Pro-Gun Children's Book Explodes In Popularity After Media Ridicule

I saw this book on The Colbert Report the other night and thought it was a part of one of his gags! I guess the joke's on me!

originally posted by: ScepticScot
a reply to: EvillerBob

But hand guns have the sole purpose if killing people.

The fact that some people take pleasure firing them does not change this.

I used my Walthour P22 to kill a Timber Rattlesnake that was in my driveway just a month ago. Not the best weapon of choice, but it was handy.

Just sayin'

a reply to: Lolliek
There are approximately 5 snake bite deaths a year in the US. 32000 gun deaths.

originally posted by: ScepticScot
a replyds to: EvillerBob.

Yes there are many ways to kill someone with every day objects. But those objects are not designed with purpose of killing someone. If someone enjoyed blowing things up does That mean that they should be allowed to keep plastic explosive in their apartment?

I have no doubt you are a responsible gun owner but can you guarantee that you guns will never be stolen. Having guns in society creates risk of gun violence.

If you have guns being carried round in every day situations it makes the risk of even minor disagreements or misunderstandings resulting in death Tha much higher.

If they can store the explosives safely and blow things up safely, why not? The standards for storing them would be much higher, it goes without saying - and if you look at any of the storage standards for people who can own explosives they tend to be bunkers built away from residential areas - but if they can meet the standards, why should we stop them? Again, it all comes down to whether or not you think they intend to cause harm or don't care about safety. If you can be satisfied that someone is safe, what value is there to stopping them? They're not going to cause harm without them, but they're not going to cause harm with them, either. It has no effect on you or me, or our collective safety, the only thing changed is their loss of freedom to do something they enjoy without affecting others.

Now, you make a very good point about stolen firearms, and I've actually looked into this previously. We already have gun violence in our society. A surprising amount of it, as well. Do you know how much of that is caused by stolen firearms? As it turns out, very, very little, even when handguns were legal. Strict storage requirements played a significant part in that, and I have no issue with those requirements as they stand.

We recently had two police officers ambushed and shot; the same man had previously shot two other people in separate ambushes. He used a handgun and a hand grenade. As far as I have been able to establish (though I have not been able to confirm it) the model handgun used was not released until after the ban, and the hand grenade used has never been legal for civilian ownership. These were not stolen weapons or transferred from a legal owner, they were never capable of being legally held in the UK.

Latisha Shakespeare and her friend - another tragedy, gunned down with a MAC 10 fully-automatic submachine gun. Full-auto firearms have not been legal for civilian ownership since the 30's. The MAC 10 wasn't even designed until (from memory) the 70's. That gun was not stolen, or transferred from a legal owner, and it was never capable of being legally held in the UK.

Theft is a real concern, I fully accept that, but it has no real links to gun violence. Handguns are being used daily in Britain in the commission of crime, and it appears likely that most of them are being imported or even made in the UK (as was the case with the MAC 10). It's easier to go out and buy a firearm that it is to go through the bother of stealing one. Well, for criminals at least. Most of us wouldn't know how to go about buying one, but then again most of us wouldn't know how to go about stealing one either.

My view is this - considering how strict the current licensing and storage requirements are, including the need to be part of a club for many kinds of firearm (for example, I am licensed to own a revolver, but it can only be used at a recognised range, I can't just take it out into the back garden and plink at tin cans), I think that someone who is capable of meeting those requirements should be allowed to have handguns and semi-automatic rifles as well. Personally I would include any types, including machine guns, out of principle if nothing else, but I think that might be too big a step for the British public to take at the moment

a reply to: EvillerBob
Thanks that was a very detailed reply and appreciate your point of view.
I would disagree on 2 points in particular one practical one more theoretical.
First I don't agree we have a guns used every day in the UK. Statistics on gun crime and the fact we have an unarmed police force supports this.
Secondly I disagree that intent ir not sufficient to judge if something should be legal. The ridiculous example would be if wanted to own a nuclear bomb but not use it would that be ok. Risk has to be taken into account.

originally posted by: ScepticScot
a reply to: EvillerBob


On not so bloody smart phone that seems to have taken against replying properly. Apologies for any confusion.

