PDA

View Full Version : Gene Hoffman Article in USN&WR!


oaklander
07-26-2012, 9:17 AM
I helped a bit with this article, but most of it was Gene:

http://www.usnews.com/debate-club/does-the-colorado-shooting-prove-the-need-for-more-gun-control-laws/guns-defend-good-people-from-bad-people

I urge you all to read it and share it. It gets to the basic fundamental reasons we need the right. It is also why 2/22 is the new holiday for us (more about that soon).

Each of the three "2's" represents a different thing:

1) defense of family
2) defense of friends and community
3) defense of country

adampolo13
07-26-2012, 9:26 AM
Excellent!!!

furyous68
07-26-2012, 9:27 AM
That was an excellent article!

oaklander
07-26-2012, 9:38 AM
Thanks guys, and I know Gene will appreciate the kind words as well. The concept was just to remind folks how the right of defense, keeps things on the right track. Or something like that!!!

OleCuss
07-26-2012, 9:44 AM
Nice, brief message.

chknlyps2
07-26-2012, 9:50 AM
Well Said!

kaligaran
07-26-2012, 9:52 AM
Great comparisons Gene!

odysseus
07-26-2012, 9:53 AM
Well said, tight, and to the point.

kidrice
07-26-2012, 9:56 AM
that was a nice article.

JON KARGATHALON
07-26-2012, 9:57 AM
Very nice! Go Gene!

RazzB7
07-26-2012, 10:02 AM
Great article, concise and well written. I'm happy to help broadcast via Facebook.

oaklander
07-26-2012, 10:03 AM
Yes, also make sure that you "vote up" the article using the arrows on the page, and please add a positive comment or threee!!!

:D

oaklander
07-26-2012, 10:05 AM
Great article, concise and well written. I'm happy to help broadcast via Facebook.

Thank you!!!!

Ossa
07-26-2012, 10:05 AM
Good job Gene! Thank you again for all that you're doing for us. One question though, you mention "LGBT" in the article. For what does this stand?

RP1911
07-26-2012, 10:06 AM
Liked and shared on Facebook.

oaklander
07-26-2012, 10:07 AM
Good job Gene! Thank you again for all that you're doing for us. One question though, you mention "LGBT" in the article. For what does this stand?

That stands for Lesbian Gay Bi Trans. Right now, gays are using guns to protect themselves. Setting aside any opinions one way or the other, we must agree that groups that have been harassed, should be able to defend.

IPSICK
07-26-2012, 10:26 AM
I continue to be very grateful that Gene is on our side. The article was direct, concise, and eloquent.

MatrixCPA
07-26-2012, 10:27 AM
I certainly appreciate the short but direct message. Easy to share. I threw a like on it. :)

sfwdiy
07-26-2012, 10:28 AM
Good job Gene! Thank you again for all that you're doing for us. One question though, you mention "LGBT" in the article. For what does this stand?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LGBT

--B

J.D.Allen
07-26-2012, 10:38 AM
Great article! Got any links to that DOJ stat he mentions about the number of times guns are used in lawful defense? That would be useful

rp55
07-26-2012, 10:47 AM
Great article. I sent it to some shooting friends I have been trying to convince to support CGF.

4DMASTR
07-26-2012, 10:56 AM
:79:

curtisfong
07-26-2012, 11:13 AM
Don't forget to vote down the idiot "ERMAGERD think of the children" comments from the usual suspects.

chiselchst
07-26-2012, 11:34 AM
Excellent writing Gene & Kevin!

Really good points, that people don't likely consider in this "heated" debate, especially after these types of traggic events. Excellent article... :D

bsim
07-26-2012, 11:41 AM
That's just dripping with awesome sauce.

Intimid8tor
07-26-2012, 11:46 AM
Very nicely done. This needs to get out into public view.

