Ammo For Sale

« « Advocacy | Home | Mini gun » »

Killings up in Memphis

Ordinarily, that headline would just indicate another day in Memphis. But the twist this time is that it’s justifiable self defense shootings:

The number of justifiable homicides in Memphis jumped from 11 in 2006 to 32 in 2007.

More:

More people are getting carry permits and more people know their rights. As many as 35,000 people in Shelby County have carry permits, which means they have had some training on the laws governing self-defense.

The education, Givens says, is “trickling down” to friends and family members.

There were 19 fewer criminal homicides in 2007 compared to 2006. There were fewer gang killings as well, which are less likely to be viewed as justified, and there were fewer beating deaths, which, again, are rarely justifiable.

11 Responses to “Killings up in Memphis”

  1. Ron W Says:

    Good news…but not for the controlled media. Criminals should be in grave danger from their intended victims!

    It’s good for the media business when uanrmed victims are murdered, but not when intended victims kill criminals. I suppose that’s the “blood running in the streets” that the anti-armed self defense crowd, in their fear and bigotry re: carry permits, predicted about legally- armed, law-abiding citizens.

  2. tgirsch Says:

    Heh. Givens is the guy who taught my carry permit class. “Education” would be one word for what they included. “Propaganda” would be another.

    As I wrote on my blog at the time I took the training, half of it was good, and the other half was propaganda and fearmongering. Eight hours isn’t much time to teach people safe gun handling, and it’s a shame they used so much of it to advance a political agenda.

    Side note: I had a friend who went on to take the next class in line, and he said the pontificating and faux-militarism got even worse. And this friend is a solidly pro-gun conservative. He wanted to take the next class after that, but decided against it, because Givens’ style was such a turnoff.

  3. Rustmeister Says:

    The folks at Top Brass in Millington give a good carry class.

    Grounded in reality and not once did an instructor tell me how badass he was.

  4. Yu-Ain Gonnano Says:

    From Webster’s:
    Propaganda: ideas, facts, or allegations spread deliberately to further one’s cause.

    I.e. what all of us are doing by writing/commenting on this blog.

  5. Ron W Says:

    Yu-Ain,

    Great point. It always helps to actually know the definition of words.

  6. tgirsch Says:

    Rustmeister:

    RangeUSA in Bartlett (or thereabouts) used to have a really good instructor, but he relocated. Haven’t heard about the new guy yet.

    Yu-Ain:

    I didn’t realize that when I signed up for a gun safety class, I was signing up for “a cause,” other than gun safety. The equivalent of “If you don’t dedicate a large portion of your time and income to guns, you’re a pussy” seems a bit outside the context of the stated purpose of that class, in my estimation. Perhaps you disagree.

    In any case, I fail to see how my usage of the word “propaganda” differs from the dictionary definition; I further fail to see how that definition in any way changes what I wrote.

  7. Lyle Says:

    “The education, Givens says, is “trickling down” to friends and family members.

    There were 19 fewer criminal homicides in 2007 compared to 2006. There were fewer gang killings as well, which are less likely to be viewed as justified, and there were fewer beating deaths, which, again, are rarely justifiable.”

    All very bad news for the anti-gun bigots.

  8. Yu-Ain Gonnano Says:

    tgirsch,
    1) Your usage fits very nicely with the actual definition, however, the connotation you imply is one that doesn’t. Propaganda is not by definition improper.

    2) the HCP class is *not* a gun safety course. It is a *carry* course. And convincing you to carry is perfectly proper “cause”. (Safety should be a part of any course, period)

    3) I never said that Given’s method was a good way of accomplishing the “cause” of getting you to carry.

    But because the methods one person uses suck, doesn’t make the goal improper.

    And that’s my point. Just because Given’s is horrible at his advocacy doesn’t make it the ‘evil propaganda monster’. It just means he’s horrible (if not counterproductive) at advocacy.