No problems - been there, done that!

Also, forgot to mention - I have mixed feelings on the thoughts of carrying a firearm. Strictly speaking I'm in favour of people being free to do what they want, but I'd certainly be concerned that the UK simply does not have the mindset at the moment as guns - even legal ownership - seem very much a taboo. Just like mucky mags shared around between school boys before "sex education" become more widely accepted in schools, people are learning all the wrong things from all the wrong places.

I grew up around firearms and shooting and my view on them is very much coloured by that perspective - they're tools, they only do what we allow them to do, but like any tool you need to treat them with respect. Most people have learned everything they know from movies and computer games, there is no real exposure to shooting in any sensible environment, so there is little... how to put this... "respect" for the responsibility involved with owning a firearm.

So, as you also say, I would be concerned that people would do stupid things, pulling a gun over pointless arguments.

As an aside, growing up in the arse-end of nowhere, we all carried pocketknives as kids. Again, we were taught that they were tools, and they needed to be treated with respect. We got into all the fights and arguments and punch-ups that kids get into, but never to my recollection, no matter how rough or bitter it got, did anyone ever pull their knife out of their pocket. It was a line that we all respected and we never crossed it. Didn't even think about it.

This is why it really annoys me when people point to an object and say "weapon! kill! death!" It's all about mindset, what you see when you look at a knife, or a firearm. It doesn't have to be that way - in fact, if anything, you risk supporting and encouraging that negative mindset every time you repeat it. It becomes mysterious, and dangerous, and taboo. You force people to only ever have one perception of it. In other words, all the perfect buttons to push to make people interested, but for all the wrong reasons.

Imagine the outcry if a school said that it wanted to run a target rifle club. It would be plastered across every newspaper. Yet, when my daughter's primary school ran an archery club, not a negative word was to be had - quite rightly, too, and she enjoyed every session. A rifle is just an evolution of the same concept as a bow - hunting and war. The rifle is more effective, yes, but it's exactly the the same concept. We've just got a healthier mindset as a nation when it comes to archery.

originally posted by: ScepticScot
a reply to: EvillerBob
Thanks that was a very detailed reply and appreciate your point of view.
I would disagree on 2 points in particular one practical one more theoretical.
First I don't agree we have a guns used every day in the UK. Statistics on gun crime and the fact we have an unarmed police force supports this.
Secondly I disagree that intent ir not sufficient to judge if something should be legal. The ridiculous example would be if wanted to own a nuclear bomb but not use it would that be ok. Risk has to be taken into account.

No problems, it's always a pleasure to have a reasoned discussion. Even if you don't agree, you've taken the time to listen and put your points clearly, which is a courtesy rarely extended in these discussions!

"Every day" is perhaps a mixture of sensationalism and vague definition on y part. Lots of things count as gun crime without involving shots fired. However, take a look at the following map - just for Liverpool, for 2011-2012. All of them are shots fired, just in one city. How many of these made the news?

maps.google.co.uk... /maps/ms?ie=UTF8&t=h&oe=UTF8&msa=0&msid=211731659263515433730.00049d1b4d8e14404c160&dg=feature

I think intent does play a major part of it. You can take it to extreme examples where it no longer fits comfortably - nuclear weapons as you say, biological and chemical weapons, etc - but if you look at it within the scope of what we are realistically likely to own - handguns, rifles, shotguns - then it works well.

The thing is, if you can pass the risk assessment to own a firearm, I think this means you should be able to own a firearm - not just a single shot rifle, but any firearm.

