# Gun nuts threaten gun store owner for selling gun they don't like **URL:** \ **Category:** The BBQ Pit\ **Created:** [May 3, 2014, 3:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gun-nuts-threaten-gun-store-owner-for-selling-gun-they-dont-like/687584 "2014-05-03T15:31:43Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 23
**Author:** ![Superdude](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/superdude/32/13450_2.png) [@Superdude](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Superdude)\ **Post date:** [June 10, 2014, 3:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gun-nuts-threaten-gun-store-owner-for-selling-gun-they-dont-like/687584/441 "2014-06-10T15:39:11Z")
Did anyone see [The Daily Show’s](http://thedailyshow.cc.com/videos/snqfxc/shooters) piece on this issue? ---
**Author:** ![Measure\_for\_Measure](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/measure_for_measure/32/557_2.png) [@Measure\_for\_Measure](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Measure_for_Measure)\ **Post date:** [June 11, 2014, 5:39am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gun-nuts-threaten-gun-store-owner-for-selling-gun-they-dont-like/687584/442 "2014-06-11T05:39:02Z")
> [@Bone](#): > > You are the one that said a 12 year old child could fend off an adult, but when pressed you meant they could run away. Unfortunately for you we were actually talking about, you know, fending off an adult. If you insist that a tween child can physically defend themselves from an adult with any regularity that’s laughable. I’m not aware of studies that test your hypothesis but if you have any examples that’s be great. All the tweens that suffer from child abuse from adults would like to know. I believe I said, “Take on”, from the beginning. Think of it this way. When a cop encounters a situation, the first thing he does is call for backup. It’s prudent. Only those with delusions of grandeur or homicidal fantasies think that they should shoot first. Still, you asked for an example. Jacob Soliz-Amaya faced a serious self defense challenge. His attacker, a 38 year old adult, lay in ambush and wasn’t after money. Her sole intent was to harm Jacob, to get back at the father. Jacob was eight years old. ## He did have an advantage though: he hadn’t been taught gun nut helplessness. The attacker had been lying in wait in a closet for 12 hours. As the perp tried to smother the boy, Jacob responded with a brutal head-butt - a move he had seen on television. Ex girlfriend then nails Jacob with a dumbbell to the head. Bleeding, Jacob karate chopped her and escaped, running outside. A neighbor dialed 911. The perp was charged with 1st degree murder. Bookem Danno. [http://www.wjla.com/articles/2013/09/jacob-soliz-maya-hailed-as-hero-for-fighting-off-helen-newsome-93535.html](http://www.wjla.com/articles/2013/09/jacob-soliz-maya-hailed-as-hero-for-fighting-off-helen-newsome-93535.html) More serious articles: [INDENT]"…overwhelming data culled from attempted abductions shows that kids avoid being attacked or abducted by fighting back in some way. Still, experts agree that girls should be trained in physical self-defense but be encouraged to use mental and verbal tactics to de-escalate a potentially harmful situation. The Center for Missing and Exploited Children conducted a five-year study that analyzed attempted abductions. It found that a common factor with children who escaped their would-be abductors was that they all did something – physically – to evade the situation. Thirty-one percent yelled, kicked, pulled away or attracted attention; 53 percent walked or ran away." > **[Should girls fight back?](https://www.mercurynews.com/2012/06/19/should-girls-fight-back/)** > > Should girls fight back? [/INDENT] Yelling. Kicking. Pulling away. Attracting attention. Walking away. Running away. De-escalation. Awareness of one’s surroundings. Practice saying no with emphasis. That’s the opposite of learned helplessness. That’s the proper sort of material to teach girls. It’s what the NRA would convey to its members if it cared about their welfare. Prudent self defense involves a range of techniques but NRA nutjobs can only conceive of brandishing weapons or opening fire on every problem. No discussion of cell phones, never mind such elementary techniques as the wrist escape. > [@](#): > > No, not even close. Unless you are talking only federal laws. State laws have just as much impact to residents of that state so excluding those is misleading. Ok, so you concede my point at the Federal level. At the state level, I noted upthread that an equal number of states have tightened gun laws as have loosened them since the 2013 elementary school massacre. Your California examples are interesting from the point of view of a gun collector. But I have difficulty understanding how they infringe upon a people’s _practical real world_ ability to join a militia, hunt or defend themselves with firearms. ---
**Author:** ![Bone](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bone/32/407_2.png) [@Bone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bone)\ **Post date:** [June 11, 2014, 7:08am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gun-nuts-threaten-gun-store-owner-for-selling-gun-they-dont-like/687584/443 "2014-06-11T07:08:07Z")
> [@Measure\_for\_Measure](#): > > I believe I said, “Take on”, from the beginning. Think of it this way. When a cop encounters a situation, the first thing he does is call for backup. It’s prudent. Only those with delusions of grandeur or homicidal fantasies think that they should shoot first. It’s a good thing no one made that claim then. Seriously - your idea that a 12 year old child can fend off an adult is ridiculous. Some may be able to, but most will not. You did provide an example of that happening and that’s great. If you feel that you’ve scored some kind of victory here, I won’t try to take that away from you. ---
