Sharp as a Marble - In the mind of the anti-gunners

<< FN Herstal Five-seveN | Home | Great question >>

Anti-Rights Idiocy , Gun banners

So... what do you think motivates people like Paul Helmke, Peter Hamm and Josh Sugarmann? I want to believe they are simply whores who are saying whatever it takes to get a paycheck, but part of me wonders how much of their bilge they truly believe.

Are they are incapable of determining truth from falsity as Joe states? There is little doubt in my mind that they are compulsive liars, but to what point do they truly believe what they are selling?

I can't really imagine it's a power thing. Shitbags like Bloomberg want to control people and thus wants them disarmed, but Helmke et al have no such power, even with a disarmed populace. Do they think their masters will treat them better if they play the part of the Judas goat?

I see that Paul Helmke is going to debate Alan Gura in Charlotte hosted by the Federalist Society. Exactly how does this benefit Paul, and by extension the Brady Campaign? Gura is going to make Paul look foolish and Paul has to know this. Or is he completely blind to how dumb he and his positions look?

Are the anti-gunners insulated? Do they exist only in their echo chambers and are actually unaware of the data that destroys any of their arguments? Selection bias is something that even us gunnies have to be careful of, but I'm willing to admit to the bad because it is eclipsed by all the good, much like how we all accept the fatalities associated with automobiles because of their benefit to society.

What are your thoughts?

posted @ 5/12/2010 2:12:32 PM

Comments

David, Chandler, AZ says:

on 5/12/2010 2:42:44 PM

any possibility that Paul is really one of us and is destroying the Brady Bunch from within??

Miguel says:

on 5/12/2010 3:49:27 PM

You are assuming they are logical people and they are not. Zealots believe their cause so just, rational thought and common sense goes out the window. If they believe that slamming a hand with a hammer will not hurt them, they will believe it even after getting the hospital bill and needing help buttoning the shirt.

Thirdpower says:

on 5/12/2010 4:30:30 PM

Not like it really matters to them. They'll take selected quotes and declare 'victory' on their various boards/sites where, if comments are even allowed, it's only their supporters who stay up.

Just like when IANSA debated the NRA, they (IANSA) presented a highly edited version on their site.

MadRocketScientist says:

on 5/12/2010 4:51:00 PM

What motivates them? Simple, guns make them feel icky. Time honored reason to strip people of their rights. The only reason they tolerate those guns with the police or military is because attacking those institutions is suicide.

Everything else they peddle as rationalization or justification is bullshit that they don't really believe, which you can tell just by listening to them or reading their writings. They can't sell that story because they don't truly believe it.

Linoge says:

on 5/12/2010 9:00:14 PM

I think Joe and Miguel have pretty much nailed it on the head, when you combine their findings/opinions - not only are the people we are talking about incapable of accurately and repeatedly fact-checking reality, they also firmly believe that they are absolutely, irrevocably, unquestionably correct, and that all of the information proving the wrong is either fallacious itself, or some grand conspiracy to work against them.

Their blind, unwavering, unquestioning, resolute faith is the kind of stuff various religions throughout the ages would have killed for... and they did, from time to time.

No matter what happens at the debate, even if Helmke's head literally explodes from being figuratively clubbed with reality one too many times, the anti-rights nuts will claim a victory. They are nothing if not consistent.

Rob K says:

on 5/12/2010 9:09:03 PM

Don't forget Helmke was mayor of Ft. Wayne, IN for a good while and he did his best to expand his empire while he was there. I lived there for 2 years during his reign. He really was (is) a fascist and he sees himself as one of the ruling elite whom police and military serve, so he has no problems with them having guns.

The annexations into Ft. Wayne sometimes reminded me of the tanks rolling into Poland. I believe he had a plan to make Ft. Wayne a "city of the first class" under Indiana's Unigov law so it could get the same special treatment as Indianapolis. That required increasing the size of the city and he was not going to let anyone stand in his way.

I thank God that Evan Byah beat him for the Senate seat back in 1998.

ubu52 says:

on 5/13/2010 4:44:34 AM

I can only speak for myself, but, this anti-gunner lives in a different reality than you do.

Weer'd Beard says:

on 5/13/2010 5:49:46 AM

We know, Ubu.
http://weerdbeard.livejournal.com/700832.html

I feel quite bad for you.

Robb Allen says:

on 5/13/2010 7:01:38 AM

Ubu, that's part of my point. You pretend you live in some other 'reality' where all the facts we have constantly displayed apparently have no meaning.

