self protection that simply does not exist in other countries.  The result of that is both a homicide, suicide and accidental death rate that is orders of magnitude higher than it should be.

            Yes, this girl was lucky. I don't fault her for that.  But the circumstances that allowed for her to have easy access to a gun are similar to circumstances that are far more tragically lethal in far more cases.

            So was the situation to her benefit?  Obviously.  But is basing the discourse on rare anecdotes such as these beneficial to the well being of American society in which we are relatively free from fear and don't automatically consider the gun when faced with some perceived threat?  I would say obviously not.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site