**Author:** ![Measure\_for\_Measure](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/measure_for_measure/32/557_2.png) [@Measure\_for\_Measure](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Measure_for_Measure)\ **Post date:** [June 13, 2014, 3:54am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gun-nuts-threaten-gun-store-owner-for-selling-gun-they-dont-like/687584/444 "2014-06-13T03:54:53Z")
> [@Bone](#): > > It’s a good thing no one made that claim then. Seriously - your idea that a 12 year old child can fend off an adult is ridiculous. Some may be able to, but most will not. You did provide an example of that happening and that’s great. If you feel that you’ve scored some kind of victory here, I won’t try to take that away from you. Woah, Bone: you were the one who asked _repeatedly_ for an example. > [@Bone](#): > > You are the one that said a 12 year old child could fend off an adult, but when pressed you meant they could run away. Unfortunately for you we were actually talking about, you know, fending off an adult. If you insist that a tween child can physically defend themselves from an adult with any regularity that’s laughable. I’m not aware of studies that test your hypothesis but if you have any examples that’s be great. I gave an example of _an eight year old_, who apparently did the impossible according to your worldview. Since I distrust anecdotes, I followed up with expert opinion on the subject. Let me drive this home: The Center for Missing and Exploited Children studied in detail a number of children who escaped from their abductors. The best strategy was not to roll over and wish you had a gun. It was to fight and run. Similar advice is given to women incidentally. And no, this isn’t “Common sense”: different advice was offered during the 1970s. Your claims are not baffling: they are however based upon propaganda and not empirical evidence. > [@Damuri\_Ajashi](#): > > So now that we have gotten rid of the CDC ban, you don’t have a problem with the NRA anymore? My problem is encapsulated in Bone’s confusion. If the NRA was a science based organization, they would counsel their membership on proper self defense strategy and technique while supporting research into the same. They could put together a rich dataset that would improve our understanding of personal safety and criminology. But they have no interest. So gunnuts continue to equate dangerous situations with thunderdome death matches and can’t conceive of de-escalating or evasion as valid _and preferable_ self defense techniques. To a hammer all problems are nails: to a gunnut all solutions are guns. ---
**Author:** ![Measure\_for\_Measure](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/measure_for_measure/32/557_2.png) [@Measure\_for\_Measure](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Measure_for_Measure)\ **Post date:** [June 13, 2014, 4:08am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gun-nuts-threaten-gun-store-owner-for-selling-gun-they-dont-like/687584/445 "2014-06-13T04:08:03Z")
Damuri Ajashi - How familiar are you with the Consumer’s Union, the publisher of _Consumer Reports_? They are a combination research and advocacy group who employ statisticians and engineers. Now frankly I think they get some things wrong (no examples come immediately to mind though, sorry). But they have a seriousness and studiousness that the NRA lacks. I’m not claiming that CU is perfect: I’m saying that a pro-science advocacy model is attainable. ---
**Author:** ![Bone](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bone/32/407_2.png) [@Bone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bone)\ **Post date:** [June 13, 2014, 4:31am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gun-nuts-threaten-gun-store-owner-for-selling-gun-they-dont-like/687584/446 "2014-06-13T04:31:28Z")
> [@Measure\_for\_Measure](#): > > Woah, Bone: you were the one who asked _repeatedly_ for an example. I actually directly asked for an example one time if I recall. And I acknowledged that you provided one. > [@](#): > > I gave an example of _an eight year old_, who apparently did the impossible according to your worldview. Since I distrust anecdotes, I followed up with expert opinion on the subject. Let me drive this home: The Center for Missing and Exploited Children studied in detail a number of children who escaped from their abductors. The best strategy was not to roll over and wish you had a gun. It was to fight and run. Similar advice is given to women incidentally. And no, this isn’t “Common sense”: different advice was offered during the 1970s. Did anyone assert that the best strategy for a child, or anyone for that matter, was to roll over and wish you had a gun? If so, please cite it. This is where you’re going off track - you’re ascribing positions to me and others that were not asserted. I concede that I said that a 12 year old will not be able to physically fend off an adult. This was overly broad. It is more accurate to say that in general, the average 12 year old will not be able to physically fend off the average 30ish year old adult. You will certainly be able to find instances of that happening, and if there are no other alternatives then for sure making the attempt is the best option. Anyways, this line of discussion is silly. > [@](#): > > My problem is encapsulated in Bone’s confusion. If the NRA was a science based organization, they would … It seems like you are the one who is confused. The NRA is many things, but a science based research group they are not. Their legislative arm is an advocacy and lobbying group. They are pretty effective. ---
