Log in

An Apology, a Question, and some Clarifications - Kynn's LJ [entries|archive|friends|userinfo]

[ userinfo | livejournal userinfo ]
[ archive | journal archive ]

An Apology, a Question, and some Clarifications [Jul. 29th, 2008|07:01 pm]
In email with Mr. Uncle of SaysUncle, a gun nut blog, he asked me to apologize for "asserting that [he] made the ridiculous 'if only they'd been packing' argument." (His words, verbatim.)

So I went back and looked at my post which got so many people upset. The link to SaysUncle is marked exhibit "2," and links to this page, in which Mr. Uncle wrote:

Church shooting
Posted by: SayUncle

In Knoxville. One dead. Five injured.

The Mrs. often asks why I carry to church. It’s because shootings keep happening at churches.

What did I write about Mr. Uncle? Nothing specifically about him, to be honest, but this is what I said about people who make what Mr. Uncle calls "the ridiculous...argument":

I am so tired of hearing, whenever there's tragic gun violence, "This wouldn't have happened if only everyone in that place had been armed!"


A big giant "fuck you" to anyone who says these Unitarians "should have" been packing heat, or who mocks their church as a "gun-free zone".

The fact that a link to Mr. Uncle was included may lead some to believe that I was saying Mr. Uncle was mocking the Unitarians or saying that a gun would have saved lives. In truth, my link should have gone to the comments of Mr. Uncle's blog, which at the time contained these comments:

Kurt "45superman" Hofmann Says:
July 27th, 2008 at 8:35 pm

It wouldn’t surprise me if the Tennessee Valley Unitarian Universalist Church is posted “gun-free,” given this and this.

workinwifdakids Says:
July 27th, 2008 at 9:39 pm

There’s a dependant variable here somewhere, and I think it has something to do with being shot at whether we carry to church or not.

These, combined with Mr. Uncle's comments, give the impression of victim-blaming -- but they are admittedly rather tepid compared to some of the other comments posted on other blogs, and linked as my "exhibits" in my rant. Together, these comments from various people -- including those on Mr. Uncle's site -- form a picture of a pro-gun movement which casually dismisses murders of people who choose to be "gun-free" by noting that they were presumably in favor of gun control. Such as:

I wonder if that Unitarian Church has posted signs declaring its premises a “gun-free zone?”

Another "Self defense-free-zone" attacked

See, If Church Members were allowed to carry guns then they could have blasted this wacko back to hell where he came from..

Now, Mr. Uncle has since clarified his position and distanced himself from other gun bloggers, by saying that "a gun would not have made one lick of difference either way." And I will accept his statement that his original post was not meant to imply, as other bloggers did, that if he'd been there, he would have shot the attacker. With that acceptance, it seems I have misrepresented Mr. Uncle (although not his commenters), and so I offer this apology:

SaysUncle, I apologize to you for implying that you believe the Unitarians deserved it, or that you believe handguns carried by Unitarians could have made this situation better. It was an incorrect reading, and I am sorry.

That said, I do have a question for Mr. Uncle:

Why do you carry a gun to church? I'm trying to figure out what you meant by your original post. You carry a gun to church because church shootings happen in church; okay, fair enough, but what does that mean? You're obviously not carrying because you want to commit church shootings, so can you explain why exactly you do bring a gun to church? And why that was pertinent to your post reporting this shooting?

Now, instead of writing email to me about my post, Mr. Uncle made a blog post in which he linked to my LiveJournal post:

Posted by: SayUncle

In addition to being violently angry, this person cannot read. Of course, if I looked like this, I’d probably be angry too.

Naturally, this resulted in a small flood of angry gun nuts coming over to argue with me (even though I was attacking an argument which Uncle himself labels "ridiculous"), and even more comments on Mr. Uncle's site bashing on me for being ugly:

That is one B.U.W.

I think I just threw up a little in my mouth.

A little more warning would’ve been nice before that picture.

It’s the next tubgirl.

Jesus H.!! Those pictures literally made me flinch.

Vibrant? *cough*. Ok if you say so.

The face pic alone is enough to frighten small children.

Dude you’re ugly. Get used to it because it ain’t going to change.

That dude- err…chick is ugly. Whoever hit her with the ugly stick had a swing like Ted Williams.

