# Conservatives/liberals and firearms self-defense test



## sgtmac_46 (Feb 13, 2006)

This has been floating around for a while, and some of you may have seen it, but I thought it was a cute test (and accurate too....at least as far as the anti-gun nut liberals are concerned).    



> Question - How do you tell the difference between liberals, conservatives,
> and southerners?
> Answer - Pose the following question:
> You&#8217;re walking down a deserted street with your wife and two small children.
> ...


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Feb 13, 2006)

There is, of course, one or two more possible answer



> Texas answer:
> BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG!
> <click> ... (sounds of reloading).
> Wife: ''Hun, he looks like he's still moving, whadda you kids think?''
> ...




The above is, of course, tongue in cheek.  I think even most 'liberals' of the anti-gun persuasion, if confronted with the above scenario, would pick one of the other options, when confronted by the immediacy of reality....or so I would hope, though to listen to many, the described is exactly what they would do.  

At any rate, any possible answers that I missed?


----------



## Mr.Rooster (Mar 5, 2006)

Sgt. Mac:

I think your right on target with alot of what you said.   The what if's will drive ya nuts but in the moment I would think if you don't shoot the perp, someone the armed man was with would either be dead or seriously wounded in my imagination.  
In my humbel opinion as well as in the USA, I think if a person is clean with the law [no felonies or violent crimes] and clean mentally [no negative mental issues needing medication to correct] then American citizens ought to be able to carry concealed nationwide.


----------



## bushidomartialarts (Mar 16, 2006)

i'm pro gun rights, though i don't own one myself.  we seem to have a pretty good group of rational, intelligent gun owners in this forum.

what's your response to the overwhelming stats that seem to say carrying a gun for SD is more likely to get you or some innocent killed than the bad guy?  those are my prime reasons for not carrying myownself.  a pistol seems like a poor defensive weapon -- kept responsibly, it would be very difficult to get to, load, and use in the moment of an attack.  

regardless, the 2nd amendment is a promise made to us by our government and even if i were anti-gun, the government has broken too many promises already.  i'm just curious what folks in the know have to say about the numbers.


----------



## KenpoTex (Mar 16, 2006)

bushidomartialarts said:
			
		

> i'm pro gun rights, though i don't own one myself. we seem to have a pretty good group of rational, intelligent gun owners in this forum.
> 
> what's your response to the overwhelming stats that seem to say carrying a gun for SD is more likely to get you or some innocent killed than the bad guy? those are my prime reasons for not carrying myownself. a pistol seems like a poor defensive weapon -- kept responsibly, it would be very difficult to get to, load, and use in the moment of an attack.
> 
> regardless, the 2nd amendment is a promise made to us by our government and even if i were anti-gun, the government has broken too many promises already. i'm just curious what folks in the know have to say about the numbers.


"overwhelming stats?"  Can you provide any of these stats?  These so-called "stats" are nothing more than propoganda from idiot anti-gun groups like the brady bunch and the "million moronic moms."  There are a number of studies, both private and governmental, that prove that guns are used far more often to prevent crimes than to commit them.  You can "google" John Lott and Gary Kleck (both well know researchers) to find links to the appropriate studies, for that matter, we've discussed this in the past on this forum so run a search and see what you find.

I'm sure there have been incidents in which a gun was taken and used against it's owner but I honestly can't recall hearing of any.  With the exception of a LEO involved in a "gun grab" situation, the "gun used against the owner situation" is not as common as the anti's would have us believe.


----------



## Phil Elmore (Mar 16, 2006)

It would not be going out on a limb at all to say that, to date, there has been no study purporting to show that "gun control" (firearms prohibition) makes people safer or that access to firearms makes people less safe _that has not been thoroughly debunked as stemming from shoddy research, poorly applied or misinterpreted statistics, or outright lies_.  By contrast, the work of men like Kleck and Lott (whose studies on "gun control" have proven conclusively that access to firearms on the part of law-abiding citizens produces societal benefit, not harm) has yet to be substantively refuted (though a few propaganda campaigns have attempted it by attacking the source of the funding for one or both studies, ignoring completely the statistical research and methodology performed).

There are real-world results anyone can understand, too.  Texas and Florida are two states that enacted "Shall Issue" firearms carry laws in recent memory. The "blood in the streets" predicted by the hoplophobes never occurred; instead, _violent crime went down_.  Even if you don't believe there is causation here, the fact is that violent crime did not increase as the hysterical gun-banners claimed it would.

Really, there's no excuse to fear tools, even tools like firearms.  You cannot call yourself a "martial" artist at all while fearing and hoping to ban the most effective means of personal protection.