You live in a fantasy world where criminals go "Damn. I'd LOVE to rob that store but there's no way I'd break the law prohibiting concealed carry". You fantasize on how restricting the law abiding somehow magically reduces crime even when the cities with most restrictive gun laws are the most crime ridden places.

You do live in a different reality, one not based on anything real.

elmo iscariot says:

on 5/13/2010 9:48:05 AM

We aren't Helmke's audience. And frankly, neither is the average American, who isn't really invested in the gun debate.

He's going there to get fodder for press releases and blog posts. However it goes down, he'll take pieces of the transcript (probably mostly of himself repeating contextless talking points) string them together with the usual gun-control vagaries of terrorists, shootouts in the streets, normal people "snapping", and "the NRA's guns-everywhere platform", and distribute the mix to two groups: barely interested antis who won't bother to read the original, and hardcore antis who'll read the original with their minds already closed to anything Gura might say.

People like Helmke are serving a niche audience of enthusiasts who aren't too particular about the quality of the goods they're sold. If he can't serve them up a new AWB, it doesn't really matter; he just needs _something_ to serve them, and this debate will do as well as anything.

mike w. says:

on 5/13/2010 2:02:27 PM

I can only speak for myself, but, this anti-gunner lives in a different reality than you do.

See Robb, at least she's honest about it...

ubu52 says:

on 5/13/2010 3:31:27 PM

I don't know anything about the backgrounds of the people you mentioned in the OP, but some people involved in the "anti-gun" movement are people who've personally experienced the negative aspects of gun ownership, like the Bradys.

Robb Allen says:

on 5/13/2010 3:33:42 PM

And I am alive today BECAUSE I was armed.

So their 'sob story' is counteracted by mine.

ubu52 says:

on 5/13/2010 4:03:14 PM

3,309 kids under the age of 14 died from firearms between 1999 and 2006.

Please point me towards any of their parents pro-RKBA blogs because I've been unable to find them on my own. Thanks.

elmo iscariot says:

on 5/13/2010 4:09:50 PM

According to the National Safety Council, in any given eight-year period 14,400 Americans will die falling down stairs.

It's undoubtedly true that some people become anti-gun after their children die of gunshots. This frankly proves nothing but their inability to see the larger picture beyond their personal tragedies.

Robb Allen says:

on 5/13/2010 4:24:17 PM

And the numbers of children killed by drowning is... what exactly?

And would you submit to those parents demanding that you cannot have a pool?

And a parent must be a blogger... why, exactly, to validate your point?

Here, how about THOUSANDS of stories of successful self-defense with firearms over even a shorter period of time. How many children now still have their fathers and or mothers because their parents were able to defend themselves against criminals?

Don't give me your faux concern over 'the children'. If you even remotely gave a shit about child safety, you'd be arguing about banning swimming pools as they serve no purpose other than entertainment and some mild exercise and yet are 100 times more deadly to children than firearms.

Unix-Jedi says:

on 5/13/2010 4:37:26 PM

"but some people involved in the "anti-gun" movement are people who've personally experienced the negative aspects of gun ownership, like the Bradys."

ubu, I know you don't realize this, since you've not done any research, but... according to the Bradys they're not anti-gun.

Nor is that total bullshit (just mostly). Sarah even bought a gun for their son as a present and detailed her having to fill out the forms and the background check.

(Most of us laugh at that, because when other people do that, she calls that the "gun show loophole" or a "Straw purchase", and hasn't ever made the connection between what she says and what she did.)

But according to them, they're not "Anti-gun", and in fact, Sarah Brady has bought guns openly.

Which gets back to Robb's original point. So why are they doing what they do?

ubu52 says:

on 5/13/2010 5:24:59 PM

Robb, Great strawman argument.

Unix-Jedi, Notice the quotation marks around "anti-gun"? That's because most "anti-gunners" (which is what Robb and everyone else calls them) are not really anti-gun. They don't hate all guns all the time. (There are a few who do but I think they are the real minority.)

Robb Allen says:

on 5/13/2010 7:09:58 PM

Ubu, what's a strawman? I've built up no argument that you've not made and torn it down. I've simply pointed out that your argument of "IT'S FOR THE CHILDREN" is utter horseshit as something that presents a infinitesimally small danger to a child is not a good enough reason to ban the object.

Pools are useful, and they are statistically more dangerous than a gun. You'd be an idiot to try to ban them for the few drownings alone. Same goes for guns, cars, cleaning chemicals, etc.