Mr. Uncle updated his post a few times, with comments on my gender:

Update: I wonder how this gal(?) will react when tomorrow the Brady Campaign releases a presser that dances in the blood of the dead? Think we’ll see the same righteous indignation (and fabulous hair color!) then?

Update: [...] And don’t bother commenting at the first link. I’ve been told Reasoned Discourse™ has already broken out. Personality and looks! Someone snatch this filly up!

Update: Being told it’s a dude. And here’s the comments he (srsly?) doesn’t want you to see.

However, after email discussion with Mr. Uncle, he has since agreed to apologize, and posted his apology on his blog:

In a recent post, I did a couple of things. One, I made the point that attacking a group of people (gun nuts) based on prejudice was inappropriate. Two, I made fun of Kynn’s appearance, which is attacking a person.

I’m pretty sure Kynn understands my first point now given that (though I did not know it at the time), she belongs to a group that is often attacked (often physically) based on prejudice. Well, I hope she does.

However, making fun of someone’s appearance is bad form. For that, I apologize.

I'll return to Uncle's "first point" in a moment. But I do appreciate and accept the apology. And I thank Mr. Uncle for making it.

Okay, now, the first point -- several people, including Mr. Uncle, have said "how could someone from a group who is attacked be as bigoted as to judge gun nuts as a group? What a bigot Kynn is!"

This comparison is pretty much laughable to me, as it would be to most people who have done any work in anti-bigotry activism: There's obviously a big difference between characteristics such as one's gender, gender identity, sexual orientation, race, ethnicity, and so on, and characteristics such as one's beliefs regarding gun control, birth control, abortion, war, taxes, disco music, or choice of political candidate. Transphobia is not the same thing as being angry at everyone who supports (or opposes) the Iraq War. The latter is much more like gun control than being genderqueer is.

I realize, though, that some people -- many of them white men, as it turns out, oddly enough -- will try to make the equivalency. If you judge all Star Trek fans as geeky, that's as bad as saying all black people are lazy; if you judge all baseball fans as uneducated, that's as bad as saying that gays are child molesters. I don't agree with the equivalency of these judgments, but I can understand that some people do think that way. I find it naive and simplistic, but I want to point out that it wasn't what I was doing here.

It may be wrong to judge a group based on an unrelated variable -- such as whether baseball fans are "educated" (whatever that means) or not -- but it's not wrong to judge beliefs, especially when that belief defines the group of people.

Here's an example: Anyone who believes that the U.S. should torture people, to extract terrorist confessions from people who are denied due process of law, is a fuckwit.

This isn't a personal attack on the pro-torture crowd. This is an attack on the opinion. This isn't prejudice or bigotry; they aren't being pre-judged on some unrelated value, such as gender identity, how pretty they are, their race, or whether they like baseball. This is about saying "if you believe [this], then you're [that]."

A "gun fuck" / "gun nut" / whatever you want to call them, someone who is in favor of expanded gun rights, is a person who holds a certain set of beliefs. If you're a gun nut and you're in favor of expanded gun control, well, you're not really who I was talking about, are you? But if you're a gun nut who believes that the Unitarians made themselves victims by not having guns with them in church, or that the guns could have made a positive difference? Then you're a stupid fucking gun fuck, and even Mr. Uncle says your argument is ridiculous.

I do want to address one more thing. In email to me, and in similar comments on his blog, Mr. Uncle said (emphasis mine):

However, that was rather the point since you chose to lash out at an entire group of people who did nothing to you and did not advocate the position you ascribed. I'm sure some have that position but not any that I read. And, to further prove my point, you lashed out hatefully against us. Sound familiar? I hope so.

However, there are many people at Mr. Uncle's site who have expressed their views that the Unitarians made themselves victims by being anti-gun and that guns could have made a difference. For example:

One point I did not see (and I read the whole thing and now I need a shower…) is mention of the concept of ‘deterrent’. If a building does not have a “no guns” sign, then a rampaging psycho will have to consider that some of the people (intended victims) will be armed.

Anyway, I do wish that someone at that church had been armed and able to end the situation with less loss of life.

Gun owner: I think you’re wrong and someone with a firearm could have taken down the shooter perhaps without anyone else losing their life.
[That one is a gun owner summarizing what he believes Mr. Uncle said.]

What our reaction is is the constant drumbeat of people saying it’s irresponsible, illegal to carry a gun, certainly you don’t need one in CHURCH (for one example).