People don't think "oh I was going to commit a crime today but I've only got a bolt-action so maybe I'll watch the TV instead". They either have good intentions or bad intentions. A good person is a good person because that is their character, not because of what they have in the safe in the closet. A good person with a shotgun is still going to be a good person even if they have a handgun as well.

If you can pass the checks to get the Firearms certificate, then you should be considered safe to own a firearm. The type of firearm should not be relevant. Because... well, because it isn't.

a reply to: EvillerBobA good point on the archery. Is the opportunity came up fir one of my kids to do similar wouldn't hesitate for a second to encourage them to do it. As stated before don't have,a issue with rifles if properly regulated.
On hand guns I gave yet to he's a convincing justification for anyone to own one. To me they are a tool with the purpose of killing people while being easy to carry,conceal.
If there was a 100% fool proof vetting system then maybe would reconsider but even then think the increase risk of having such guns in society is not worth it.
Feel we might have hijacked the ops thread into a general debate on gun ownership ethics. Sorry .

a reply to: EvillerBob

The rest of us are supposed to feel just fine with some random bozo walking around with a gun strapped to his hip like a spaghetti western reject?

No one but the guy knows his intentions with that gun, are we do assume he's not going to do in some homicidal rampage?

How do we know? I mean obviously the individual is very insecure about himself because he feels the need to be armed in public, literally anything could set him off. Then what? Pistols at dawn? Cmon, it's not the wild west. And he gets his gun safety instruction from this book?

It does not inspire confidence.

originally posted by: ScepticScot
a reply to: EvillerBob
Feel we might have hijacked the ops thread into a general debate on gun ownership ethics. Sorry .

I think if it's a tangent, it's one that is still worth exploring within the context of the thread. I also think some of this applies quite specifically to the original topic. I'm completely ignoring self-defence, however, as I think it only muddies the waters in relation to our discussion.

I understand what you say about the view on handguns compared to rifles, and this is probably where the conflicts arise between the two sides of the debate.

People can imagine target shooting and hunting with rifles, even if they've never participated. You can understand the challenge in trying to hit a tiny target hundreds of meters away. You have the mental image of the moustachioed man in brylcreemed hair and waistcoat, stalking wildebeest in Africa. It all seems more... gentlemanly. In the same way, you can imagine the farmer with his shotgun, getting some pheasants for the village parson, or protecting his chickens from the local foxes.

But handguns are different. People find it more difficult to appreciate the challenges of hitting a target a few meters away. Handguns have a stronger association with gangster films and bad-boy rappers. It comes across as a small, sneaky weapon that can be hidden in a pocket. The thing is, the people who have been involved in target handgun shooting do find it enjoyable and challenging, just like trying to hit a tiny target hundreds of meters away.

This leads to two camps, both defined by mindset. It can be, quite frankly, incredibly frustrating at times, to have people with absolutely no experience of something beyond Hollywood, video games, and gangster rap videos, telling me what I must be thinking, because that's what they think. By the way I have noted, and am grateful, that you haven't taken this approach. This is usually why the pro-firearms camp tends to get quite defensive and dismissive.

There's an old expression about "the best way to change an anti is to take them shooting". There's a lot of truth in that. It doesn't mean someone will run out to buy a gun afterward, or even that they will want to shoot again, but people's perspectives often shift a bit once they've turned up and "had a go". It's just about the opportunity to take the mystery out of it, clear away the Hollywood myths.

The difficulty in the UK is that it clubs are very tightly regulated when it comes to non-members shooting, it has to be on specially-approved "open-days", only a certain number of days per year and a cap on the number who can attend, visitors have to submit background information before attending, all non-member shooters need one-on-one supervision, non-members are only allowed to use certain kinds of firearms, etc. It makes it almost impossible to say to someone "come on, I'll take you to the range and let you have a go". Also, while some handguns are still legally held by civilian FAC holders, even if a club member owned one they wouldn't be allowed to let you try it, even if you had a full certificate.