WatchMan
07-26-2012, 11:56 AM
Take a look at the ups vs. downs for the comments :D I hope that trend sustains!

oaklander
07-26-2012, 12:03 PM
Great article! Got any links to that DOJ stat he mentions about the number of times guns are used in lawful defense? That would be useful

https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles/165476.pdf

:D

oaklander
07-26-2012, 12:05 PM
Don't forget to vote down the idiot "ERMAGERD think of the children" comments from the usual suspects.

Yes, and HaroldJ is likely a plant from Brady. They do the same things we do, they just are not good at it, like we are.

SoCalXD
07-26-2012, 12:09 PM
Simple, Elegant and non-confrontational... EXCELLENT!

t0kie
07-26-2012, 12:16 PM
Well done!

friedokra
07-26-2012, 12:16 PM
This is an excellent article with plenty of strong reasons for not restricting firearms. I'm going to share it with all my gun-owner friends, and even those that don't own a firearm. Keep up the good work!

cqbdude
07-26-2012, 12:23 PM
That is a great article..

Awesome job...to both Oaklander and Gene..

CSACANNONEER
07-26-2012, 12:24 PM
Tagged as a reminder for me to read it this evening.

oaklander
07-26-2012, 12:26 PM
That is a great article..

Awesome job...to both Oaklander and Gene..

Yes, Gene wrote the main article, and I just added "Kevin" words - you guys know how I am these days. I just see a lot of pain here in Oakland, and it tends to make my writing a lot more dramatic. And in cases like this, where we are talking about primary civil rights, "drama" is appropriate.

cqbdude
07-26-2012, 12:30 PM
Yes, Gene wrote the main article, and I just added "Kevin" words - you guys know how I am these days. I just see a lot of pain here in Oakland, and it tends to make my writing a lot more dramatic. And in cases like this, where we are talking about primary civil rights, "drama" is appropriate.

It's short and to the point. Nothing like the way the Anti's have been writing after the Aurora tragedy.

oaklander
07-26-2012, 12:36 PM
It's short and to the point. Nothing like the way the Anti's have been writing after the Aurora tragedy.

The argument is simple, basically. The more violent the world gets, the more we need to be able to defend ourselves. Throughout history, that has always been the case. It is like a law of physics in how it works.

Countries that take away this right - ALWAYS devolve into chaos.

Let me explain another thing too. We win from love. Seriously, look at the comments at the 10's of thousands of articles on this topic. "WE" are the nice ones, and the opposition, are the ignorant and rude ones. This has effects on fencesitters. "They" see that we actually ARE the good people.

My faith teaches me that we win by love, and this is how it works when the rubber hits the road.

https://sphotos-a.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ash3/580879_4275238638736_834694234_n.jpg

ElvenSoul
07-26-2012, 12:53 PM
This needs to be sticky

MarVin1020
07-26-2012, 12:58 PM
Nice article and THANK YOU!

HowardW56
07-26-2012, 1:01 PM
Very nice! Go Gene!

:iagree:

Drivedabizness
07-26-2012, 1:17 PM
Nice job guys!!!

2Bear
07-26-2012, 1:28 PM
Each of the three "2's" represents a different thing:

1) defense of family
2) defense of friends and community
3) defense of country

Nice...


• 222 •
DEFEND FAMILY
DEFEND COMMUNITY
DEFEND US





222 - Defend Family • Defend Community • Defend US

nicki
07-26-2012, 1:44 PM
The argument is simple, basically. The more violent the world gets, the more we need to be able to defend ourselves. Throughout history, that has always been the case. It is like a law of physics in how it works.

Countries that take away this right - ALWAYS devolve into chaos.

Let me explain another thing too. We win from love. Seriously, look at the comments at the 10's of thousands of articles on this topic. "WE" are the nice ones, and the opposition, are the ignorant and rude ones. This has effects on fencesitters. "They" see that we actually ARE the good people.

My faith teaches me that we win by love, and this is how it works when the rubber hits the road.

https://sphotos-a.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ash3/580879_4275238638736_834694234_n.jpg

You have an arrow pointing toward "Love". I like this graph, it rocks, but it could use just a little "tweeking".