Well yes, yes, sometimes you do. And when the guy kicks the door in with the shotgun in his hand, it’s a bit late to say “Gee, should have carried today.”

So you set people up for future tragedies with your ignorant emotional opinions.

That’s what makes you a tragedy-encouraging asshole.

The reality is that a member of the congregation near the door of the church would’ve have seen the shooter walk in with a shotgun. That person would have drawn his pistol and, at point blank range, shot the man dead.

No large mass of armed people blindly shooting up their church, families, friends and priest. The idea of which is not only absurd but insulting as well. Instead the first man to tackle the shooter could have shot him rather than take a fatal shotgun blast to the body.

That's all on one thread, and after all that, Mr. Uncle writes, to someone else:

And for the record, I’ve read everything you wrote. From you coming here and falsely accusing me and my readers of blaming victims to asserting that we think more guns could have prevented a tragedy.

Mr. Uncle, that last quote out there, that starts with "the reality is...," is someone who reads and comments on your blog clearly asserting that guns in the UU church could have prevented tragedy. Can you explain why you are saying that no blogs you read, including your commenters, have ever made that claim?

Is it possible that because you think the argument is so ridiculous, you're subconsciously shutting it out of your mind or something, when you read it? Because I can't come up with any better explanation.

Uncle, what's more, on a thread you participated in (so I know you read that one too), over at Pro-Gun Progressive, the blogger there wrote:

“I say this: If you hear of a tragic attack like this, and your immediate thought is “wow, if those people in that UU church had guns, then it would have been much better!”, then okay, yeah, you’re one of the people I think is a stupid gun fuck.”

What’s wrong with thinking that people being attacked by psychotic homicidal maniacs should have the means of protecting themselves?

That seems perfectly rational to me. I guess “stupid gun fuck” is Kynn speak for “rational human being”. Gotcha.

Okay, so Pro-Gun Progressive is saying that "rational human beings" believe guns would have helped in the UU church. Mr. Uncle believes that such an argument is "ridiculous." Now, while PGP and Uncle can argue this out between themselves, I find it kind of hard to imagine that Uncle, who has PGP among his readers/commenters, can claim he was never exposed to that particular "ridiculous" argument anywhere. Clearly, PGP endorses it and does, unlike Mr. Uncle, think that had the UUers been packing heat, tragedy would have been avoided.

This observation doesn't affect my apology -- I offer it in good faith, and I do indeed apologize for implying that Mr. Uncle supports viewpoints which, it turns out, he doesn't hold. I am just wondering why Mr. Uncle would say that he's never read the "ridiculous" argument.

Note: This post, unlike the default for my journal, has been set to allow comments from anyone, without screening. Usually my journal only allows comments from people on my friends list, with everything else screened. For the sake of gun-lovers like Mr. Uncle and others, who were disappointed at my response to their comments on my first post, I have made this change for this post only, and welcome anyone who wishes to post on this topic.

[User Picture]From: lebonheurbum
2008-07-30 01:20 pm (UTC)
I'm just going to throw this out there: anyone who read the entire article about the shooting, and didn't just come into knowing about it through comments on various blogs, would come to the conclusion that someone carrying guns in that church, in this instance, wouldn't have helped. He brought the shotgun inside in a guitar case. He didn't pull it out until he was ready to fire. Most people didn't know he HAD fired until the second shot, except for the folks right in front of him (including the amazingly selfless man who jumped in front of the gun to take the shot). By the third shot, the patrons were holding him down and kicking the crap out of him.

If anyone HAD been armed, and had pulled their guns out, what would they have done? By the time they were able to react and aim, they would have been at risk of hitting the other patrons who were rushing the gunman, who was presumably getting ready to re-load.

But that's THIS situation. It could have gone any other way. And if you have warning that someone's coming after you or your loved ones with a gun...well, wouldn't you want to be sure that you had something comparable to defend yourself with? THAT'S why people concealed-carry. Many of us really don't plan to ever shoot our guns outside of a practice range, but we're prepared to if the situation calls for it. It's about personal responsibility, in the most direct way possible.
(Reply) (Thread)
[User Picture]From: kynn
2008-07-31 02:55 am (UTC)
Hi! Thanks for reading my post and for commenting! I'm glad we got a chance to share our views with each other, even if we don't always agree.
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)
From: sailorcurt
2008-07-30 02:27 pm (UTC)
That's a lot of rambling to address. I'm not going to try to hit it all.