    And while I don’t agree on the money aspect, I would agree that guns (if you choose to have them) should take up a significant portion of your time. You can half-ass golf, you can half-ass balancing your checkbook, you can half-ass your cooking, but the minute you half-ass your weapon, someone get’s hurt.

    And as I’ve said, I haven’t taken the class yet (and he might not be the instructor for that day, I don’t know). I understand that you had a bad experience, and that does concern me. However, I also know a former police officer that I respect (if I don’t always agree with) that thought a lot of the courses at RangeMaster. Of course, being a former Memphis cop, and dealing with the thugs around here regularly, has likely colored his opinion.

  9. tgirsch Says:

    Yu-Ain:
    Propaganda is not by definition improper.

    By definition, not necessarily, but in that context, I believe it is in proper. You’re supposed to be teaching gun safety, not grinding a political ax.

    the HCP class is *not* a gun safety course. It is a *carry* course.

    Have a look at the Level 1 course description, and tell me where it says they’re going to wax philosophical on political issues.

    In any case, I find it risible to honestly claim it’s a “carry” course on any criteria other than it happens to qualify you for a carry permit. In the course, they don’t even show you how to properly carry, or how to safely present a weapon from a holster.

    Just because Given’s is horrible at his advocacy doesn’t make it the ‘evil propaganda monster’. It just means he’s horrible (if not counterproductive) at advocacy.

    A distinction without a difference, in my view. More on this in a moment.

    But because the methods one person uses suck, doesn’t make the goal improper.

    I guess we’re talking past each other. Its not his methods I question, but his venue. I should be able to exercise my rights without being subjected to proselytization. Yet I was required by the state of Tennessee to take this class, and Givens used it as an opportunity to pontificate. (And an opportunity to lie with statistics, but that’s another matter.) And it wasn’t just pro-gun pontification — it was partisan railing against the “lib’ruls” in “gub’mint” and the “Democrats” who want to “take away your right to defend yourself,” etc., etc. He’s got a right to hold and express those opinions, of course, but is a state-mandated gun safety class the appropriate time/place? I think not.

    I would agree that guns … should take up a significant portion of your time.

    I do, too. But my experience at Rangemaster was that this came in the form of a “hard sell” — trying to pressure you into buying a range membership (from them, of course) and further training classes (from them, of course). This was not extracurricular, but actually a part of the class, that took up a significant amount of time.

    And as I’ve said, I haven’t taken the class yet (and he might not be the instructor for that day, I don’t know).

    I hope your experience is better than ours was. There were three of us who took the class, a Democrat (me), and Independent, and a Republican, and all three of us agreed that the guy spent too much time foisting opinions, and too little time teaching. If you’re inclined to agree with the views he foists, it probably won’t bother you much, if it even fazes you at all, but ask yourself this: Is that really the welcome you want to give to people who are new to shooting? I think not. (It’s also worth noting that it really wasn’t all that bad on day one. It was day two where he got all authoritarian on us.)

  10. tgirsch Says:

    Blech: “in proper” should read “improper” in my first sentence. D’oh!

    I also meant to elaborate that the political spiel, hard sell, etc., was all done during class time, time which could have been spent actually teaching us more about guns, shooting, safety, best practices, etc. I don’t think it’s an exaggeration to say that 1.5 out of the state-mandated 8 hours were spent in this fashion.

  11. Yu-Ain Gonnano Says:

    I should be able to exercise my rights without being subjected to proselytization.

    I should be able to excersize my rights without having to ask the gov’t for permission. While that is not really here nor there for this discussion it does bear mentioning.

    But, if people were to have to take a class before being allowed to vote, I probably would expect the teachers to pontificate about the importance of protecting our voting rights, especially if one of the parties were to have a history of trying to take it away. What good is the knowledge of how to vote, if you can’t do it.

    Is that really the welcome you want to give to people who are new to shooting?

    If your description is accurate, then no, it’s not. It won’t bother me because I couldn’t really care less if he’s an asshole or not if I get the knowledge I need. My wife, on the other hand, not so much. She doesn’t take to asses quite so kindly.