You need another arrow pointing the other way called "Hate". By doing that it shows the back and forth between "good and evil".

And while we are at it, on the "Love" side label it US(SAF, Calguns, NRA etc) with a comment "Freedom lovers", and label the hate side THEM (Brady Bunch, Million Mommies, LCAV) with a comment "Freedom haters".

Nicki

wjc
07-26-2012, 2:12 PM
Great article! thanks Gene and Oaklander!

It needs a wider audience....

BTW, guns also helped us defend ourselves against Indian massacre while we were steal^H^H^building this country.

SkyMag68
07-26-2012, 3:21 PM
Voted plus a few words in supporting our Rights.

FalconLair
07-26-2012, 3:31 PM
i just spent a few minutes last night explaining to a friend of mine in Seattle about the difference between the AR's he sees with the military, TV etc. versus the ones being sold to private citizens

when you look at the big picture you can't blame people for the way they feel, because they dont know the truth, the facts and the more you can educate and show them the difference's, the much better off we'll all be in the end...now i have one more friend who understands and knows the difference with AR's and he actually agreed that he saw no harm in a private citizen owning one

furyous68
07-26-2012, 3:33 PM
i just spent a few minutes last night explaining to a friend of mine in Seattle about the difference between the AR's he sees with the military, TV etc. versus the ones being sold to private citizens

That's a short conversation... the military doesn't use AR's, they use M16, M4, and other SELECT-FIRE rifles. :p

masameet
07-26-2012, 3:34 PM
I really liked this paragraph and wish it had been expanded to show how many CCW non-LEOs were involved:

The U.S. Department of Justice reports that guns are used 1,500,000 times a year to successfully defend good people from bad people—almost always without the firing of a single shot. The Colorado massacre is disturbing, but it must be seen in this context.

oaklander
07-26-2012, 3:55 PM
Nice...


• 222 •
DEFEND FAMILY
DEFEND COMMUNITY
DEFEND US





222 - Defend Family • Defend Community • Defend US

WINNING!!!!

oaklander
07-26-2012, 3:56 PM
Voted plus a few words in supporting our Rights.

Thank you!

oaklander
07-26-2012, 3:56 PM
You have an arrow pointing toward "Love". I like this graph, it rocks, but it could use just a little "tweeking".

You need another arrow pointing the other way called "Hate". By doing that it shows the back and forth between "good and evil".

And while we are at it, on the "Love" side label it US(SAF, Calguns, NRA etc) with a comment "Freedom lovers", and label the hate side THEM (Brady Bunch, Million Mommies, LCAV) with a comment "Freedom haters".

Nicki

My simple brain confuses with too many arrows!!!

:D

wash
07-26-2012, 4:14 PM
Great article! thanks Gene and Oaklander!

It needs a wider audience....

BTW, guns also helped us defend ourselves against Indian massacre while we were steal^H^H^building this country.
It was a lot harder for the Indians to get guns and look what happened to them...

Wherryj
07-26-2012, 4:52 PM
I'm glad that it was someone like Gene who wrote that editorial. It was amazingly well phrased, especially considering the recent tragedy and the obvious "open wounds". Gene managed to write in support of our rights without appearing to be at all cold hearted.

Tactful, concise and well executed.

oaklander
07-26-2012, 7:24 PM
I'm glad that it was someone like Gene who wrote that editorial. It was amazingly well phrased, especially considering the recent tragedy and the obvious "open wounds". Gene managed to write in support of our rights without appearing to be at all cold hearted.

Tactful, concise and well executed.

Yes, that is why I say we must work from love. We are not about hate or violence at all. We are the people who love life, and want to protect it from bad people who would take it from us.

GOEX FFF
07-26-2012, 7:52 PM
Thanks Oak! And VERY well said Gene!! :thumbsup:

DeanW66
07-27-2012, 1:52 AM
Well done!

Kavey
07-27-2012, 2:06 AM
Superb article, Gene. I think you just made everybody's Christmas card list.