**Author:** ![Damuri\_Ajashi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/898d66/32.png) [@Damuri\_Ajashi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Damuri_Ajashi)\ **Post date:** [June 14, 2014, 5:16am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gun-nuts-threaten-gun-store-owner-for-selling-gun-they-dont-like/687584/447 "2014-06-14T05:16:31Z")
> [@Measure\_for\_Measure](#): > > If the NRA was a science based organization > [@Measure\_for\_Measure](#): > > Damuri Ajashi - How familiar are you with the Consumer’s Union, the publisher of _Consumer Reports_? They are a combination research and advocacy group who employ statisticians and engineers. Now frankly I think they get some things wrong (no examples come immediately to mind though, sorry). But they have a seriousness and studiousness that the NRA lacks. I’m not claiming that CU is perfect: I’m saying that a pro-science advocacy model is attainable. I have a membership with consumer reports, they are not an advocacy group for specific rights. The NRA is no less science based than the ACLU, AFL-CIO or any other advocacy group. I don’t recall them ever claiming (or pretending) to be a scientific group. They are concerned about gun rights, and they are not the only players in the arena. Why can’t the Brady Center engage in all that science you are talking about? ---
**Author:** ![Measure\_for\_Measure](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/measure_for_measure/32/557_2.png) [@Measure\_for\_Measure](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Measure_for_Measure)\ **Post date:** [June 16, 2014, 2:50am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gun-nuts-threaten-gun-store-owner-for-selling-gun-they-dont-like/687584/448 "2014-06-16T02:50:10Z")
## The pro-choice movement has the Guttenberg Institute, who handle the science. The Johns Hopkins Center for Gun Policy and Research does some decent work. Now I admit I’ve drilled down into at least one pro-gun control paper and found it wanting. But I’ve also been disappointed with some of John Lott’s work. Still, this isn’t crackpottery I’m discussing. You might be interested in reading about the [Consumer’s Union](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consumers_Union). They were placed on the House Un-American Activities Committee’s list of subversive organizations during the 1950s. They actually do have a lobby wing, although properly most of their energy is devoted to product testing. The AFL-CIO is a big supporter of the [Economic Policy Institute](http://www.epi.org/). I admit I can’t think of what the ACLU might do that’s pro-science, but I can’t think of any crackpottery they engage in either. The key distinction I’m drawing is that it might be useful if, say, the Hoover Institution set up a gun safety unit. Except the NRA really doesn’t want to be troubled with inconvenient facts. Their publications are part propaganda, part industry cheerleading and part wackadoodle stuff. While not all of their membership are loons, the remainder consist of other aquatic seabirds previously mentioned. \*\*Ripley: “This little girl survived longer than that with no weapons and no training.” Hudson: “Why don’t you put her in charge?” \*\* As for tweens, I’ll just repeat myself. Children can learn effective techniques to head off abductions and attacks by adults. Self defense does not necessarily imply trading blows or shots. In fact evasion and calling for backup is a big part of it. It’s pretty obvious that NRA propaganda shouts down the sort of research conducted by the Center for Missing and Exploited Children, and the facts uncovered by the same. Kids can and do physically fight off adults many times their size. If 8 year old Jacob’s father was a gunnut, his ex girlfriend would have simply taken the shot gun off of the mantlepiece and shot Jacob in the head. She had the initiative in the attack after all. But that’s just an anecdote: I stress the hard hitting research by CMEC. ---
**Author:** ![Damuri\_Ajashi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/898d66/32.png) [@Damuri\_Ajashi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Damuri_Ajashi)\ **Post date:** [June 16, 2014, 3:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gun-nuts-threaten-gun-store-owner-for-selling-gun-they-dont-like/687584/449 "2014-06-16T15:14:36Z")
> [@Measure\_for\_Measure](#): > > The pro-choice movement has the Guttenberg Institute, who handle the science. The Johns Hopkins Center for Gun Policy and Research does some decent work. Now I admit I’ve drilled down into at least one pro-gun control paper and found it wanting. But I’ve also been disappointed with some of John Lott’s work. Still, this isn’t crackpottery I’m discussing. I hate defending the NRA but what NRA crackpottery are you talking about again? I thought you were saying that the NRA was enabling crackpottery with its hostility towards science (and yet we have still seen all sorts of papers and research on guns from gun control groups over the years). So now that their hostility has been neutralized with a lifting of the ban, why do you still have a problem with them? My problem with them is that they have gone from a gun rights organization to a right wing organization, yours seems to be that this gun rights orgnaization is rabidly pro-gun rights (more pro-gun than I am entirely comfortable with but with the opposition to gun rights we see in DC, I don’t know how much use a lukewarm organization would be). > [@](#): > > You might be interested in reading about the [Consumer’s Union](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consumers_Union). They were placed on the House Un-American Activities Committee’s list of subversive organizations during the 1950s. They actually do have a lobby wing, although properly most of their energy is devoted to product testing. I understand that they advocate for consumers genearlly but what right are they advocating for? > [@](#): > > The key distinction I’m drawing is that it might be useful if, say, the Hoover Institution set up a gun safety unit. Except the NRA really doesn’t want to be troubled with inconvenient facts. What do you imagine a Hoover institute gun safety unit would do? Propose new gun restrictions? Does the economic policy institute write papers on how closed shop laws hurt labor markets or reduce