Now, to your second part - I call someone who hates black people some of the time, but not all of the time a racist. I call someone who wants to ban guns for the poor (Saturday Night Specials), the inner city (also generally poor and often black), ban open carry because it offends their delicate sensibilities (like the gay haters who don't want to see the icky homos holding hands in public) anti-gunners for the same reason.

ubu52 says:

on 5/13/2010 7:44:19 PM

Robb,

Let's discuss this "blacks = pro-gunners" thing. They are not the same. People are born black. Pro-gunners are not born with guns. Blacks don't get a choice. Gun people do have a choice.

Robb Allen says:

on 5/13/2010 7:58:56 PM

Who said blacks were pro-gunners?

Robb Allen says:

on 5/13/2010 8:00:33 PM

Hit return too soon...

Gays have a choice. They don't have to display their gayness in public. Muslims have a choice. They don't have to wear traditional garb in public. Jews have a choice. They can eat a ham sandwich like the rest of us.

Bigotry is the same, regardless.

Linoge says:

on 5/13/2010 8:40:07 PM

For that matter, blacks do not have to demand equal treatment - I do not have to demand the ability to defend myself.

Blacks do not have to demand equivalent rights - I do not have to demand that I retain my ability to preserve my life.

Blacks are born black. Everyone was born alive. Blacks want equal treatment. I want to keep living. Rights are rights, whether they apply to outward and visible physical manifestations, or simply the act of breathing.

And blind faith, like that exhibited by UBU52, is nothing more than religion clothed in the cloak of self-righteousness, and as equally unbased in facts, figures, or reality.

Linoge says:

on 5/13/2010 8:44:05 PM

(Hit return too early myself, too...)

Which brings me to the question she still has not bothered to answer (nor has any anti-rights nut, for that matter): Why is it acceptable to discriminate against one right and not another?

If UBU52 had said equivalent things about blacks/Jews/Christians/Irishmen/etc. as she has said about firearm-owners and -carriers, she would unquestionably be in the wrong. And yet she considers those things perfectly acceptable when said about firearm-owners and -carriers.

Why is that? What makes one right better than another? What makes one right attackable and the other not? There is obviously some basis for determination - I am curious as to what it is.

Unix-Jedi says:

on 5/13/2010 11:07:41 PM

They don't hate all guns all the time.

Right.

They don't hate the guns that they have, or that they control.

There's a very, very, important lesson there that you'll miss.

ubu52 says:

on 5/14/2010 3:07:23 AM

Lots of gays don't act gay. Many Jews eat ham (and cheeseburgers). I know lots of Muslims. None of them wear the garb. So what does any of this have to do with the "blacks = gun owners" thing that seems to be rampant on thess gun blogs? I realize using the analogy makes it easier to push the idea that anyone against guns is a bigot, but is there some other reason for it?

Linoge says:

on 5/14/2010 7:09:36 AM

Funny how I preemptively answered her question, and she continues to ignore mine.

Oh well - the more UBU52 does that, the more the answer becomes clear.

elmo iscariot says:

on 5/14/2010 7:34:32 AM

People are born black. Pro-gunners are not born with guns. Blacks don't get a choice. Gun people do have a choice.

First off, I wish people I support (like gun rights advocates and gay marriage equality advocates) would drop comparisons to race, because they're subject to this formula non-response.

But that said, they're not wrong. You are. Look honestly at how this analogy played out:

"Gun owners are just living a lifestyle you don't approve of, and you're acting intolerantly. Didn't we learn not to be intolerant of people who are different during the civil rights movement?"

"Oh, that's silly! Black people can't _help_ it!"

The pro-gunners here are saying that being different is fine, and that gun carriers, black people, and Jews shouldn't have to change to suit some paternalistic busybody's preferences. The anti-gunner is insisting that it's not the same because black people _can't_ change.

Still unclear on why your worldview strikes us as so repugnant?

elmo iscariot says:

on 5/14/2010 7:43:43 AM

To put a finer point on it, since you're probably still "not getting it":

Lots of gays don't act gay. Many Jews eat ham (and cheeseburgers). I know lots of Muslims. None of them wear the garb.

And lots of Americans don't own or carry guns.

Religious expression and bearing arms are protected by the Constitution, and expression of sexual orientation is protected by simple decency. Intruding on that--passing laws that _force_ Jews to eat cheeseburgers, or ban traditional Muslim attire--requires overwhelming evidence of public need.