I'm lucky in that I often spend time in other countries where I can still go a range and shoot handguns. My perspective on them is radically different to most people in the UK. The shame is that it doesn't have to be like that, but you'll almost never have the chance to build any experience of it beyond films, games, MTV and tabloid newspapers, so that's all most people will ever judge it on. Most of the times I've gone with a first-time shooter, the usual first response is disappointment - handguns are noisy, smelly, they hurt your wrist, and you can never get it to hit what you're aiming at; nothing like the movies at all. Then they start to get past the feeling of "woooo I have a gun!" and start to get a few hits on paper. That's when it becomes fun and usually you see the focus shift, from the piece of metal in their hand, to the challenge of trying to get closer and closer to the center of the target.

It sounds like I'm trying to idealise this, to make it into some amazing experience that everyone will love. It's not. Lots of people try it and don't enjoy it. I'm just trying to highlight how differently we see firearms. We're not blind to the dangers - in fact we probably appreciate them far more than you. We're not reckless Rambos or SAS-wannabes. We're not unfeeling towards the people who have been the victims of gun crime. We just know that the problem isn't the piece of metal, it's the person holding it - and if the person wants to hurt you, it doesn't matter if the piece of metal is shaped like a gun, a knife, or a crowbar, it's what the person does with it that counts. If they want to hurt people, they will find a way to do it with or without a firearm - and in the list of massacres by lone nutjobs (because amazingly enough, there is a list on the internet) none of the ones at the top of the list involved firearms. In fact, I think the largest involved a length of chain, a padlock, a can on petrol, and a lighter.

originally posted by: HauntWok
a reply to: EvillerBob

The rest of us are supposed to feel just fine with some random bozo walking around with a gun strapped to his hip like a spaghetti western reject?

No one but the guy knows his intentions with that gun, are we do assume he's not going to do in some homicidal rampage?

How do we know? I mean obviously the individual is very insecure about himself because he feels the need to be armed in public, literally anything could set him off. Then what? Pistols at dawn? Cmon, it's not the wild west. And he gets his gun safety instruction from this book?

It does not inspire confidence.

My posts need to be considered within a different context - both myself and ScepticScot are located in the UK (possibly until September 18th, anyway!), so we are discussing it within a much more tightly regulated regime.

Having said that, open carry itself is not a sign of insecurity and your fear that "anything could set him off" is baseless. You are perfectly safe to assume that he's not going to go on a homicidal rampage because very few people are likely to do that. Those that do are generally the kind who obsess over what other people should or should not be doing. If you're rival drug dealers, or you're wearing the wrong gang colours on his gang's turf then sure, you have a reason to be worried - but in that case, he probably wouldn't be open carrying. In a nutshell, chill out.

I heard a wonderful description of liberalism as being "the inevitable outcome of a psychopath projecting their own desires onto everyone else". Just because you're frightened that you couldn't control yourself if you had a gun, it doesn't mean everyone shares those flaws. That's rather conceited of you. You are not representative of humanity as a whole.

I wouldn't support carrying in public (whether concealed or otherwise) in the UK at the moment. Not because I disagree with carrying a firearm, but because I think the UK currently has a very immature and unhealthy cultural approach to firearms, mostly caused by forcing people to have their only exposure through the media. Even if were legal, I wouldn't carry a firearm. There simply isn't the need in 99.999% of the UK, and I have no desire or need to go to any of the places that would make me feel that exposed to risk.

a reply to: [post=18261849]EvillerBob[/post
There is danger with any thread on firearms becoming the 'cold dead hand ' crowd on one side and over emotional anti everything on the other.
Must retire for evening as early start tomorrow however will try and reply tomorrow as you certainly raised some interesting points. Thanks for taking the time to explain your view so clearly.

originally posted by: ScepticScot
a reply to: [post=18261849]EvillerBob[/post
There is danger with any thread on firearms becoming the 'cold dead hand ' crowd on one side and over emotional anti everything on the other.
Must retire for evening as early start tomorrow however will try and reply tomorrow as you certainly raised some interesting points. Thanks for taking the time to explain your view so clearly.

