Raging Against Self Defense: A Psychiatrist Examines The Anti-Gun Mentality

Jews For The Preservation of Firearms Ownership, Inc. ^ | 12-28-2002 | Sarah Thompson, M.D.

[buffyt]

I HATE Neal Boortz personally, he talked very nasty to me once.... and I really don't know him.... but he is RIGHT on Gun Control

GUN CONTROL
A Simple Solution for Simple Minds.
Over twenty-five years of holding forth on talk radio has revealed certain undeniable truths to me. Among those is the fact that modern-day liberals are absolutely incapable of engaging in a logical fact-based discussion of important issues. Logic is to your typical big-government liberal what a clove of garlic is to Dracula. They can't handle it, so they hide from it.
Nowhere is this aversion to logic more evident than in discussions of gun control. Simply stated, the facts are not on the side of those who argue for either registration of our outlawing the private ownership of handguns, let alone so-called assault weapons.
I strongly feel that the people who founded this country absolutely meant for the people to have the right to own firearms. . If you will listen to some of the anti-gun types out there you will hear them make reference to a particular type of gun as a gun "not suitable for hunting or target shooting." The premise here is that hunting and sport shooting are the only legitimate reasons for gun ownership. Contrary to what some liberal commentators might have you believe, our founding fathers wanted us to have the right to bear arms so that we could protect our lives, our property and our freedoms. Not so we could target shoot or hunt deer.
You've seen the old (and somewhat tired) bumper sticker "If guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns." The beauty of this bumper sticker is that it is absolutely correct! There are no bona-fide gun control proposals out there that would get the guns out of the hands of criminals or that would prevent predators from buying guns. All of the proposals only restrict the ability of law-abiding citizens to obtain and own firearms. I propose another bumper sticker ... one even more terrifying:
If Guns Are Outlawed, Only the Government Will Have Guns.
Last year Georgia made it easier for a citizen to obtain a permit to carry a concealed weapon. The liberals in this State were absolutely enraged! Cynthia Tucker, the Editorial Page Editor of The Atlanta Constitution, wrote that it would be "open season" on police officers, and that police officers would die in large numbers if it were easier for private citizens to obtain permits to carry concealed weapons. This is a good example of the aversion to facts that most lefties have on this issue. The fact is that there has never been one documented incident anywhere in this country where a police officer was shot in the line of duty by a private citizen carrying a concealed handgun for which he had a permit! Just where did she get this "police will die in the streets" nonsense? Straight out of her illogical mind, that's where. (Actually, Cynthia is really a nice person. She just can't think all that well.)
Oddly enough, the statistics --- the FACTS ---- show that violent crime rates go down when it becomes easier for private law-abiding citizens to carry concealed weapons. The reason is simple, and logical. Criminals don't like the idea that their victim may be armed!
An interesting thing happened in Florida in recent years when the law was changed to make it easier for people to get carry permits. The violent crime rate, including murders and armed robberies, went down. The predators were afraid! Finally they figured out where they could find some victims who would most likely have some cash, and who most likely would not have guns! Get them coming off the airplanes at Miami International Airport! These people are coming to Florida for a vacation, so they have cash. They have just been through airport security, so they don't have guns. Now that's the type of victim the predators want! Unarmed ones!
One more thought before you go back to my home page. This is a fact that draws a blank stare from the gun control crowd. They have no idea in the world how to handle it. Out of all the privately owned handguns, legal and illegal, in the United States, guess what percentage of them are not used in a murder in any given year? Guess what percentage of them are not used in a crime of any type?
99.998% of all privately owned handguns in the U.S. are not used in a murder in any given year.
99.96% of all privately owned handguns in the U.S. are not used in any crime in a given year.
Now that really screams for gun control, doesn't it?
How about some CRIMINAL control?
Addendum:
Someone e-mailed me with this thought. If, in fact, the purpose of the Second Amendment to our Constitution is to enable to GOVERNMENT to arm a GOVERNMENT MILITIA .... then this would be the only one of the 10 Amendments constituting the Bill of Rights that confers a power or right on the government.