Such evidence does not exist for gun control. quote all the dead-children stories you want; statistically, gun policies don't seem to alter the violent death rate one way or the other.

If you argue for restricting Americans' choices in gun ownership and carry because you feel like it might discourage murder, that's no better than arguing for restricting Americans' choices in religion because you feel like it might discourage terrorism.

Joe Huffman says:

on 5/15/2010 1:43:15 AM

Bravo guys!

Weer'd Beard and I actually had a discussion or two about ubu52 today.

IMHO, keep being polite to her and she will figure it out eventually. It takes time to overcome years and years of life as a bigot.

ubu52 says:

on 5/15/2010 4:26:49 AM

elmo,

I've got to give you an A because that is the best explanation I've ever read. I also agree with you that it would be best to stop the comparisons to race because they are subject to a response like mine.

I argue against CCW in urban areas mostly due to accidents. I don't believe it has much to do with murders (unless we are talking about unintentional homicides, like this one in Detroit: http://www.freep.com/article/20100514/NEWS01/5140369/1318/Grandmas-death-wasnt-familys-first-tragedy ). Sometimes I take a stronger anti-gun position though, because there doesn't appear to be anyone else on these two blogs who will take one. It makes for better debate to have both sides represented, regardless of whether or not I believe what I am posting.

Joe,

Thanks for reminding people to be polite. That's one of the reasons I no longer acknowledge Linoge or his posts. He doesn't seem to know how to attack a post without attacking the poster.

ubu52 says:

on 5/15/2010 4:33:40 AM

One more quick thing regarding civil liberties:

Some of you seem to forget that the Equal Rights Amendment (giving women equal status to men) died a bad death years ago.

Since women are still not equal to men via the Bill of Rights, does "anti-gunner" = women since neither seem to be covered by an enumerated right?

Linoge says:

on 5/15/2010 8:10:09 AM

UBU52, need I remind you of one of our first conversations at Joe's place, wherein you mercilessly attacked me, personally, because you were firmly and absolutely convinced that I misidentified something as inconsequential as a piece of sushi? Of course, it would later turn out that not only were you wrong, you were completely wrong, and true to form, you have never once apologized for that error, nor have you apologized for the personal attacks involved in it.

You voluntarily surrendered the privilege of being treated politely many moons ago, with the only person to blame being yourself. I am, of course, open to whatever attempts you are willing to make to regain that privilege, though.

Moving on, feel free to point out where I personally attacked you, or was rude, in this thread. Was it me pointing out your blind faith preventing you from seeing anything that would disprove it?

That is hardly rude - in fact, you went on to substantiate that very point in this very thread. Specifically, 642 people died due to negligent circumstances involving firearms in 2006 - i.e. accidents (sadly, there is no way to filter down to "metropolitan" versus "rural" areas, but you can rest assured the former is more strongly affected than the latter, in total). Conversely, 3,579 people accidentally drowned, 740 people were killed in accidents involving machinery, Mother Nature seems to have slipped and killed 1,588 people (which might not be as applicable in cities as not), 27,531 people were killed due to accidental poisoning, and 5,912 were accidentally killed due to suffocation... and that is all without even going into vehicle-related accidents.

So where is your righteous indignation over those unfortunate deaths? Where are your calls to abridge a basic human right over those accidental fatalities? What do you have against the right to self defense, and the Second Amendment, specifically, that apparently makes it so very much different from other rights and other Amendments? What is the determining factor to clarify their apparent differences?

The other interesting point? Firearm-related accidents have been trending downwards over the years (824 in 1999), as the number of firearms, the number of firearm owners, and the number of states with concealed carry permits (or their equivalents) have all been steadily increasing over the years. For that matter, even though numbers of firearms and the American population have both been going through the roof these days, any firearm-related death per capita (murder, suicide, accident, etc.) has reached something of a dynamic equilibrium. So... how does that factor in to your faith?

Moving on...

...it would be best to stop the comparisons to race because they are subject to a response like mine.

Of course you do. But never you mind where Elmo specifically laid out how not only that reaction is a non-response, it is also wrong.

So, in closing, ignore me if you like *shrug*. However, your rationalization for doing so is nothing more than a purebred, unfiltered, undilluted projection, and your continued avoidance of what should be a very simple question for someone in your position makes the actual answer all the more clear on a daily basis. Both of those are fine for me - how about you?

elmo iscariot says:

on 5/17/2010 12:29:46 AM

[Sorry for the late reply; been away all weekend.]

I argue against CCW in urban areas mostly due to accidents.