One thing that is obvious by some of your analogies is that you assume specifics based upon your own personal moral beliefs but then use generalities to ascribe positions to others in an effort to dismiss them without the need to address the specifics. For example:

"Here's an example: Anyone who believes that the U.S. should torture people, to extract terrorist confessions from people who are denied due process of law, is a fuckwit."

As a general statement, it seems self-evident... but where your logic fails is where you fail to define "torture". Is sleep deprivation torture? Exposure to loud music? A diet restricted to bread and water? Due process of WHAT law? US law that applies to citizens accused of crimes or military law that applies to enemy combatants in a war zone? In order for your general characterization to have ANY meaning, the specifics of your argument must be defined.

I assume that by torture, you are referring to the "water boarding" policy. You consider that torture. Some people don't. If, in my mind, an interrogation technique is not torture, and I advocate using that interrogation technique, I'm not advocating torture, now am I? The question becomes, not whether someone advocates torture or not, but where the line is drawn between legitimate interrogation techniques and torture. A much more complex and nuanced issue than your original generalization would imply.

The same applies to the "guns in churches" question and this entire argument. You read comments from pro-gun-choice people who opined that, had someone been armed, they MAY have been able to prevent some of the carnage and that, if the church was posted no guns, that MAY have encouraged the attacker... you then generalized those specific questions into "blaming the victims" and went on a rant about it.

They are legitimate questions for debate. They are not "blaming the victims" in any way shape or form. Why do I carry a gun in church? Because it is MY responsibility to be prepared to defend myself and my family in the event of a violent encounter, whether it occurs in church, in a dark parking lot, at a gas station or in my own living room. There is no magical place that is immune from violence and crime. This shooting illustrated that point perfectly and is why the issues were brought up. Having a firearm available does not guarantee that I'll be able to successfully defend my family. But not having the appropriate tool available would make it MUCH more difficult to do so should the need arise... wherever that need should arise.

Having a fire extinguisher in the kitchen does not guarantee that I'd be able to contain a fire if it broke out... but not having one available would make it much more difficult to do so if needed.

No one was saying that the Unitarians should have been armed against their will. No one was saying that they "deserved what they got". We, on this side of the argument, are pro-choice. There is a dedicated group of people in this country who are determined to remove the choice from us. That is what we rail against: by eliminating the ability to have the most effective tools of self defense available, the anti-gun lobby eliminates the possibility that we MAY be able to defend ourselves. We don't care what choices you make... only that you do not try to force YOUR choices and YOUR morality on us. We would think that someone in your position would understand that concept.
(Reply) (Thread)
[User Picture]From: kynn
2008-07-31 02:55 am (UTC)
Hi! Thanks for reading my post and for commenting! I'm glad we got a chance to share our views with each other, even if we don't always agree.
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)
[User Picture]From: throwingstardna
2008-07-30 02:39 pm (UTC)
A "gun fuck" ... someone who is in favor of expanded gun rights, is a person who holds a certain set of beliefs. If you're a gun nut and you're in favor of expanded gun control, well, you're not really who I was talking about, are you?

You continue to use the term "gun fucks" because to admit that there's anything wrong with such a term implies your own shared responsibility for what has occurred in regards to the insulting comments on your appearance. So you says that "gun fucks" applies only to a certain portion of gun owners which you alone define [but only after it becomes and issue], and 'if you don't fit that description, you're not a gun fuck, so what do you care?'

That's all fine and dandy until you put the shoe on the other foot: If anyone had made a post talking about "queer fucks" or "those tranny fucks" they would be seen as hateful, bigoted homophobics or transphobics. Any sort of defense—even if true—that they were just talking about a certain subset of homosexuals or transsexuals ('and if that doesn't describe you, then what do you care?') would rightly be met with derision. And if that person continued to use the term over and over for days in every online discussion they participated in, pretty soon they would be accused of hate crimes.

And yes, I get that being a gun rights advocate is not the same as feeling trapped in the wrong body, but I'm not making a literal comparison between the two. I'm pointing out the simple fact that when you use a term like "gun fucks," "gay fucks," "emo fucks" or whatever, it's inherently hateful. Period. And people who own guns, or are gay, listen to emo music or part of whatever group you have inserted "fucks" after in your maniacal and angry screed are going to feel attacked and offended, even if you then, after the fact, try to explain that you only mean SOME of them. It just doesn't work that way.