econmic growth? > [@](#): > > As for tweens, I’ll just repeat myself. Children can learn effective techniques to head off abductions and attacks by adults. Self defense does not necessarily imply trading blows or shots. In fact evasion and calling for backup is a big part of it. You keep missing the point. Sometimes you can’t run and backup is just too far away. I don’t advocate little kids using guns (I don’t think kids should really be firing guns before they are about 10) but guns are a huge force multiplier and it is the weakest and most vulnerable among us that benefit the most from access to guns. > [@](#): > > It’s pretty obvious that NRA propaganda shouts down the sort of research conducted by the Center for Missing and Exploited Children, and the facts uncovered by the same. This is the first I am hearing of this. You have a link or something? > [@](#): > > Kids can and do physically fight off adults many times their size. An occassional kid here and there, sure. And occassioanlly a 100 pound woman fights off a 200 pound rapist but most women would probably be better off with a gun and some awareness training. Its one thing to say that guns aren’t always the answer, its another thing to say that they are never the answer and you seem to be saying the altter. ---
**Author:** ![Measure\_for\_Measure](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/measure_for_measure/32/557_2.png) [@Measure\_for\_Measure](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Measure_for_Measure)\ **Post date:** [June 18, 2014, 6:03am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gun-nuts-threaten-gun-store-owner-for-selling-gun-they-dont-like/687584/450 "2014-06-18T06:03:35Z")
> [@Damuri\_Ajashi](#): > > So now that their hostility has been neutralized with a lifting of the ban, why do you still have a problem with them? I didn’t really have the CDC ban in mind actually, though it is an example of the NRA’s stance. I had in mind the absence of serious risk assessment in their publications and gunnut’s ignorance of the same. Also, the frankly undeveloped research on the topic. Also the anecdotes listed in every NRA publication that never mention the counterfactual or the necessity of discussing the counterfactual. My old next door neighbor once stumbled into her kitchen in the early AM and saw a guy climbing through the window. He smiled and ran off. If she wielded a gun, she would have qualified for the NRA treatment and they would have implied that the gun played a role, even if it did not. > [@](#): > > I understand that they advocate for consumers generally but what right are they advocating for? The Consumer’s Union advocates legislation: they are not a constitutional rights group. > [@](#): > > What do you imagine a Hoover institute gun safety unit would do? Propose new gun restrictions? That and develop risk assessment models. > [@](#): > > Does the economic policy institute write papers on how closed shop laws hurt labor markets or reduce economic growth? Brookings commonly runs articles or commentary by the sane conservative Robert Hall. Their analysis is careful and comprehensive. I would guess that EPI has addressed the effects of closed shop rules. > [@](#): > > You keep missing the point. Sometimes you can’t run and backup is just too far away. Oh but I agree with that. The gun can be a useful tool, though it has its risks. What I disagree with is the contention that a kid has no recourse other than a gun in an abduction scenario. That’s simply not the case, mainly because most (not all) perps limit themselves to easy victims. And most homicides occur among people who know one another. Since the killer has the initiative, it’s by no means clear that a gun in the home will make the owner safer. In my anecdote, the perp was a former intimate of the father and waited for hours before attacking the eight year old. She probably would have known the location of a gun, if the father was an enthusiast who didn’t keep his firearms hidden or in a safe. > [@](#): > > This is the first I am hearing of this. You have a link or something? Rhetoric. See more detailed critique of NRA propaganda earlier in this post. > [@](#): > > An occasional kid here and there, sure. And occasionally a 100 pound woman fights off a 200 pound rapist but most women would probably be better off with a gun and some awareness training. “Fight off” encompasses “Run away”. I agree about the awareness training point. I agree that some women would be better off with a gun. Most women? I’d guess not, given the crude statistics. But that’s the sort of research I’d like to see conducted. [Cite](http://injuryprevention.bmj.com/content/9/1/48.full), which I haven’t read. Eventually, I’d like to see a checklist procedure to guide people’s gun ownership and storage decisions. [Cite2, also unread](http://aje.oxfordjournals.org/content/160/10/929.full). Life expectancy isn’t the be-all and end-all though. Sophisticated risk assessment takes into account both intra-group variability and the fact that some deaths are more feared than others. Also quality of life issues. Like I said, there’s research to be done, and the gun owner’s perspective is legitimate. Unfortunately the NRA went down the rabbit hole long ago. ---