No problem. Thank you for listening and for putting your own views so clearly and reasonably.

Edited to add:

What might also help you to appreciate why firearms owners tend to adopt this strong "cold dead hands" approach, is to understand that firearms owners (in both the UK and US) have been heavily shafted by the "reasonable compromise" or "half-a-cake" argument. It goes like this:

Imagine two men, let's call them Bob and Tom. Bob has a cake, Tom has none.

Tom comes up to Bob and say "I want your cake!", to which Bob replies "No!"
"Well," says Tom, "now you're being unreasonable. A reasonable man would compromise. A reasonable compromise would be to give me half of your piece of cake."
Bob, not wanting to be seen as unreasonable, gives him half the cake and watches Tom walk away.
A few moments later, Tom returns.
"You still have cake. I want your cake!", to which Bob again replies "No!".
"Well," says Tom, "now you're being unreasonable. A reasonable man would compromise. A reasonable compromise would be to give me half of your piece of cake."
Bob, still worried about seeming unreasonable, gives him half of the piece of cake.
This process repeats, and repeats, and repeats. Eventually, there are only a few crumbs left. Tom returns and demands the last few crumbs.
"No!" says Bob.
"Don't be stupid," says Tom, "you've not even got enough there to eat. What's the point in refusing? That's just unreasonable."
Bob then sadly hands over the last few crumbs. After all, it is only reasonable.

This is exactly the process that has been used in both the UK and the US. Always "reasonable compromise", but somehow that compromise only ever involves one side losing something.

originally posted by: HauntWok


The rest of us are supposed to feel just fine with some random bozo walking around with a gun strapped to his hip like a spaghetti western reject?

Your fears and insecurities are YOUR issue to deal with. Not the other person. And I do find it disgusting that while you expect someone else NOT to exercise a Right, you march that because YOU want your YOUR feelings to be catered to by others.
Basically everyone else must make YOU feel okay, and screw others.
Sounds just like every Progressive I have ever come into contact with.

originally posted by: HauntWok
No one but the guy knows his intentions with that gun, are we do assume he's not going to do in some homicidal rampage?

So, disarm people that YOU think might snap. And how do you determine this???
Skin color? White male? A Conservative?

originally posted by: HauntWok
How do we know? I mean obviously the individual is very insecure about himself because he feels the need to be armed in public, literally anything could set him off. Then what? Pistols at dawn? Cmon, it's not the wild west. And he gets his gun safety instruction from this book?

You don't know. The same way you don't know if you will be hit by a drunk driver, struck by lightening, robbed at knife point, have a heart attack or trip and skin your knee.

originally posted by: HauntWok
It does not inspire confidence.

It isn't supposed to. A fellow citizen does not need to instill confidence to you or anyone else while exercising a Right.

a reply to: EvillerBob

I've visited England twice in my life, lovely country, I had a blast both times.

But, do you think that anyone who sees a random dude with a gun is just going to think "cool"?

This culture is tired if the violence, some say arm themselves, but doesn't that just perpetuate the violence?

thinkprogress.org...

Legalized murder, it's not just self defense straight up legalized murder.

originally posted by: HauntWok
a reply to: EvillerBob

I've visited England twice in my life, lovely country, I had a blast both times.

But, do you think that anyone who sees a random dude with a gun is just going to think "cool"?

This culture is tired if the violence, some say arm themselves, but doesn't that just perpetuate the violence?

thinkprogress.org...

Legalized murder, it's not just self defense straight up legalized murder.

And yet, even when they have the chance in the article to cherry-pick the cases that suit their point best, many of the cases involve the defendant being denied the chance to rely on "Stand Your Ground" and still being acquitted.