It's offensive, it's stereotyping, it's generalizing, and it pisses people off. And when people get pissed off and feel insulted, they generally are insulting back.

Personally, I felt attacked when I read your initial post. I do not support expanded gun control, so according to you, I'm a "gun fuck," as if that's all I am—that's all you need to know about me. Nothing else I stand for is relevant, the fact that I'm a liberal on pretty much most topics doesn't matter and despite the fact that you and I probably agree on most other topics (birth control, abortion, war, taxes or choice of political candidate), my position on this one issue defines me in your eyes as a "fuck." Nice.

Personally, I felt you were well within your rights to not allow comments in your other post. Your journal is a place for you to rant and that doesn't always require that you give the other side a voice. You're also perfectly entitled to stereotype and generalize anyone you want, and call them "fucks" and "assholes" and "right wingers" (even though many us aren't), but if you choose to go that route, it's a bit silly to complain that people aren't exactly courteous back to you.

(Reply) (Thread)
[User Picture]From: kynn
2008-07-31 02:56 am (UTC)
Hi! Thanks for reading my post and for commenting! I'm glad we got a chance to share our views with each other, even if we don't always agree.
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)
[User Picture]From: throwingstardna
2008-07-31 02:10 pm (UTC)
Hahaha .... yeah, that's pretty much what I was expecting.
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)
[User Picture]From: kmilligan
2008-07-30 03:09 pm (UTC)
You bring up some interesting points that I will have more to say about later when I have more time. One thing: We probably spend more time arguing with each other than we do arguing with people who support gun control. I'm with Uncle on the fact that a gun in this situation wouldn't have made any difference.
(Reply) (Thread)
[User Picture]From: kynn
2008-07-31 02:56 am (UTC)
Hi! Thanks for reading my post and for commenting! I'm glad we got a chance to share our views with each other, even if we don't always agree.
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)
[User Picture]From: kmilligan
2008-07-31 04:31 am (UTC)
I've stayed out of this so far, at least on my own blog. My first and final say on the matter is here:

(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)
From: laughingdawg
2008-07-30 04:07 pm (UTC)


Gun rights have far more in common with your transgender issues than they do with supporting the Iraq War.

Many of us see our possession of firearms as an expression of our right to have the ability to defend ourselves. The police have absolutely no legal responsibility for our individual safety. Only we have that responsibility for ourselves. Yet by exercising that right, people frequently make negative judgements about us, and throw around crass stereotypes about us, based solely on that.

I can't claim to know exactly what is going on in your head regarding your gender issues. But I would imagine you are simply trying to outwardly express who you feel to be inside. I would also expect that see what you are doing as an expression of your rights as well (not trying to debate anything here. Just can't think of a better way to phrase that). Yet many people judge you, and make gross stereotypes about you, based on that.

Arguments relating to Iraq have a lot of different areas. But I can't think of any of them that relate to the individual rights of Americans.
(Reply) (Thread)
[User Picture]From: kynn
2008-07-31 02:56 am (UTC)

Re: Equivalency

Hi! Thanks for reading my post and for commenting! I'm glad we got a chance to share our views with each other, even if we don't always agree.
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)
[User Picture]From: sevesteen
2008-07-31 12:30 am (UTC)
I suspect that some of your questions are based on a misunderstanding--It isn't that we put a gun on to go to church, it is that we don't take it off to go to church. The default is that I am armed when I am dressed. That doesn't mean I'm armed all the time--If I'm going somewhere the gun is specifically not welcome, I put it away or go somewhere else. We don't carry only when we expect trouble. "If you need a gun to go there, you should go somewhere else instead" is a common sentiment among gun people.

I am in favor of bringing gun rights back to where they used to be for the most part--If that makes me a gun fuck, so be it. There are very few gun laws that have a significant impact on misuse without drastically affecting the law abiding.

What gun laws do you think are necessary? Are there any gun-control laws that you think should be eliminated?
(Reply) (Thread)
[User Picture]From: kynn
2008-07-31 02:57 am (UTC)
Hi! Thanks for reading my post and for commenting! I'm glad we got a chance to share our views with each other, even if we don't always agree.
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)
[User Picture]From: weerdbeard
2008-07-31 01:27 pm (UTC)
I don't think I can really add anything that hasn't been said better. sailorcurt's responce was fantastic.