**Author:** ![Damuri\_Ajashi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/898d66/32.png) [@Damuri\_Ajashi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Damuri_Ajashi)\ **Post date:** [June 18, 2014, 2:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gun-nuts-threaten-gun-store-owner-for-selling-gun-they-dont-like/687584/451 "2014-06-18T14:05:28Z")
> [@Measure\_for\_Measure](#): > > Also the anecdotes listed in every NRA publication that never mention the counterfactual or the necessity of discussing the counterfactual. Noone said they aren’t advocates for a particular point of view. They are not objective neutral observers and they don’t ever pretend to be. > [@](#): > > I would guess that EPI has addressed the effects of closed shop rules. What you are asking is that the NRA support research that says that guns are bad. The NRA is likely to have supported reports that say guns are good about as frequently as the EPI has supported reports saying that closed shop rules are good. > [@](#): > > Oh but I agree with that. The gun can be a useful tool, though it has its risks. Thats really all I think Bone was trying to get at. > [@](#): > > What I disagree with is the contention that a kid has no recourse other than a gun in an abduction scenario. That’s simply not the case, mainly because most (not all) perps limit themselves to easy victims. We were not talking about abudction scenarios generally, we were talking about a particular instance where a girl was backed into a corner of a closet with a much larger man coming after her. In that particular abduction scenario, what do you think she could have done? Called 911? > [@](#): > > And most homicides occur among people who know one another. By know each other, you mean the way a gang member might know members of a rival gang? > [@](#): > > Rhetoric. See more detailed critique of NRA propaganda earlier in this post. Are you saying that my request for a cite was rhetoric or that your accusation that your statement was rhetoric? > [@](#): > > I agree about the awareness training point. I agree that some women would be better off with a gun. Most women? I’d guess not, given the crude statistics. But that’s the sort of research I’d like to see conducted. And why can’t the CMEC or whoever, conduct such research? > [@](#): > > the gun owner’s perspective is legitimate. At least we agree on something and regardless of whether or not you think the NRA is any more extreme than PETA or any other issue advocacy group, it is pretty clear that the NRA has much more popular support than most of these other special interest groups. ---
**Author:** ![Measure\_for\_Measure](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/measure_for_measure/32/557_2.png) [@Measure\_for\_Measure](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Measure_for_Measure)\ **Post date:** [June 20, 2014, 1:56am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gun-nuts-threaten-gun-store-owner-for-selling-gun-they-dont-like/687584/452 "2014-06-20T01:56:13Z")
> [@Damuri\_Ajashi](#): > > No one said they aren’t advocates for a particular point of view. They are not objective neutral observers and they don’t ever pretend to be. Their propaganda gives a misleading view of reality which enables piss-poor risk assessment among their membership. Crackpottery has consequences which extend beyond legislation. > [@](#): > > What you are asking is that the NRA support research that says that guns are bad. The NRA is likely to have supported reports that say guns are good about as frequently as the EPI has supported reports saying that closed shop rules are good. No, I’m asking for the NRA to remove their clown noses and conduct real research. I’ve read liberal _New Republic_ articles that note that even if European style gun control were passed tomorrow, there would still be the issue of millions of guns outstanding. And that furthermore efforts to vacuum them up would raise serious civil liberties issues. As noted upthread, Brookings _routinely_ provides serious discussions of serious arguments: See any issue of the _Brookings Papers on Economic Activity_. As for EPI, their Briefing Paper 300 takes before and after snapshots of the introduction of Oklahoma’s Right to Work Law, explicitly addressing the claim of whether it created jobs. Nor did they cherry pick, they measured the state’s unemployment rate, the number of manufacturing jobs, relative job growth and unemployment compared to neighboring states, relative growth compared with a statistical control group, the change in employment at the state’s borders and the number of firms relocating into the state. When you’re a propaganda outfit, you don’t go out on a limb like that: you stick to generalities, cherry pick a couple of tables and emphasize bogus anecdotal presentations. > [@](#): > > Thats really all I think Bone was trying to get at. No, he was insisting that kids can’t do anything without a bangstick in the face of an attack by an adult, except in rare circumstances. A claim that was refuted by the Center for Missing and Exploited Children. > [@](#): > > We were not talking about abudction scenarios generally, we were talking about a particular instance where a girl was backed into a corner of a closet with a much larger man coming after her. In that particular abduction scenario, what do you think she could have done? Called 911? You are misrepresenting what happened. The first thing the kid did was call her Mom. Her Mom instructed her to grab a gun and retreat to the closet. The perp then jiggled the closet door handle presumably after hearing something and was shot. If there was no gun, the girl could have readied another weapon. It’s by no means clear from the story that the perp was aware that the home was even occupied when he broke in. He may have simply ran off when told the cops were on their way. IIRC, he was captured a block away, so it’s not like he had a car parked nearby. (I may not recollect correctly though). > [@](#): > > By know each other, you mean the way a gang member might know members of a rival gang? I’m just reporting the statistics. > [@](#): > > Are you saying that my request for a cite was rhetoric or that your accusation that your statement was rhetoric? My statement was rhetoric. > [@](#): > > And why can’t the CMEC or whoever, conduct such research? Because gunnut propaganda encourages piss-poor risk assessment among their membership. There are any number of non-legislative steps they could take to encourage gun safety, but instead they choose non-empirical, anti-scientific nut-baggery. Starting with eg an empirical evaluation of gun safes vs keeping guns loaded and unlocked in various