Weer'd World

A continuation of this piece. The wife and I were watching Swingers, overall a decent and funny movie but it was an Independent film written by a New Yorker living in LA in the 1999s so it had this scene.

(Pardon the video, skip to 7:20 for the scene in question)

Super-duper top-shelf Anti-gun strawman propaganda. First if you’ve seen the film “Sue” (a boy named Sue, I wonder if that was intentional?) starts out as a generally sympathetic character that is constantly teased by the others and doesn’t seem to be able to, nor have much desire to retort.

Then this scene. He gets shoulder-checked by some punk who obviously is just interested in throwing his weight around to total strangers. Sue calls the guy an asshole, which isn’t all that uncalled for, given that it is the truth. Asshole, being an asshole starts to pick a fight, Sue doesn’t back down, and when the heat gets turned on he pulls what apears to be a S&W 659 (one of the many hat-tips to Terrintino’s Reservoir Dogs) and points it gangster-style until they run away.

Friends get pissed and abandon him. Its obvious his carrying a gun has ruined their fun night. He then justifies pulling the gun for the sake of their “Rep”, and one of the more interesting lines of dialogue come up. Sue justifies packing a piece as a thing one does if you’re from LA. Favreau’s character (named “Mike” but let’s face it this is a semi-autobiographical film) mentions that in LA you can avoid danger easily which doesn’t sound possible in his opinion in New York and he talks about his “Good Neighborhood”.

So let’s have a breakdown of the scene. First while Sue doesn’t exactly pick a fight, he’s give ample opportunity to back down. When he does pull his weapon he justifies the action for the sake of his and his friend’s reputation.

I’ll add to this by dropping a personal story. Shortly after I first got my carry permit I was caught behind a total asshole driver. He was going too slow, was constantly flipping on his blinker and even ran a red light. Finally I was parked behind him at another red light and when it turned green he didn’t move. I started leaning on my horn.

He simply drove off, and thankfully in a different direction than I. The Mrs. told me I shouldn’t have lost my cool like that, and asked what I would have done if he had gotten out of his car. I mentioned I was carrying a gun…and then I thought about it. The guy might get out of his car to pick a fight, but if I pull my gun on him I’d be doing it to use lethal force. Now somebody getting out of a car in the middle of the street most often is indeed something that could come to a violent end, but in this case he’d be coming out because I was goading him. If I ever pull my weapon there will be a Police Report, no ifs-ands-or-butts, do I really want that on a report?

So he pulls a gun not because he’s afraid of multiple larger men acting violent, but because he doesn’t want to be seen as a “Bitch”. There’s a common strawman, that gun owners will shoot somebody because of an argument or disagreement, or over a traffic accident or a parking space. The data never supports them, but they can make it happen in movies, so its ALMOST like its real.

Also note this happened in LA in the 90s. You think he had a CCW permit? You’ll not he didn’t have a holster for his gun (that can’t be comfortable with an all-stainless gun like that) nor does he bother to pull his jacket over the gun when he first tucks it back in his pants. In the next cut the gun is “Covered”, probably simply returned to the prop department. Its stated he grew up in Anaheim which is in Orange County which according to this source is Shall Issue, but of course Anti-Gun people never actually think of the laws, they just think of implications. Nobody asks if he has a permit, or suggests they call the police. Anti-gun people are big-thinkers, and this is as far as their minds go.

You’ll note that later the punks are seen being friendly with Sue in his apartment. The impression is Sue put his gun up and instead used love. Dunno if the first scene could be written by somebody who might think that looking down the barrel of a gun after doing something VERY stupid can get a person to re-think a few things.

Just thought I’d share because it did seem VERY 90s. By which I mean, very anti-gun and stupid.

Thirdpower has a great post up on some anti-gun propaganda from the 90s and a clip from Doogie Howser MD. Go watch it. Even if you weren’t a Doogie fan (I was never interested in it) you’ll remember lots of other shows pushing the same message in the early 90s. This was the high water mark for gun control in America and it would soon become the tipping point. Still what REALLY got me was this quote from the Entertainment Industries Council.

Try emphasizing the fact that introducing a gun into an argument lethalizes anger: What could have been resolved with just harsh words, or even cuts and bruises, may end up with a death. Guns don’t allow for cooling off or reconciling once the momentary or situational anger subsides.

This is a common theme even to gun control advocates today. Guns CAUSE crime, and without guns in people’s hands violent crime and death simply won’t happen because guns make it “Too Easy”. First up we know that’s bullshit, as lots of horrible violent crime is committed with non gun weapons. Some as simple as baseball bats or extension cords, others as ubiquitous as the two hands and feet we all have. Furthermore if guns make killing “Too Easy” why is it the military has such a bitch of a time to get our soldiers to do it? That’s right, first we have a volunteer army so we can assume that weeds out most of the pacifists and people who are appalled by even the most justified violent acts. You give them high quality lethal weapons, and then you take them to a foreign land and tell them not only is it GOOD to kill the enemy, but if one excels at killing the enemy they will be REWARDED.