[EBUCK]

Hadn't seen that before..thanks.

EBUCK

[EBUCK]

Perhaps you could offer him a bit of insight now. Unless people really are out to get him, in that case he should arm himself.

EBUCK

[Clint N. Suhks]

If, in fact, the purpose of the Second Amendment to our Constitution is to enable to GOVERNMENT to arm a GOVERNMENT MILITIA .... then this would be the only one of the 10 Amendments constituting the Bill of Rights that confers a power or right on the government.

Excellent point.

[EBUCK]

Awesome, I don't know Mr. Boortz but that is excelent.

I have been searching for some time on statistical information concerning legally owned firearms and their use in crime.

Those statistics don't seem to exist however.

EBUCK

[Man of the Right]

Agreed. Another point.

The Paks and North Koreans now have nukes. Iran and Iraq will soon have them. They'll sell them to anyone with the cash.

The Islamists have the means (the cash & know-how) and the will to use them.

The U.S. is defenseless. There's a fifth column in the country and the borders are a sieve. There's no intelligence and no will for self-defense.

Conclusion: A U.S. city will be obliterated. Soon. It may become routine.

In a post-nuclear environment, individuals will have to become self-reliant to a degree not even the Depression generation would recognize. There won't be any government, any police to protect us. Only ourselves. The pioneers would have survived. The Berkeley fruit cases won't.

[driftless]

The irrational fears about being murdered by gun-owning citizens is an easy argument to refute. The gun ownership rate in my part of the Midwest is extremely high due to the presence of many hunters. In short there are a lot of guns in my area. However the gun violence rate is extremely low as is the murder rate. As is the crime rate. The last murder by gun around here occurred about a year ago and was a drug deal gone bad. One gun death in a metro population of over one hundred thousand. If the amount of gun ownership was directly correlated to the murder rate, my area would look like Dodge City. In fact you can walk the streets of all the towns around here without worrying about some nut jumping out and assaulting you. I think the presence of guns may have something to do with the low crime rate.

[EBUCK]

I think the presence of guns may have something to do with the low crime rate.

If sheep had sharp teeth wolves would starve.

EBUCK

[2nd_Amendment_Defender]

I posted this several months ago. It is a good article and deserves to be reread. Good post mate!

[Reeses]

Conclusion: A U.S. city will be obliterated.

The Democrats should be super concerned about this since most Gore voters are concentrated in the city areas. The Democrat Party would cease to be a factor in politics if America lost a single city to a dirty bomb or other evil.

[mvpel]

Well, I don't think myself a hopeless cause. If I were to seek gun ownership, however, I would first make sure that I knew how to keep my temper in check AND I would attend gun safety and marksmanship courses.

I would recommend that you enroll yourself in Massad Ayoob's course, Judicious Use of Deadly Force. It is a thorough examination of the legal, moral, and ethical aspects of deadly force in self-defense. Let me know if you'd like me to shoot you a copy of my notes.

I think this course would be a very good venue for you to come to a better understanding of yourself with respect to this issue.

Also, you should check out Eric S. Raymond's excellent piece, "Ethics from the Barrel of a Gun: What Bearing Weapons Teaches About the Good Life."

[PoorMuttly]

I personally know for a fact that Santa carries a 1911 Colt. He put on a few pounds, and his Webley became uncomfrotable...and he's a nice guy, isn't he?

"King, this case is closed."

[EBUCK]

I read an E-Mail joke that Santa must be a woman....pasted below..and if correct I'm thinking that a P90 is in order.

---

I think Santa Claus is a woman....

I hate to be the one to defy sacred myth, but I believe he's a she.

Think about it. Christmas is a big, organized, warm, fuzzy, nurturing social deal, and I have a tough time believing a guy could possibly pull it all off!