*Guns, "Gun Control," and "Martial" Artists*

*Going Armed: Understanding Utility and Hoplophobia*


----------



## Cryozombie (Mar 16, 2006)

bushidomartialarts said:
			
		

> what's your response to the overwhelming stats that seem to say carrying a gun for SD is more likely to get you or some innocent killed than the bad guy? those are my prime reasons for not carrying myownself. a pistol seems like a poor defensive weapon -- kept responsibly, it would be very difficult to get to, load, and use in the moment of an attack.


 
Even if we wanted to assume this fallacy was true... I think it then could be associated with less than educated firearm owners (and by that I mean untrained with their weapon) not utilizing them properly.  Id question how often that problem would occur with a properly prepaired and trained firearm owner getting into that situation.

I would also call into question some of the "saftey" laws that would say a gun has to have a trigger lock, or be unloaded, etc etc.  I dont think that a loaded gun in a pushbutton combo-lockbox next to the bed that a kid cant open is less safe than an unloaded one with a trigger lock, and loose ammo in a nightstand drawer.  

But what do I know, Im no professional or researcher, just an adult who was a kid who grew up in a household full of unlocked and loaded firearms who never had an accident with them, because I was educated on their use and associated dangers.


----------



## Sapper6 (Mar 16, 2006)

Technopunk said:
			
		

> But what do I know, Im no professional or researcher, just an adult who was a kid who grew up in a household full of unlocked and loaded firearms who never had an accident with them, because I was educated on their use and associated dangers.


 
you're right man.  gun locks, safes, and all the other "etc" rules are in place to protect GUN OWNERS who are too ignorant to teach those small beings around them about these "things" called guns.  

my damn 2 year old niece knows that "guns can hurt you and never touch them".  why can't others...?


----------



## Cryozombie (Mar 16, 2006)

Sapper6 said:
			
		

> you're right man.  gun locks, safes, and all the other "etc" rules are in place to protect GUN OWNERS who are too ignorant to teach those small beings around them about these "things" called guns.
> 
> my damn 2 year old niece knows that "guns can hurt you and never touch them".  why can't others...?



Fear, mostly.  Gun owners who do things like hide the gun in the back of the closet and never talk about it, until little Johnny finds it and plays with it.


----------



## bushidomartialarts (Mar 17, 2006)

wow.  i appear to have stepped on a few toes.  sorry about that.  

the stats i'm referring to are the numbers in the fbi unified crime statistics (raw) and sited in works ranging from idiot liberal jackasses up through professional gun users like tom patire and gavin debecker.  the numbers seem (repeat _*seem*_) to show that gun owners are hurt by their own guns more often than they hurt bad guys by a margin of 3:1 up to 7:1.  (i'm ignoring the obviously reactionary liberal 20:1 number here).  

i mean, seriously guys.  i'm not trying to pick a fight here.  i'm looking for information from people who know more than i do.  the numbers are fairly consistent from source to source. 

are the numbers wrong?  skewed by bad reporting methods?  deliberately falsified?  one or two poorly conceived studies blown out of proportion?  (kenpotex, you mention lott and kleck as folks with work that had contrary results).  if this is the case, then the solution is better publicity on the side of responsible gun users.

is this a matter of too many idiots buying a gun but not getting trained?  that would create a situation where the numbers are real but the conclusions most folk draw would be wrong in that case.  if this is the situation, then maybe slightly more restrictive gun regulation would help out.  get the idjits out of the way so responsible, trained gun users won't be bothered.

what's known on this score?  what do you think is responsible for those numbers being commonly accepted (i'm open to them being untrue, but they seem to be what people believe).  what can and should people do about it?

sorry to have tread so heavily on what's apparently a sore subject.  just tryin' to get myself some education.


----------



## bushidomartialarts (Mar 17, 2006)

hey, tp.  thanks for the reasoned and informative response.



			
				Technopunk said:
			
		

> Even if we wanted to assume this fallacy was true... I think it then could be associated with less than educated firearm owners (and by that I mean untrained with their weapon) not utilizing them properly.  Id question how often that problem would occur with a properly prepaired and trained firearm owner getting into that situation.


 
i've always been told that a firearm should be kept in a locked safe, preferably away from the ammo.  that seems to me a situation that would make it hard to get the thing into the action in an emergency.  are there other schools of thought here?  (please forgive my absolute ignorance and thanks helping to cure it)



			
				Technopunk said:
			
		

> I would also call into question some of the "saftey" laws that would say a gun has to have a trigger lock, or be unloaded, etc etc.  I dont think that a loaded gun in a pushbutton combo-lockbox next to the bed that a kid cant open is less safe than an unloaded one with a trigger lock, and loose ammo in a nightstand drawer.



i agree wholeheartedly with you here.  even if i didn't respect guns as a tool, i'd be uncomfortable with the direction gun control seems to be headed.  