CDFingers
07-27-2012, 4:09 AM
Bravo! I'm going to post the link around.

CDFingers

morrcarr67
07-27-2012, 6:14 AM
Very well said Gene.

MindBuilder
07-27-2012, 10:26 AM
Excellent article. I've long thought that we need to do like this article did and emphasize as much as possible that guns save the lives of good people. Maybe that should be the NRA's motto "Guns save the lives of good people."

Jason_2111
07-27-2012, 10:44 AM
Very, very well done.

I'm emailing this to pretty much everyone.

oaklander
07-27-2012, 6:14 PM
Excellent article. I've long thought that we need to do like this article did and emphasize as much as possible that guns save the lives of good people. Maybe that should be the NRA's motto "Guns save the lives of good people."

Gene and I thank you for the positive comments.

I encourage people who encounter "fence-sitters" on the self-defense issue, to forward this article to them. I think that Gene lays out very clearly the 3 types of self defense that the founders had in mind.

When people see this right in historical context, and they are not people who are locked into ideological stasis, they will usually agree with us on the issue.

NOW - there is a concept floating around that the Founders only want us to have Muskets or something. Two simple answers:

1) The First Amendment does not require that we only write with a quill pen.

2) The Founders went to great lengths, during the War of Independence, to ensure that our citizens had the most advanced small arms possible, even importing them from other countries.

The concept that citizens are only allowed "certain firearms," is a recent invention. Many people point to the first NFA act as being the thing that ended the "gangsters" - it was actually the repeal of Prohibition, and then WW2.

There is very little, if any, evidence that outlawing "types" of small arms, has any measurable effect, since criminals will always get them.

I do not wish to start discord on this topic, since I know it is subject to much debate, but we must never even start thinking that some guns are good, and some are bad. In my book, they are all good, since in the right hands, they save lives, and protect against people who are very bad.

wash
07-27-2012, 6:36 PM
I hope you don't mind that I think flame throwers are not the best self defense arms.

Flame throwers in theatres might even be a bad idea because of all the upholstery and popcorn butter.

I see no such problem with semi-automatic rifles.

wjc
07-27-2012, 6:40 PM
It was a lot harder for the Indians to get guns and look what happened to them...

Yeah..but the frontiersman in those days had open carry. :43:

skyadrenaline
07-27-2012, 6:58 PM
Does anyone have a link to the DOJ report about guns being used positively 1,500,000 times?

It's not that I don't believe Gene, but having that DOJ report would help me on facebook debates.

clutchy
07-27-2012, 7:44 PM
nice!

C.G.
07-27-2012, 8:22 PM
Well written.:thumbsup:

SURVIVOR619
07-27-2012, 8:25 PM
Thanks for sharing this! I've sent it to my friends and fam who've been defending our rights to the hilt, though intelligently, on FB... I, personally stay away from that place...


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk🔫

The Tiger
07-27-2012, 9:06 PM
Don't forget to vote down the idiot "ERMAGERD think of the children" comments from the usual suspects.

Done

supra
07-27-2012, 9:58 PM
Thank you Gene for all the time spent advocating for our rights. Keep up the great work Calguns!

oaklander
07-28-2012, 12:52 AM
Does anyone have a link to the DOJ report about guns being used positively 1,500,000 times?

It's not that I don't believe Gene, but having that DOJ report would help me on facebook debates.

Should be in post #28 in this thread. LOL, you do what I do (read only the last few pages!)

;-)


Sent from my brain, to yours. . .

Librarian
07-28-2012, 2:25 AM
Does anyone have a link to the DOJ report about guns being used positively 1,500,000 times?

It's not that I don't believe Gene, but having that DOJ report would help me on facebook debates.

Actually, you don't want to know.

Following that path leads you into discussing what, exactly, a 'defensive gun use' (DGU) is, and the validity of telephone survey methodology.

That way lies madness. And, the number of DGU doesn't matter. No one who dislikes guns is willing to accept any statistic from any source that suggests a benefit from having guns. Trying to persuade such a person is a waste of time.