For starters, the vast majority of men don't even think about selecting gifts until Christmas Eve. It's as if they are all frozen in some kind of Ebenezerian Time Warp until 3 p.m. on Dec. 24th, when they--with amazing calm--call other errant men and plan for a last-minute shopping spree.

Once at the mall, they always seem surprised to find only Ronco products, socket wrench sets, and mood rings left on the shelves. (You might think this would send them into a fit of panic and guilt, but my husband tells me it's an enormous relief because it lessens the 11th hour decision-making burden.) On this count alone, I'm convinced Santa is a woman.

Surely, if he were a man, everyone in the universe would wake up Christmas morning to find a rotating musical Chia Pet under the tree, still in the bag.

Another problem for a he-Santa would be getting there. First of all, there would be no reindeer because they would all be dead, gutted, and strapped on to the rear bumper of the sleigh, amid wide-eyed, desperate claims that buck season had been extended. Blitzen's rack would already be on the way to the taxidermist.

Even if the male Santa DID have reindeer, he'd still have transportation problems because he would inevitably get lost up there in the snow and clouds and then refuse to stop and ask for directions.

Add to this the fact that there would be unavoidable delays in the chimney, where the Bob Vila-like Santa would stop to inspect and repoint bricks in the flue. He would also need to check for carbon monoxide fumes in every gas fireplace, and get under every Christmas tree that is crooked to straighten it to a perfectly upright 90-degree angle.

Other reasons why Santa can't possibly be a man:
~ Men can't pack a bag.
~ Men would rather be dead than caught wearing red velvet.
~ Men would feel their masculinity is threatened, having to be seen with all those elves.
~ Men don't answer their mail.
~ Men would refuse to allow their physique to be described even in jest as anything remotely resembling a "bowlful of jelly."
~ Men aren't interested in stockings unless somebody's wearing them.
~ Finally, being responsible for Christmas would require a commitment.

I can buy the fact that other mythical holiday characters are men.

Father Time shows up once a year unshaven and looking ominous. Definite guy.
Cupid flies around carrying weapons.
Uncle Sam is a politician who likes to point fingers. Any one of these individuals could pass the testosterone-screening test. But not St. Nick. Not a chance.

---

EBUCK

[PoorMuttly]

Santa is not a Modern man...he is a MAN.

[EBUCK]

LOL, I'm in agreement, still thought it was funny.

EBUCK

[TopQuark]

Great post! It's about much more than guns.

A must-read indeed.

[Ohioan]

Certainly an intelligent and well reasoned analysis of the pathology of Leftist fanaticism. Similar pathology may be found in the frenetic Leftist stands on other issues; but this writer has really nailed the anti-gun wackos.

Thank you for posting this.

William Flax Return Of The Gods Web Site

[EBUCK]

I got a new word!!

Dysrons = People with normal or even above average I.Q.s, who function at the analytic level of morons because of their fears and compulsions.

Wonderfull..thanks for the site link, bookmarked the destination.

EBUCK

[semaj]

"I'm not sure that I trust myself with a gun because I've a bit of a temper and a tendency to act without thinking things through properly, but I've no desire to take your gun away."

As GI Joe says..."knowing is half the battle." That includes knowing our own limitations and mastering our impulses. It's what separates us from the animals.

[supercat]

I've been meaning to ask someone about this. The 2nd Amendment refers to the 'right to keep and bear arms', but 'arms' is not defined....

The first part of the Second Amendment makes abundantly clear that it isn't about "hunting weapons". That being said, it might allow for restriction of certain types of especially-concealable weapons (when's the last time you heard of soldiers or officers carrying a cane gun or even a Kel-Tec P-32?) but not if the government simultaneously restricts (de facto if not de jure) the bearing of larger weapons.

On the other hand, I'm curious: do criminals actually have the same desire for smaller, more concealable weapons that Brady et al. keep alleging? I've never heard of gang-bangers going after each other with NAA mini-revolvers, for example.