I'll just say it definetly appears that you have some strong emotions on this issue, some are understandable, others I don't fully understand. I'd like to again take this moment to extend an open invitation to you and all to discuss this issue on my LJ, as guns are a common topic of discussion there.

I'll also take a breif moment to answer the question you directed at Uncle in my own personal way. Why do you carry a gun to church?

Well for a Caviat I don't attend a Church, and currently I am not licenced to carry a gun in my State (That should change very soon) But when that changes I fully intend to carry where ever I go. If I think I'll need a gun someplace I won't be going there, but the people at the UUC, and I would gess most victims of violence didn't suspect that would be the day or place they were attacked. I don't plan on getting into an auto accident, but I still buckle my saftey belt (and I've never needed one to date) I'm not planning on burning my house down, but I keep a fire extinguisher handy, all my smoke detectors in good working order, and I have fire insurance on my house. I don't plan on having my home broken into, but I have good locks on my doors and windows, a home security system, a telephone in my bedroom, and a .45 in the nightstand.

As for the UUC shooting, nope a gun wouldn't have made any difference there, the asshole had the drop on them, and still was quickly subdued by some VERY brave and selfless people. Still that isn't the only case where a mentally ill shooter was was stopped.
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/02/13/national/main2466711.shtml (note that the Police officer just happened to be shopping there at the time of the shooting, and the mall was posted "No Firearms")

And those are cases where the shooter was STOPPED, we are all to familiar with the results when the shooter was not stopped quickly, even when the shooter did encounter resistance from brave people.
Do I know Professor Liviu Librescu's stance on guns or conceal carry? No. I do know that he was unable to stop Sung Cho by bracing his door. Would a gun have been a better defensive tool? I think so. Is this all speculation? Yes. But I do know that Cho died with amunition on his person, he could have shot more people, and that him shooting himself happened at about the same time that the police breeched the doors he had chained.

More speculation, but I would attest that when Cho relized he wasn't the only gun in town anymore, he knew it was time to stop. Sadly the Police arrived too late for the victims who died that day. I do think odds would have been better for them if one of the students or professors were armed. Do I blame them? No. If it wasn't illigal to carry on campus, and still nobody chose to carry on that day would I blame them? No. Cho was the insane madman who decided to shoot unarmed strangers like a coward.

That's my take on things. I'll also respectfully request that you don't post the same copy-pasted responce to this post. I won't speculate, but it leads one to belive you aren't reading the responce.

So in my responce, I see no reply much better than that reply, and I hope to see you and your input and prospective in the comments section on my LJ.

Also I apriciate the bravery shown for both this apology and opening your comments section.
(Reply) (Thread)
[User Picture]From: fearsclave
2008-07-31 09:02 pm (UTC)
Something that kynn may not have encountered previously (for some reason I get the impression she doesn't know many gun owners, or thinks she doesn't) are the human rights arguments in favour of gun ownership.

Abortion is a civil right that's unpopular in some quarters, and constantly under attack from various people. As a strong supporter of womens' right to control their own bodies, and by necessary extension their right to have abortions, I view attempts to regulate or restrict access to abortion services or relates information as unjustifiable attempts to deny women that right.

Gun ownership is a civil right that's unpopular in some quarters, and constantly under attack from various people. As a strong supporter of everybody's right to life, and by necessary extension their right to defend their lives when attacked, I view attempts to regulate or restrict access to gun ownership as unjustifiable attempts to deny us those rights.

I could go on with gay marriage (which I fully support), and kynn's right to define her gender identity as she pleases, and so on, and so on and so on.

Guns aren't a panacea; they don't make everybody safe. They offer no guarantees. And they won't help in every case. And in some cases, conspicuous heroism of the sort displayed by those Unitarians can resolve the situation too (and other times it won't). But they do offer potential victims a fighting chance that they would otherwise lack. And ordinary people with guns have stopped mass shootings. And the evidence supports the contention that CCW laws do deter criminals, violent or otherwise.