Speaking about the details of surveys is a worse waste of time, unless all the participants in the discussion have had graduate level statistics and social science survey preparation training.

However, the key names to Google are Kleck, Gertz, Cook and Ludwig.

onegtalon
07-28-2012, 3:03 AM
Loved the article! Thx!


Sent from my iPhone...

oaklander
07-28-2012, 5:15 AM
Actually, you don't want to know.

Following that path leads you into discussing what, exactly, a 'defensive gun use' (DGU) is, and the validity of telephone survey methodology.

That way lies madness. And, the number of DGU doesn't matter. No one who dislikes guns is willing to accept any statistic from any source that suggests a benefit from having guns. Trying to persuade such a person is a waste of time.

Speaking about the details of surveys is a worse waste of time, unless all the participants in the discussion have had graduate level statistics and social science survey preparation training.

However, the key names to Google are Kleck, Gertz, Cook and Ludwig.

Yes - one thing I do is point out that rights do not even HAVE social cost tests. That pretty much elevates it outside of "wonk."

Jack L
07-28-2012, 8:26 AM
Professionally written. Hope it sees a lot of national publication.

hoffmang
07-28-2012, 10:13 AM
Actually, you don't want to know.

Following that path leads you into discussing what, exactly, a 'defensive gun use' (DGU) is, and the validity of telephone survey methodology.

That way lies madness. And, the number of DGU doesn't matter. No one who dislikes guns is willing to accept any statistic from any source that suggests a benefit from having guns. Trying to persuade such a person is a waste of time.

Speaking about the details of surveys is a worse waste of time, unless all the participants in the discussion have had graduate level statistics and social science survey preparation training.

However, the key names to Google are Kleck, Gertz, Cook and Ludwig.
Librarian and I had an offline conversation about this. I don't really like using the 1.5M number as it's really 1.4M or a range of "between 250,000 and 1.4M per year but probably about 1.1M per year." However, with 400 words to use it's not worth getting into why I would have written 1.4M when the link to the US DOJ report (https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles/165476.pdf) would show 1.5M and then criticize that number some.

Some of the upcoming filings in Woollard will outline this very well.

The point is simple however. There are large socially beneficial effects to firearms possession and carrying.

-Gene

HowardW56
07-28-2012, 10:27 AM
Librarian and I had an offline conversation about this. I don't really like using the 1.5M number as it's really 1.4M or a range of "between 250,000 and 1.4M per year but probably about 1.1M per year." However, with 400 words to use it's not worth getting into why I would have written 1.4M when the link to the US DOJ report (https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles/165476.pdf) would show 1.5M and then criticize that number some.

Some of the upcoming filings in Woollard will outline this very well.

The point is simple however. There are large socially beneficial effects to firearms possession and carrying.

-Gene

Good article, well written....

:King:

haveyourmile
07-28-2012, 12:09 PM
Gene and Oak, you guys (and B Wiese) are totally my heroes. Well played, sirs

Librarian
07-28-2012, 12:22 PM
Yes - one thing I do is point out that rights do not even HAVE social cost tests. That pretty much elevates it outside of "wonk."
Excellent point - rights are not subject to 'balancing tests'.

gunsmith
07-28-2012, 12:57 PM
it looks more like an opinion piece then an article to me, but none the less - good job

wilit
07-28-2012, 1:11 PM
Nice article.

I have a suggestion/request. I'd love to see an article about the ineffectiveness of the original Fed AWB. Particularly setting the record straight that only new manufacture of AWs was banned but possession and transfer of grandfathered weapons was still allowed. Also, I know it may be difficult, but I'd love to see some sort of DOJ stat showing how many prosecutions were made under that statue. I seem to remember many years ago seeing a stat that the number was well below 100 prosecutions for the 10 year duration of the law.

oaklander
07-28-2012, 3:56 PM
it looks more like an opinion piece then an article to me, but none the less - good job

Everything that you read, whether or not it is bylined as an article, is actually an opinion. The deal here is that our opinion is closer to actual reality than opposition opinion. You have bought into the objectivity myth.


