• We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
  • Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.

Interview with John Pierce in the Bloomberg view

JamesCanby

Activist Member
Joined
Jul 2, 2010
Messages
1,480
Location
Alexandria, VA at www.NoVA-MDSelfDefense.com

marshaul

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Aug 13, 2007
Messages
11,200
Location
Fairfax County, Virginia
John acquitted himself well, as usual.

One thing, though: :)p)

I am not suggesting a correlation or causative effect because there is no data showing such relationships.
Well, technically John did just suggest a correlation:

Despite the shrill, hysterical cries from the anti-gun crowd, as gun rights have been liberalized across the nation violent crime has dropped as well.
I think what he meant to say was something along the lines of "I'm not suggesting that there's a causal relationship between more guns and less crime, because the data can't support that. What I am saying is that the data demonstrate an inverse correlation between guns and crime, which pretty well disproves a causal relationship of the 'more = more' type."

:p
 

Grapeshot

Legendary Warrior
Joined
May 21, 2006
Messages
35,337
Location
Valhalla
Seriously doubt that John had any illusion of converting his host.

John has a unique ability to present his viewpoint in a manner that those with an open mind can more easily digest it, and thereby become better informed.
 

davidmcbeth

Banned
Joined
Jan 14, 2012
Messages
16,170
Location
earth's crust
The RKBA includes both CC and OC. Like our right to travel, we choose the mode or method.

Because a judge or judges say one thing or another is irrelevant. Rights cannot be voted on by a judge.
 
Last edited:

since9

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Jan 14, 2010
Messages
6,964
Location
Colorado Springs, Colorado, USA
Good job overall, particularly given the author's initial perception that it's the "actively stupid," "passively stupid," and "nincompoops" which pose the greatest threat. Firearms injury and death statistics clearly show otherwise.

Although the vast majority of his responses are sound, I would like to point out several key areas where I would have answered differently, as well as the why behind my responses.

"Open carry is the right protected by the Second Amendment and most state analogs. Concealed carry is a state-granted -- and potentially revocable -- privilege."

When our Second Amendment was conceived and signed, and ratified, firearms were no small affair, and aside from placing a long arm or pistol under a blanket, the idea of concealing a firearm was rather far-fetched. The Second Amendment does not specifically protect open carry or concealed carry. It protects exactly what it states: "the right to keep and bear arms," without deference to either mode of conveyance.

Furthermore, although CC permits are granted or denied at the state level in some states, it's often done by county authority. Regardless, following McDonald v. Chicago, a federal court ruled Chicago could not use concealed carry as a means of denying the masses their right to keep and bear arms. Chicago relented. Meanwhile, open carry remains a means of carry denied by six states.

"State constitutions are another story, with some distinguishing the right of open carry from the privilege of concealed carry. Here, for example, is New Mexico's..."

First, that was ratified in 1912, long after the Second Amendment. Second, the question concerned the following: "I am unaware of anything in the Second Amendment ... explicitly endorsing open carry or distinguishing it in any way from concealed carry." The scope of the question is federal, not state. Invoking a state constitution is a non sequitur.

"I should point out that, if there truly are that many aggressive, impulsive, drug-addicted and mentally unstable people wandering the streets, then shouldn't the rest of us be equipped to defend ourselves?"

I agree with this completely, but would like to have seen you answer his question about drug addicts and alcoholics with the simple fact that while both groups are out there and have access to guns, we simply don't see his concerns in the statistics. What we do see is the vast majority of people who aren't comfortable carrying a firearm "on their hips," regardless of reason, simply don't. I personally believe there's some deep-seated instinct or understanding that keeps most people who shouldn't be handling firearms from handling firearms. Not all, mind you, but most.

And since not all such people chose not to, your words with respect to the rest of us being equipped to defend ourselves is very appropriate.

As an aside on the author's approach, it's in line with most reporting, which seeks to create conflict, along with viewership and advertising sales, by portraying even very disproportionate sides to an issue as if they were relatively even. You'll find this evidenced in his "some do, some don't" comment about drug and alcohol abuse. Such misleading portrayals must, of course, ignore the statistics which clearly shows the two sides are not at all evenly matched.

"In your argument you are making several assumptions that I question."

I would question his other assumptions as well, most notably implied in his statements about "arming one and all" and "no price to arming people." I've encountered this misconception about "arming people" so often it must surely be a central tenant of the anti-gun manifesto. We propose no such thing. We propose the right to keep and bear arms, but as a personal option, not any sort of mandate.

Even so, he was begging the question with "Or are you suggesting that arming one and all will result in some sort of ballistic equilibrium, in which a large increase in gun carrying in public will not yield more violence precisely because so many people are armed?" I'm surprised you didn't simply say "Yes, and the facts support it" because they most certainly do (see attached).

I'm only about half-way through, but I'm also late for breakfast, so this will do for now. As I mentioned earlier, I agree with the vast majority of John's responses aside from the few listed above.