Oh, and kynn, apologies for coming out swinging the other day; it's a sensitive topic, and as a relatively recent convert on this issue (up until about five years ago, I might have posted much the same sort of thing you did) I should been a bit more sensitive to the well-meaning sentiments behind your outrage.
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)
[User Picture]From: kynn
2008-08-01 02:21 am (UTC)
Hi! Thanks for reading my post and for commenting! I'm glad we got a chance to share our views with each other, even if we don't always agree.
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)
[User Picture]From: malakh_abaddon
2008-08-02 02:50 am (UTC)
Not to be an ass, but is that all you have to say? People are attempting to speak with you on the subject, in a manner that does not insult or degrade you, and all you can do is C+P the same response over and over again. I will say in some cases, someone "packing heat" can make a difference. It is all in the way events unfold. I once had a knife pulled on me, while the guy was trying to steal a can of gas out of my truck. While I did not have to pull on him, it was enough that he left the can, and knife. I am glad I did not have to pull the gun on him. I hope as a person who does carry I never do. However I would rather have it, and not need it, then to need it and not have it.

You asked about people who carry to church, well, I can see and agree with Weerd's point, as such it falls into what I just said about needing versus not having.

On a side note, "packing heat" sounds like a really bad gangster, or police movie. Please call it what it is. I do not "pack heat", I carry a concealed weapon. If I should need it, which I pray every day I do not, I will have it. I am not some slack jaw idiot who went to the local hawk (pawn) shop and picked the biggest lead thrower I could find. I went to classes to learn how to handle a firearm. I was tested to show I could safely use said firearm. While tested on how safely I used said weapon, I was also tested to be sure that I was able to hit the intended targets. Then I was allowed to apply for a permit to carry. If you would be so kind look into it, you will see most states have fairly in depth requirements that have to be met before you can carry.

Finally, if you can or are only going to post "Hi! Thanks for reading my post and for commenting! I'm glad we got a chance to share our views with each other, even if we don't always agree." do not even bother, it is a waste of my time to read it, and well, it is a waste of your time to post it.

Be Well.
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)
[User Picture]From: kynn
2008-08-02 02:55 am (UTC)
I'm sorry, what did you want me to write?

I'm confused now. I let people speak their minds and say what they wanted to say. What are you trying to get me to do? What do you want me to write here?
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)
[User Picture]From: malakh_abaddon
2008-08-02 09:44 am (UTC)
I would love for you to sit down and at the very least act as if you are paying attention to what people are saying on the comments page. Not act like a little kid. You are acting, by posting the same response as if you are not either bothering to read what people are saying. I do not care what you think or say about the subject, but if you appear not to respect people or their ideals, they will not give you the respect you ask for, and should be given as a human being.

What do I want you to say, well, I want you to read what I said, what I think, and respond to it with thought, and insight. I do not want to be referred to as a "fucking gun fuck". Some of my comments are in reference are more towards other comments you used the generic comments for. Read what they have to say, give them a thought out response. I only ask that you give a thought out response to any comment, if you agree or disagree, it gives you a "moral" high ground. It also makes people seem like bigger ass' if they insult you. But what the hell do I know? I am just a farmer.

Remember one thing, while I disagree with what you think, and what you say, I would defend your right to say it, to the death.

Be Well.
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)
[User Picture]From: kynn
2008-08-02 12:22 pm (UTC)
I have read what people wrote. Some I agree with, a lot I don't disagree with, but I replied with the level of engagement that I feel good about taking.

I'm not looking for any kind of moral high ground. I'm simply giving a place for people to express what they want to say and for me to read their points of view.

I mean, really, what is all this recently of people trying to dictate how I respond on my own livejournal? I never promised you a gun control debate, guys. You'll have to look elsewhere if you want to find someone to argue with.
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)
[User Picture]From: malakh_abaddon
2008-08-03 12:45 am (UTC)
Giving a response to a comment that is thoughtful and holds insight to your views is not dictating in my opinion. Please keep in mind, that until the other day, I had never seen your blog. If I wanted a debate I would go elsewhere, but I am the type that feels one should be open for discussing anything, within reason. There are personal issues, abortion, sexuality, and relationships that are private and as such should not be discussed unless all parties wish to. This is a political and personal view that should be open for discussion. I am curious, if you answer the question or not, why do you feel the way about guns, that you do? No matter, You do not wish to discuss this, and as such, I will not bother you anymore.
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)
[User Picture]From: malakh_abaddon
2008-08-03 01:56 am (UTC)
Also given the recent knife killing in Canada, what is your view on knives? You are aware that a knife is potentially a deadlier weapon than a gun because of its size. Of course it depends on who is wielding the knife, but at a given anyone can use a knife well as an attack weapon.
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)