Chicago Boyz

                 
 
 
What Are Chicago Boyz Readers Reading?
 

 
  •   Enter your email to be notified of new posts:
    Loading
  •   Problem? Question?
  •   Contact Authors:

  • Blog Posts (RSS 2.0)
  • Blog Posts (Atom 0.3)
  • Incoming Links
  • Recent Comments

    • Loading...
  • Authors

  • Notable Discussions

  • Recent Posts

  • Blogroll

  • Categories

  • Archives

  • A Couple of Good Self-Defense Posts

    Posted by Jonathan on March 7th, 2008 (All posts by )

    Both of these struck me as very well put:

    Steve H.

    James Rummel

     

    6 Responses to “A Couple of Good Self-Defense Posts”

    1. fred.lapides Says:

      I am hardly an anti-gun nutter–I have fired all sorts of weapons while in the military–but in Israel, just about anyone can and odes bear arms in that beleaguered nation, and yet the random killings we have in the US can not compare. There are those first amendment folks-a law teacher springs to mind–who believe college students if armed would cut down on campus shootings. Nah. Imagine frat boys on a weekend of drinking and playing and armed? Those who advocate widespread bearing of arms love to cite the incidents wherein a home owner prevented an intrusion or murder but they never ever cite the near-daily killings done by guns.

      I support the right to own weapons if they are reasonable weapons. But not rapid fire automatic guns designed for military use…and I would further suggest training, licenses (with waiting itme, background checks etc etc. To say simply that all should bear Arms is to me a wrongful construing of the forefathers, who intended a citizen army when there was no nation army in the nation, and at a time of frontier expansion when Indian raids were prevalent.

    2. Jonathan Says:

      You’re wrong on most of your assertions but this statement stands out:

      Those who advocate widespread bearing of arms love to cite the incidents wherein a home owner prevented an intrusion or murder but they never ever cite the near-daily killings done by guns.

      In fact, research on the costs and benefits of civil gun ownership makes clear that the benefits (crimes deterred and lives saved) of gun ownership substantially outweigh the costs (lives lost to crime and accidents). See Kleck and Lott, for example. So your statement is another case where you present as fact an opinion that you pulled out of your ass, and then expect the rest of us to do the work in debunking it that you were too lazy to do in writing it.

    3. Dan from Madison Says:

      Well done Jonathan.

    4. Shannon Love Says:

      Fred.Lapides,

      Imagine frat boys on a weekend of drinking and playing and armed?

      All gun control is founded in the elitist belief that some “other” group exist that cannot be trusted to carry guns. The first gun control legislation was aimed at disarming african-Americans in the post-reconstruction south. The Sulliavan law was aimed at immigrants and the modern hysteria at African-Americans living under the oppression of Leftist in large urban cities or white rural peoples, both groups considered “others” by the upper class white urbanites.

      You’ve just raised the “dodge city” strawman that all who wish to disarm the people use i.e. those who support the right to self defense likewise require no good judgment on the part of those who carry firearms. Again, this is an appeal to elitism.

      I would argue that if an age group is mature enough to vote, serve on juries, contract etc then they are mature enough as an age group to carry a gun. If an individual has the establish pattern of good decision making that is required to obtain a concealed carry permit then they are mature enough to be trusted with a weapon. After all, can you readily point to a large number of cases in which concealed carry permit holders have unambiguously misused their weapons?

      To say simply that all should bear Arms is to me a wrongful construing of the forefathers, who intended a citizen army when there was no nation army in the nation, and at a time of frontier expansion when Indian raids were prevalent.

      This only goes to show you’ve never read the bill of rights. The second amendment wasn’t put in place to guaranty an army and neither its wording nor the contemporary debate support that view. The introductory clause of the second amendment says quite clearly, “A well regulated militia being necessary to the preservation of free state..” A free state in that context meant only a non-despotic government. No other meaning every attached until the mid-20th century. The 2nd amendment seeks to maintain the ability of the people to protect themselves against the government.

      You need to drop your elitist attitude and go back to school or at least read a book or two.

    5. Tatyana Says:

      Oh what a small world (and another proof of 6deg-of-separation’ theory). I went clicking and this is what I found:

      James Rummel links to a Breda, who mentions Oleg Volk in answer to her commenter. I meet Oleg Volk farely regularly in my wonderings in Live Journal – where we have a mutual friend (in LJ-terms), Arbat, on whose thread today I linked to Jonathan’s Jury site. “ChicagoBoyz->circle->Chicagoboyz”!

      Mr. Lapides-Hill: since words doesn’t seem to make big impression on you, may be a picture will be more useful. This one is courtesy Mr. Oleg Volk. He even permits you to print it out.

    6. Jonathan Says:

      Thanks for the link.

      I’m familiar with Oleg Volk from his websites. He’s obviously very good.