Defensive gun users: Wimps? Wusses? One professor says so

Wuss

Yes, it’s true, folks.  We’re officially “wusses” for owning guns.

A Harvard professor said so.  Therefore, it must be true!  😀

There’s some–oh, how did Senator John McCain put it?–ah yes…”wacko bird” of a professor out there.  This so-called “researcher” seems to think those of us who’ve used a gun to defend ourselves from assault are–and I quote–“wimps” and “wusses”.

Yeah, he said that.  Here’s the URL.

http://www.rwjf.org/en/culture-of-health/2013/01/gun_violence_liveh.html

His name is David Hemenway, some guy who apparently “researches” at Harvard.  And he’s engaging in preschool-type name calling.  Wow.

Well, he was part of some “panel discussion” about how Gunz R EEEEEVIL and don’t really belong in the hands of Us, The People.  After all, Granny Goodness knows better.

Why are we doing this now?  We’re doing this because the not-so-good professor has surfaced again, recently, over at the LA Times, with his pseudo-science, on April 22, 2015.  Yep, just under two weeks ago.

http://www.latimes.com/opinion/op-ed/la-oe-hemenway-guns-20150423-story.html

Granny Goodness Knows Best!

Just like we have with Eric “Fast ‘N’ Furious” Holder before, we will take this “professor’s” pseudo-arguments apart and expose them for the falsehoods that they actually are.

That’s our job here–to tell it like it actually is.  That’s the truly Liberal way.

5 thoughts on “Defensive gun users: Wimps? Wusses? One professor says so

  1. The argument the Profession talked about was so flimsy that everything he said was to me a joke. Well done un deconstruction what he was saying and putting it in perspective that anyone with an open mind could understand how dangerous his thinking is.

  2. Of course we’re not wimps or wusses. It’s ridiculous, as Mr. Hemenway is advocating, to ask the population at large to prepare themselves physically to be the “equal” of your typical criminal assailant.
    Now, let me add a bit of nuance:
    I do think that there are some passive-aggressive jerks (a very small percentage) who instead of responding appropriately to a confrontation, escalate immediately to shooting when another response was called for. People like that give the rest of us a bad name.
    Another facet is that self-defense with a firearm should be just a “tool in the toolbox.” If you’re preparing yourself for the challenge of possibly having to protect oneself or one’s family, situational awareness (avoiding trouble is always better than having to confront or combat it), and empty-hand techniques are important, too.
    And a corollary: One of my biggest disappointments with my brethren in the pro-2A community is the lack of plaudits for people who resist gunmen or knife wielders with bare hands or improvised weapons. It takes a lot of courage to respond appropriately to aggression, no matter that the tool is.

    • Aaron, you’re correct, there are those like that. I believe George Zimmerman was one of those. A firearm is indeed a tool of last resort.

      That said, it’s not that I see our brethren not applauding non-firearm-related resistance to gunmen–I saw lots of applause for some Mixed-Martial-Arts participants who did just that in recent years–but rather an advocacy for using firearms for self-defense. Sadly, I’ve heard too many antis just casually toss off, “well, go learn karate!” True, and I agree…but it took Chuck Norris years to get that good, and even his expert ability cannot stop a bullet. He therefore also has a firearm as a tool in his toolbox.

  3. Oh yeah, the Justice League reference was funny, too. “Granny knows best.” 😀

  4. Wow Cowboy you took this guy apart! A lot of info, 48 minutes, but dayum, you got him good. You sure you’re a liberal? LOL

Comments are closed.