UK vs USA Crime Stats and Rates - Negative.jpg
 

marshaul

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Aug 13, 2007
Messages
11,200
Location
Fairfax County, Virginia
I would have pointed out that it's in no way required to arm "one and all" to achieve a sort of "critical mass" where the effects (whatever they may be) of widespread armament will begin to be seen. I suspect the requisite proportion is more like 10% to 25%.

Also, as a segue from that, and to further dispel her fears, I would have pointed out the following:

John rightly argued that criminals don't follow the law. But the woman wasn't on about criminals; she was concerned with "nincompoops". I would have pointed out the commonality with which folks choose to not carry a gun simply because they don't trust themselves or they don't want that level of responsibility.

I basically don't have any anti-gun friends (it would be hard to both stay my friend and stay anti-gun). Many of my friends own firearms, but most do not carry. The reasons range from laziness, to a general worry about assuming that degree of responsibility on a regular basis. I have a couple friends who are "hotheads", and they both prefer to carry an ID to get into the nearest bar to a firearm (even the "hotheaded" friend who owns guns never carries them). Their lifestyles are already firmly established, and carrying a gun isn't going to introduce itself to their lives any time soon. I've heard people tell me that they don't trust their own tempers, but what I don't see is my friends actually behaving like "nincompoops" with firearms.

While there may be a great deal to criticize there, what's noteworthy is that none of these people are chomping at the bit to carry a firearm. The overwhelming majority of folks who choose to carry a firearm, even in states like Virginia where no permit is necessary, are folks who are committed to safety, responsibility, and non-aggressivism, and also are deeply committed to firearms ownership and self-defense at a philosophical level.

Furthermore, we don't advocate that these people who aren't ready to carry a gun start. I could see myself discussing lifestyles and responsibility with them, but I can't see myself telling them that they need to carry a gun before making lifestyle alterations.

So, while we do advocate citizens being armed, and as many of them as is feasible, it's not "one and all", nor will "one and all" ever actually arm themselves.
 
Last edited:

davidmcbeth

Banned
Joined
Jan 14, 2012
Messages
16,170
Location
earth's crust
It is a right to carry. If people want to is up to them but it should always be available to them...when SHTF they'll all carry.

And SHTF can happen almost anytime, in a small location, for a short time period, etc. The need for permits that are money and time consuming is outrageous. One might need to carry right now, not 6 months, 1 yr, or even 12 hrs later.

I think we have all seen gun owners be idiots at one time or another. Looking down the barrel of a loaded gun, etc.
This does not bother me .. they still have the RKBA. Until they commit a crime, get convicted, and are put away ~ that's when their right ends. If released, its renewed. If anyone, anyone, is a free person, they have the RKBA ~ there is no reason acceptable why not.

Goofballs have rights too. Don't like it? Live underground.
 

Grapeshot

Legendary Warrior
Joined
May 21, 2006
Messages
35,337
Location
Valhalla
--snipped-- .. they still have the RKBA. Until they commit a crime, get convicted, and are put away ~ that's when their right ends. If released, its renewed. If anyone, anyone, is a free person, they have the RKBA ~ there is no reason acceptable why not.

Goofballs have rights too. Don't like it? Live underground.
There are other circumstances affecting RKBA.

One can be charged with domestic violence and temporarily lose that right. Judges in Virginia may require giving up ones CHP AND even reliquish possession prior to trial. Don't shoot the messenger.
 

davidmcbeth

Banned
Joined
Jan 14, 2012
Messages
16,170
Location
earth's crust
There are other circumstances affecting RKBA.

One can be charged with domestic violence and temporarily lose that right. Judges in Virginia may require giving up ones CHP AND even reliquish possession prior to trial. Don't shoot the messenger.
I would disagree .. there are laws that infringe on the right .. but as I have said before: neither members of the legislator or the judiciary can vote on our RKBA.

When they do, it violates the law. A higher law than what they are making/examining.

So we have two competing laws.....(for this example).

Like asking me to hold my breath for five minutes .. even if I wanted to, I can not.
 

Grapeshot

Legendary Warrior
Joined
May 21, 2006
Messages
35,337
Location
Valhalla

davidmcbeth

Banned
Joined
Jan 14, 2012
Messages
16,170
Location
earth's crust
Aah, but you could ............with assitance :cool:

Seriously though - over 22 minutes.
http://www.outsideonline.com/fitness/bodywork/fitness-coach/How-Long-Can-Humans-Hold-Their-Breath.html

The point being for this thread, there are exceptions.
I can assure you that I (me, myself and I) cannot hold my breath for 5 minutes w/o exception.

22 minutes is quite a feat...but I bet they cannot stick out their tongue and touch their nose like me.

We all have our gifts...
 

Grapeshot

Legendary Warrior
Joined
May 21, 2006
Messages
35,337
Location
Valhalla
I can assure you that I (me, myself and I) cannot hold my breath for 5 minutes w/o exception.

22 minutes is quite a feat...but I bet they cannot stick out their tongue and touch their nose like me.

We all have our gifts...
Long nose no doubt. Be careful where you put it. :lol:
 
Top