homes. Consumer Reports surveys their membership annually in order to evaluate product quality. The NRA could do something similar if they cared about their member’s welfare. But let’s face it: they don’t. Nor are they interested in building a broadly based coalition. The NRA has a narrow-casting business model. Get their fanatics riled up and the weirdos will keep cutting annual checks and a few of them will grant big donations. This goes well beyond the antics of the typical NGO: the NRA board of directors literally has about 70 members, which sounds to me like a money grabbing operation. And again, La Pierre pulls in about 4 times the paycheck what the typical high profile NGO President makes. > [@](#): > > At least we agree on something and regardless of whether or not you think the NRA is any more extreme than PETA or any other issue advocacy group, it is pretty clear that the NRA has much more popular support than most of these other special interest groups. Well, PETA and the Sea Sheppards are understood to be fringier than the Humane Society or the Environmental Defense Fund. I haven’t really thought about such comparisons. ---
**Author:** ![Hentor\_the\_Barbarian](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/8edcca/32.png) [@Hentor\_the\_Barbarian](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hentor_the_Barbarian)\ **Post date:** [June 20, 2014, 2:29am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gun-nuts-threaten-gun-store-owner-for-selling-gun-they-dont-like/687584/453 "2014-06-20T02:29:45Z")
I’ve given Dumuri the stats on homicide victim/offender relationships before. The fact that he continues to try to pretend that gang homicides are in some way predominant is evidence of how intellectually dishonest he is. He lacks such integrity it is breathtaking. > **[Expanded Homicide Data](https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u.s/2011/crime-in-the-u.s.-2011/offenses-known-to-law-enforcement/expanded/expanded-homicide-data)** Will he remember this in month’s time? No, because to be honest about reality would threaten his preferred fantasy. Cognitive dissonance and the reality-based community and all that. ---
**Author:** ![Damuri\_Ajashi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/898d66/32.png) [@Damuri\_Ajashi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Damuri_Ajashi)\ **Post date:** [June 20, 2014, 4:45am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gun-nuts-threaten-gun-store-owner-for-selling-gun-they-dont-like/687584/454 "2014-06-20T04:45:27Z")
> [@Measure\_for\_Measure](#): > > Their propaganda gives a misleading view of reality which enables piss-poor risk assessment among their membership. You make it sound like they are the only ones that do that. Did you see the recent report about 74 school shootings that turn out to include things like suicides in the middle of the night and other shootings that take place when there aren’t any school children around? Then our president comes out and repeats that staistic without all the caveats that the report included. > [@](#): > > Crackpottery has consequences which extend beyond legislation. No, I’m asking for the NRA to remove their clown noses and conduct real research. I’ve read liberal _New Republic_ articles that note that even if European style gun control were passed tomorrow, there would still be the issue of millions of guns outstanding. And that furthermore efforts to vacuum them up would raise serious civil liberties issues. As noted upthread, Brookings _routinely_ provides serious discussions of serious arguments: See any issue of the _Brookings Papers on Economic Activity_. > > As for EPI, their Briefing Paper 300 takes before and after snapshots of the introduction of Oklahoma’s Right to Work Law, explicitly addressing the claim of whether it created jobs. Nor did they cherry pick, they measured the state’s unemployment rate, the number of manufacturing jobs, relative job growth and unemployment compared to neighboring states, relative growth compared with a statistical control group, the change in employment at the state’s borders and the number of firms relocating into the state. And did they conclude that the right to work laws were good or bad for the state? I’m gonna guess that they concluded that right to work laws are bad for the people of Oklahoma (just guessing). Wake me up when EPI starts writing papers that say that teachers unions are bad for education and that right to work laws seemed to work out pretty well for state X or state Y. > [@](#): > > The NRA could do something similar if they cared about their member’s welfare. I hate defending the NRA but the NRA does in fact promote safe gun ownership. Go to the NRA headquarters and you have to take a safety class before you can use their range. They promote people using gun safes. They promote safe gun handling and ownership generally. What they do not promote is more regulation of guns or banning or confiscation of guns and that pisses some people off. > [@](#): > > The NRA has a narrow-casting business model. Someone made the point that the NRA is doomed because of their trend towards a smaller more extreme minority and for a while it was true until the gun control side tried to pass an AWB. All of a sudden they were mainstream again. > [@Hentor\_the\_Barbarian](#): > > I’ve given Dumuri the stats on homicide victim/offender relationships before. The fact that he continues to try to pretend that gang homicides are in some way predominant is evidence of how intellectually dishonest he is. He lacks such integrity it is breathtaking. > > [http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2011/crime-in-the-u.s.-2011/offenses-known-to-law-enforcement/expanded/expanded-homicide-data](http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2011/crime-in-the-u.s.-2011/offenses-known-to-law-enforcement/expanded/expanded-homicide-data) > > Will he remember this in month’s time? No, because to be honest about reality would threaten his preferred fantasy. Cognitive dissonance and the reality-based community and all that. And do those stats say that those “known” attackers are friends and family? Or are you saying that gang members and criminals cannot know each other? ---