Take a second look at that NCS link: gun accidents--all gun accidents--are such a small relative risk that they're completely lost in the "background noise" risk of everyday living (particularly in a crowded city, which is already a more hazardous place to live, accident-wise). And CCW accidents are a vanishingly small part of all gun accidents, almost all of which are a result of improper gun handling (a non-issue for a gun that stays holstered all day). If you mean what you say, and your real concern is simply over the potential for accidents, you can put your mind at ease and stop worrying about urban concealed carry.

The risk is so microscopically low that it doesn't come anywhere remotely near the level that would begin to justify denying a Constitutional right. We can probably literally say that Islam has killed more urban Americans than CCW accidents have, and I wouldn't advocate banning expressions of Muslim faith in cities to save lives.

Sometimes I take a stronger anti-gun position though, because there doesn't appear to be anyone else on these two blogs who will take one. It makes for better debate to have both sides represented, regardless of whether or not I believe what I am posting.

I disagree. Pushing the gun-control perspective in a factual discussion of public safety and civil rights is a lot like insisting on teaching creationism in science classes to "give the kids both sides". If one side has the evidence for it and the other doesn't, you don't gain too much in pushing something you don't actually think is well founded. Playing the devil's advocate can be useful if you're trying to fully understand and streamline your real position, but doing it in the interest of "balance"? I don't think that's actually helpful. Sometimes there's a consensus for a reason.

straightarrow says:

on 5/17/2010 5:21:54 AM

ubu52 says:
on 5/13/2010 7:44:19 PM
Robb,

Let's discuss this "blacks = pro-gunners" thing. They are not the same. People are born black. Pro-gunners are not born with guns. Blacks don't get a choice. Gun people do have a choice. ::::::

Uh, you're wrong again. No big surprise. People are also born with the right of self defense, regardless of their color and none of them have a choice in that matter either.

Pro gunners are born with the right. So are anti-gunners, even black ones. If they so choose not to exercise the right, that is also their right. They have no right to strip the natural rights of self-preservation from others.

This is about as polite as I will ever be with you. Unlike my more courteous brethren I feel no need to treat you with courtesy. I think you are evil. I do not shake hands and "agree to disagree" with evil. I endeavor to stop it.

MadRocketScientist says:

on 5/17/2010 9:56:21 AM

Let's discuss this "blacks = pro-gunners" thing. They are not the same. People are born black. Pro-gunners are not born with guns. Blacks don't get a choice. Gun people do have a choice.

OK, easy fix, swap out "black" for "Jewish", or "Muslim", or "Amish". A person might be born black, but no one is born a muslim or jewish. You might be raised in that tradition, you might feel you have no choice, but the reality is, you can change religions. I'd say that you can't change being black, but let's be honest, Michael Jackson put that lie to rest. ;-)

UBU52 holds her position because she doesn't like non-police carrying guns (like police are any safer than your average citizen, or that they are held accountable as an average citizen would COUGH!detroitCOUGH!). She is afraid of other people carrying guns. Anyway, UBU52, we live in a free society (or, at least we like to pretend that we do), and in a free society, we do not casually restrict the enumerated civil rights of people.

Case in point. There have been documented cases of lethal violence perpetrated by young men who either A) travel in groups of 5 or more, or B) wear their pants down below their ass. Such incidents happened often enough for people to notice a trend & begin to fear young men with low slung pants, or young men in groups (especially if they had low slung pants). In response to this fear, communities across the country toyed with the idea of making it a crime for young men to wear their pants down low, or to travel in packs.

Such ideas were, correctly, struck down as a violation of first amendment rights (the pants), and the right of free association.

Sendarius says:

on 5/18/2010 1:26:08 AM

Can anyone do me the favour of checking the conjugation and translation of this Latin phrase?

Abusum non tollit usus

I translate it as:

Abuse (of a thing) does not remove its utility.

It seems apt in this thread.

I don't care if axe murderers exist. I find an axe useful, and the fact that axes are occasionally misused does not warrant restricting my possession of one.

Same goes for guns.

Linoge says:

on 5/18/2010 7:42:33 AM

I hope you do not mind, Elmo, but I took your idea and ran with it. Sadly, specific numbers are hard to come by, but all indications are that you are dead on the money.

Comments have been closed on this topic.

Comments

Archives

Categories

Comments

Archives

Categories

Second Amendment

Sharpest Marbles

Blogroll

Funny, as in Ha-ha

Good Reads

Extended Blogroll

Industry Links