In other words, a jury with access to all the information believes it was right to use deadly force in those situations, with or without "Stand Your Ground". Unless you have more information available than the jury, why do you think you know better than them?

If poor innocent little teenagers don't want to get shot, perhaps they should stop acting like thugs? Even blessed Saint Trayvon would still be alive, free to pursue his burgeoning career as a drug-dealer and violent thug, if only he made sure to only attack unarmed men. Of course, if Zimmerman were unarmed, he would quite likely be dead or permanently brain-damaged, but these lists of innocent teenagers never seem to include the lists of their previous victims, do they?

a reply to: EvillerBob

Defend it all you like, its just legalized murder.

Plain and simple, the people that are terrified of their own shadow have an excuse to butcher a human being for playing music they don't like. Or looking different, or speaking differently.

Legalized murder.

originally posted by: HauntWok
a reply to: EvillerBob

Plain and simple, the people that are terrified of their own shadow have an excuse to butcher a human being for playing music they don't like. Or looking different, or speaking differently.

Yet even when "Stand Your Ground" is taken out of the equation, a jury with access to the evidence (not just the cherry-picked quotes in newspaper articles) agreed that there was a threat sufficient to justify lethal force.

Sounds like it's not just a matter of music, looks, or the way of speaking. Or, perhaps like Carlos Mustelier, it's because he tried to mug the guy by punching him in the head in an attempt to knock him out.

Except, of course, as we all know, a friendly little tap to the head is perfectly safe.

Just ask:
Andrew Young
Daniel Christie
David Cassai
Simon Mitchell
Taran Asthana

Except you can't, because they're dead after a single punch to the head, along with hundreds of other people who have died the same way.

You could always ask James Macready-Bryan, I suppose, seeing as he survived his one punch to the head. You might have to wait a bit, though, it's taken him seven years to regain control of his facial muscles after the attack caused serious brain damage, he might need several more years to be able to talk - and when (if ever) he learns to talk again, I bet he'll first want to spend some time complaining about needing to have his meals pumped straight into his stomach five times a day.

If Carlos Mustelier had been successful, and Thomas Baker was lying there dead, would you even be mentioning him?

No, you wouldn't. It probably wouldn't even make the news. But it made the news because it was the attacker who died. Carlos Mustelier placed Thomas Baker in a very real, very serious risk of death. He's not a victim of legalised murder, he was a brutal thug who violently and without warning placed a poor unsuspecting man in a position where he had to fight for his life. I bet you could carry on working through the list from the link you gave and find that to be a common theme with many of the "victims".

I truly believe that you have a great deal of love and compassion in your heart for victims... just as long as they're "the right kind" of victims. Anyone else is just an inconvenience to be ignored.

Double tap, apologies

My point was that I own a handgun, and use it on my farm - not on people. Not everyone who owns a handgun plan on going on murder sprees.

Oh, and my husband was bit by a rattlesnake earlier this spring. It was awful and terrifying, and the wait for the anti venom seemed to take forever. He was in the hospital for a week. Hence keeping the gun handy. The snakes are bad this year.

No one is going to win this debate. The two sides are too polorized. I learned to shoot when I was a child. My kids know how to shoot. Not just guns, but archery as well. They are very aware that these are not toys. We all carry pocket knives (the kids don't take those to school). Who knows? I might snap at the grocery store because they don't have my favorite ice cream! I can grab my pocket knife and stab the poor stock boy!

I am convinced the problem is not the weapon (of any kind). It is the people using it.

Bowing out now. This is a no win.

a reply to: Lolliek
Yeah I hear ya. I was raised on guns, knives, bows, and various other tools that a whole lot of city folks would be mortified hearing about kids using. I learned to drive way before I was legally able to. Driving on our property, then going on offroading adventures with the family. It's a whole different way of life, and if the tools are to be blamed, the country would be a blood bath, yet all the bloodbaths seem to take place in big cities.