**Author:** ![Hentor\_the\_Barbarian](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/8edcca/32.png) [@Hentor\_the\_Barbarian](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hentor_the_Barbarian)\ **Post date:** [June 20, 2014, 11:00am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gun-nuts-threaten-gun-store-owner-for-selling-gun-they-dont-like/687584/455 "2014-06-20T11:00:42Z")
> [@](#): > > And do those stats say that those “known” attackers are friends and family? Or are you saying that gang members and criminals cannot know each other? Wow, is this guy desperate or what? I suppose enough time with the NRA literature and anyone might think all the violence comes from black people. But this guy is clutching and grabbing at anything to maintain his racism. ---
**Author:** ![Bone](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bone/32/407_2.png) [@Bone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bone)\ **Post date:** [June 20, 2014, 1:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gun-nuts-threaten-gun-store-owner-for-selling-gun-they-dont-like/687584/456 "2014-06-20T13:06:06Z")
> [@Measure\_for\_Measure](#): > > No, he was insisting that kids can’t do anything without a bangstick in the face of an attack by an adult, except in rare circumstances. A claim that was refuted by the Center for Missing and Exploited Children. Either I mis-communicated or you misunderstood - but I did not make any such statement. ---
**Author:** ![Damuri\_Ajashi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/898d66/32.png) [@Damuri\_Ajashi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Damuri_Ajashi)\ **Post date:** [June 20, 2014, 7:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gun-nuts-threaten-gun-store-owner-for-selling-gun-they-dont-like/687584/457 "2014-06-20T19:02:53Z")
> [@Hentor\_the\_Barbarian](#): > > Wow, is this guy desperate or what? I suppose enough time with the NRA literature and anyone might think all the violence comes from black people. But this guy is clutching and grabbing at anything to maintain his racism. Riiiight. Now its racism.:rolleyes: You don’t have any real arguments now do you? Why not come on over to great debates. There is a gun debate going on over there. Do you think you can make an argument without insults or specious arguments or is that asking too much? ---
**Author:** ![Measure\_for\_Measure](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/measure_for_measure/32/557_2.png) [@Measure\_for\_Measure](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Measure_for_Measure)\ **Post date:** [June 24, 2014, 6:14am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gun-nuts-threaten-gun-store-owner-for-selling-gun-they-dont-like/687584/458 "2014-06-24T06:14:47Z")
> [@Damuri\_Ajashi](#): > > And did they conclude that the right to work laws were good or bad for the state? I’m gonna guess that they concluded that right to work laws are bad for the people of Oklahoma (just guessing). Wake me up when EPI starts writing papers that say that teachers unions are bad for education and that right to work laws seemed to work out pretty well for state X or state Y. First of all, I’m not that familiar with the right to work literature. But you’re discussing conclusions and I’m talking about methodology. It makes a difference if you study an issue with rigor and engage with the solid arguments of your opponents. As opposed to repeating stuff that’s been refuted over and over (speaking generally - I don’t have gun nuts in mind here) or taking a superficial take like, “Correlation isn’t causality” (and here I do). More granularly, right to work is typically framed by its proponents as a freedom issue, which indicates that they don’t have an empiric case. Not surprising, as the economic process would be difficult to establish. Right to work limits the ability of labor to organize and makes it easier to break up a union, but such effects don’t occur overnight. So identifying the effects of a right to work law should be pretty difficult. (TLDR: you need a better example.) > [@](#): > > I hate defending the NRA but the NRA does in fact promote safe gun ownership. Go to the NRA headquarters and you have to take a safety class before you can use their range. Eddie Eagle and “Don’t touch! Tell an adult!” is a joke. Pushing the 2-3 rules of gun handling is laudible. But it’s not sufficient given the numbers of gun deaths and accidents: gun safety should be evaluated on an empirical level rather than just trusting received folklore from 40 years ago. > [@](#): > > Someone made the point that the NRA is doomed because of their trend towards a smaller more extreme minority and for a while it was true until the gun control side tried to pass an AWB. All of a sudden they were mainstream again. Narrow-casting is a viable business model. If you want to attract big donors it’s an excellent business model. The NRA has over 70 members on their board of directors: in case you weren’t aware, that’s a perposterously high number. But as a reward for your benefactors? Ca-ching! > [@](#): > > And do those stats say that those “known” attackers are friends and family? Or are you saying that gang members and criminals cannot know each other? You should know the answer to this question, given your interest in the subject. As it is, it’s my impression that most gun enthusiasts have a crippled epistemology: they believe they know a great deal about self defense when in fact they know remarkably little. That’s a problem if I’m correct right? Right? IF I’m correct. I mean ignorance is curable, but when it’s compounded by delusion it’s tougher to break. But how can you have a serious discussion about self-defense when you limit yourself to one technique? I mean that’s risible. Cops don’t limit their training to gun handling: they have radios, 2 batons, mace and sometimes a taser. Plus knowledge of the law. They have all of that before their first day at on the beat. But it’s even worse than that. Gun enthusiasts tend to turn their noses up at cell phones or flight: they are actively _opposed_ to a broad based self defense approach. I see this as a recipe for poor judgment, sometimes taking the form of excessive force, other times leading to gun accidents. > [@Bone](#): > > Either I mis-communicated or you misunderstood - but I did not make any such statement. Acknowledged. ---