Sent from my brain, to yours. . .

sar_man
07-28-2012, 4:44 PM
Everything that you read, whether or not it is bylined as an article, is actually an opinion. The deal here is that our opinion is closer to actual reality than opposition opinion. You have bought into the objectivity myth. :iagree:

GDM
07-28-2012, 5:11 PM
Wow, read the article earlier in the week, nice read. I went back to check the debate, seems like the people who disagreed jumped in numbers. All the "yes" men are ahead of the "No" people.

RobG
07-28-2012, 5:22 PM
Nicely done, Gene.

oaklander
07-28-2012, 6:07 PM
Wow, read the article earlier in the week, nice read. I went back to check the debate, seems like the people who disagreed jumped in numbers. All the "yes" men are ahead of the "No" people.

What happens is that little Facebook groups do "fire missions" on online articles. That is one of the reasons social media is so important, since we actually DO outnumber opposition by a huge margin.


Sent from my brain, to yours. . .

HowardW56
07-28-2012, 6:31 PM
What happens is that little Facebook groups do "fire missions" on online articles. That is one of the reasons social media is so important, since we actually DO outnumber opposition by a huge margin.


Sent from my brain, to yours. . .

Everyone needs to go to this link so that they can vote for all of the articles, not just approve of Gene's...

http://www.usnews.com/debate-club/does-the-colorado-shooting-prove-the-need-for-more-gun-control-laws

bomb_on_bus
07-28-2012, 7:27 PM
Its almost mind numbing that many people out there think that these sort of tragedies can be avoided by getting rid of the instrument and fail to even look at the person behind the killings.

The article does a good job illustrating the fact that going after the right to bear arms doesn't change anything or prevent anything like that in Aurora CO.

I am glad to see that there are enough people out there that aren't letting emotions cloud judgement and see that the antis are using this tragedy to forward their evil agendas.

People need to focus on the facts involved here. The shooter was a killer and used a tool to carry out his evil acts. He was proficient in building bombs and flammable chemicals and if for some reason guns weren't available you can bet it would have been explosives used instead.

Would it have made a difference if the killer used WalMart chemicals to build explosives to kill those people instead? It would have to the Brady's sadly though.

sighere
07-28-2012, 10:30 PM
Gene, great job on the article. Very "to the point" without any side trips into the emotional. It's good ammo for the discussion... (sorry for the pun)

VegasND
07-29-2012, 7:09 AM
Good article. I'll be sharing it.

oaklander
07-29-2012, 10:16 AM
Yes, one thing about that article is that Gene (and me a little bit) go deeper into the moral dimensions of our right of defense. It it no secret that I am a (an imperfect) Christian. In my faith, we learn that life is sacred. And while we are told to "render upon Caesar," we are are also told to put on the breastplate of righteousness and take a stand against the heavenly forces that seek to harm us.

No matter what your religion, or even if you have NO religion, you must realize that this right protects all other rights. In my book, that makes it sacred. So much of our debate on this topic is about shortsighted little policy wonky thingies. These little statistical arguments obscure the larger picture.

The truth is in the large picture. There is no truly free country in this world, that DOES NOT HAVE THIS RIGHT.

That is why the *ultimate* argument sounds in morals, which is above law. I know this sounds strange coming from a lawyer like me. But even in law, we have a concept called "equity." This is a separate part of law that even used to have its own courts. It deals not just with what is the law, it deals with what is right, and just.

Just like the right, is above law, our own discourse and actions, must be above everything. We on this end, must remain true to the right, and true to each other. And we ARE! Part of why we are winning in the courts, and in the courts of public opinion, is the simple fact that we are right, in every sense.


Sent from my brain, to yours. . .

Thordo
07-29-2012, 7:02 PM
Awesome and inspiring!!

Thordo

phdo
07-29-2012, 7:39 PM
Awesome!