Yet still the military needs to play mind games so that when a soldier has the enemy in his rifle sights he can overcome the resistance to pull the trigger.

OK so back to the quote above. First I’m just going to ignore “harsh words”. Frankly I’m disappointed that this nation has gone so soft on name-calling and harsh words. Call me any name in the book. It won’t make me feel good, and it won’t make you look like a nice person, but you’ll never physically harm me, and if you don’t physically harm me I’ll go about my day. Sticks and Stones May Break My Bones, but Names will Never Hurt Me! That’s another topic for another day, let’s move on to the next point: The “or even cuts and bruises” part.

I dunno about you but I’m a Registered Republican, gun owner, and generally opinionated guy. Those of you who have met me in person will know that I don’t shy away from controversy any more in person than I do here or on Vicious Circle. I get in heated discussions ALL the time. I won’t lie, I enjoy pushing people to look at issues in different ways and to defend their convictions.

I must say the last time I ever threw a punch in anger was around the time of that Doogie Howser Episode, and I was just barely in my teens. I certainly have never hit anybody in anger since I’ve been a legal adult, and I haven’t had any discussions come to blows in the same period of time. Frankly I chalk the few times I’ve tossed my fists around to Teenage hormonal bravado. I was “young dumb and full of cum” as the maxim goes, but I wasn’t a total idiot. Didn’t take me long to find out that slugging somebody in the nose because they called me an unflattering name or didn’t agree with me on whatever point, didn’t accomplish much at all. And really the ONLY people who that tactic worked for were the ones that did it often, and vicious enough to get others to fear them. Didn’t take me long to figure out that debate was the way to roll and I could save my hands for doing more constructive things.

How about you? Have you ever slugged somebody because of an argument as an adult? Have you ever refrained from voicing your opinion on an issue because of fear of physical harm?

The above statement is phrased so frankly that it sounds like any heated discussion has the strong potential to turn into a physical fight, and certainly adding a gun to one or both of the people discussing an issue will escalate to bloodshed on a very significant level.

But does it? Really, do you see people taking swings at each other over parking spaces, or who should be the next president, or if abortion is murder or not?

Most people are smart enough to know that difference of opinion, or simple rudeness can be resolved by walking away or discussion, rather than physical violence. I would argue that gun owners know that even better because the one thing is correct about that statement is that you can’t shoot somebody “Just a little bit”. Still one thing to add is a statement of support from an unlikely source; Joan Peterson:

That is because they are easy to use and more lethal. You can shoot from a distance and shoot more than once.

You see while most people DO know that violence isn’t the answer to common disputes, there is a minority of people who feel it is perfectly fine to use force to get their will. These are the people you read about in the papers. These are people who have lived by a code of violence since a young age. They shoot people, stab people, beat people, and choke people. They intimidate, they murder, they rape, they rob, and they sell prohibited goods and services. Listen to any Hip-Hop song, or any “Street Thug” talking about life and death. They’ll often claim “Disrespect” as a reason for killing another person.

They must be in a minority, because we still have a population.

But note that if you spend enough time with a person like this, it doesn’t matter if they have a gun, or are bare handed, on a long enough timeline a violent monster like this will kill you if given a chance.

That’s why I carry a gun. I’m a scientist! I’ve spent my life reading books and learning skills, not fighting. I try to keep in good shape, but I’m 30 and definitely have passed my prime. Why do I carry a gun? Well because when I encounter that guy who wants to do me physical harm because I don’t share his opinion, or because I have something he wants that I’m unwilling to give, or in the case of some of the spree shooters, he’s just plain crazy. A gun indeed allows me to pack deadly force, attack at a distance, and shoot multiple times. Joan of course says it like its a bad thing, but there are millions of people out there who were glad to have those odds in their favor when things got ugly.

To further show the mentality of the opposition I thought I’d add these two quotes from Ubu52. She’s a useful idiot, and a crazed loner, but I think her words dovetail nicely with this post:

Be scared. Be very, very scared. When all the Liberals get guns, it will be a much more violent world. At that point, Conservatives will start screaming for gun control.

Don’t say I didn’t warn you.

And

Some of the safest neighborhoods to live in are the ones where the organized criminals live. They don’t commit crimes where they live (to keep the police away) and the street gangs are afraid of them because they are not nice people if you push them.

I think its pretty obvious those who wish to ban and restrict personal firearms are punishing the best of society for the behavior of the worst, and furthermore they claim a false hope that somehow “Gun Death” is the only relevant crime, and that without guns these violent predators won’t turn to other tools.

This is why we can’t give an inch!