**Author:** ![BigT](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bigt/32/12044_2.png) [@BigT](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BigT)\ **Post date:** [June 24, 2014, 7:53am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gun-nuts-threaten-gun-store-owner-for-selling-gun-they-dont-like/687584/459 "2014-06-24T07:53:55Z")
> [@Bone](#): > > Gun control advocates are not trustworthy. They will take any opportunity to restrict or ban guns. You talk of compromise - do you realize there have been dozens of compromises in the past and every single one has both resulted in a curtailing of people’s rights as well as a call for more and more compromise? > > If there are two people, and person A’s goal is to kill person B, and person B’s goal is to not be killed - there can be no compromise between them. A cannot kill B just a little bit. Iran wants to eliminate Israel. There is no way to compromise between them - they can’t just eliminate some of Israel. > > The goal of gun control advocates is to ban guns. What will Weinberg give in exchange for this compromise, a request to the legislature which would result in nothing? And in return NJ’s ban on virtually all handguns goes uncontested. That’s…not a balanced compromise. This is another reason I think gun control advocates are dishonest. If they really intended on a compromise, they would propose real concessions. > So you want a group of people to craft legislation as long as you agree with it. That’s for show only then. > The thing is, people value different things differently. For some, the risk of gun ownership is not worth the benefit. I would never question another person’s risk assessment in that regard. They consider and choose not to own any firearms. I have no problem with that. For others, the calculus tips the other way. The problem arises when the first group assumes their assessment is the rational one, not just for themselves - but for everyone else as well. They think that any deviation from their own must be irrational. Then they try to use the force of law to impose that on everyone else. You are the one saying that any deviation must be irrational, since you believe that any attempt to have gun control means that people want to take away your guns. No one in the U.S. wants to take away guns entirely, and, if they did, it would be unconstitutional. There is no rational fear that your guns will be taken away completely. The idea that any possible regulation means that guns will inevitably is the problem. You are fighting against a made up argument rather than what is actually being argued. This is basic logical fallacies. It’s ad hominem, since you are attacking the character of the opposition as if it is relevant, and it’s a strawman since you are arguing a position that has not been made. Whether gun control advocates are being honest in their intentions has no bearing on whether smart guns should be supported or not. The compromise may or not be a good one, but any argument based on the idea that all gun control advocates want to ban guns is invalid. We have gun control advocates on this very board that actually own and use guns. And the New Jersey law in question does not ban guns. That idea is not even on the table. Why are you so afraid that a constitutional amendment will be repealed? ---
**Author:** ![BigT](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bigt/32/12044_2.png) [@BigT](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BigT)\ **Post date:** [June 24, 2014, 8:13am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gun-nuts-threaten-gun-store-owner-for-selling-gun-they-dont-like/687584/460 "2014-06-24T08:13:11Z")
> [@Damuri\_Ajashi](#): > > If these laws are so fucking good for the NRA, then why doesn’t NJ just get rid of it?. Because New Jersey’s goal is not to combat the NRA. Perhaps it should be. But New Jersey seems to want this law to go into effect, even if it empowers the NRA. Likely they believe that banning all other guns will cause developers to make other smart guns. I mean, I actually believe that the law is unconstitutional. I don’t think it was intended to be, but I do think that, since there is only one make of the gun with this option, it unreasonably restricts the use of other guns. The only way I could see this law being constitutional is if it was only non-smart guns of the same type that were banned. And I think the NRA knows this, and expects the law to be overturned, and that’s the real reason they aren’t taking the compromise. They see a greater goal in getting such a law overturned by the courts, so that other such laws will not be made. Yeah, that’s right. I’m a gun’s right advocate who will probably never own a gun and someone who thinks the current gun fetishization and special legal treatment are absurd, but I’m basically on the NRA’s side of this. Given the second amendment, the NJ law is an unreasonable restriction on gun usage. I just see no reason to assume that either side is acting in some sort of conspiracy. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gun-nuts-threaten-gun-store-owner-for-selling-gun-they-dont-like/687584.md?page=22) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gun-nuts-threaten-gun-store-owner-for-selling-gun-they-dont-like/687584.md?page=24)