			
				Technopunk said:
			
		

> But what do I know, Im no professional or researcher, just an adult who was a kid who grew up in a household full of unlocked and loaded firearms who never had an accident with them, because I was educated on their use and associated dangers.



what do you think your parents did differently from the parents whose kids grew up (or halfway up) to have an accident with unlocked firearms?  was it something specific, or did you simply absorb an attitude?

thanks again for your great reply.


----------



## Phil Elmore (Mar 17, 2006)

> the stats i'm referring to are the numbers in the fbi unified crime statistics (raw)


 
Those statistics do not in any way show that "a gun in the home is more likely to kill a family member."  That mythology is based on a very flawed study that has been invoked by various gun control groups so often that it is taken as fact.


----------



## bushidomartialarts (Mar 17, 2006)

Phil Elmore said:
			
		

> Those statistics do not in any way show that "a gun in the home is more likely to kill a family member."  That mythology is based on a very flawed study that has been invoked by various gun control groups so often that it is taken as fact.



you seem to know what you're talking about.  what's the skinny on that study?  how was it flawed?  what's the counterinterpretation of the results?


----------



## Phil Elmore (Mar 17, 2006)

Here's the full quote:



> This myth, stemming from a superficial "study" of firearm accidents in the Cleveland, Ohio, area, represents a comparison of 148 accidental deaths (including suicides) to the deaths of 23 intruders killed by home owners over a 16-year period. 2
> 
> Gross errors in this and similar "studies"--with even greater claimed ratios of harm to good--include: the assumption that a gun hasn't been used for protection unless an assailant dies; no distinction is made between handgun and long gun deaths; all accidental firearm fatalities were counted whether the deceased was part of the "family" or not; all accidents were counted whether they occurred in the home or not, while self-defense outside the home was excluded; almost half the self-defense uses of guns in the home were excluded on the grounds that the criminal intruder killed may not have been a total stranger to the home defender; suicides were sometimes counted and some self-defense shootings misclassified. Cleveland's experience with crime and accidents during the study period was atypical of the nation as a whole and of Cleveland since the mid-1970s. Moreover, in a later study, the same researchers noted that roughly 10% of killings by civilians are justifiable homicides. 3
> 
> ...


----------



## Cryozombie (Mar 17, 2006)

bushidomartialarts said:
			
		

> i've always been told that a firearm should be kept in a locked safe, preferably away from the ammo. that seems to me a situation that would make it hard to get the thing into the action in an emergency. are there other schools of thought here? (please forgive my absolute ignorance and thanks helping to cure it).


 
Honestly, IMO, I see no reason, _in a situation where you have children at home _that firearms SHOULDN'T be locked.  I take issues with the WAYS *they* tell you to lock them.  For example, I think that gun boxes, with the small hand shaped indent with the pushbuttons on top which can be opened rapidly with a single touch are perfectly acceptable to keep a gun in... loaded and ready to go... its inaccessable to a child at that point.  Why keep the ammo in another place?  You may as well NOT own the firearm at that point for all the good it will do.  




			
				bushidomartialarts said:
			
		

> what do you think your parents did differently from the parents whose kids grew up (or halfway up) to have an accident with unlocked firearms? was it something specific, or did you simply absorb an attitude?
> .


 
Thats hard to say.  My old man was an Former Marine and a cop.  So maybe it was the authority figure that he presented that made me listen better... maybe it was the fact that I was given a BBG at an early age and taught it was just like a real firearm, and treated it as such.  Maybe it was just because I was told quite a bit what guns would do.  Maybe a combination of all of those things.  But the fact of the matter is that I grew up in a home with loaded weapons, unlocked and accessable, and never shot myself, my friends, or anyone else for that matter...  unintentionally.  I never even handled them without my father present.  And, I was a latch key kid... home alone all the time. So it wasn't overwhelming supervision... If I had to guess, I'd think it was mostly about the fact that they weren't "hidden" from me, and I knew what they were capable of, and what would happen if one went off.


----------



## Mr.Rooster (Mar 17, 2006)

Guns don't kill people, people kill people.
So, Outlaw people.


----------



## bushidomartialarts (Mar 19, 2006)

thanks, guys.  i really appreciate you taking the time.

what was that mark twain used to say?  there's three kinds of lies:  lies, damned lies and statistics.


----------

