I Will Be Boycotting the NHUnderground Forums

[AnarchoJesse]

For those of you who haven't read Kat Kanning's latest Free Press article, I recommend you take a look: http://newhampshirefreepress.com/?q=node%2F399

My Problem with Carrying a Weapon
Mon, 04/20/2009 - 05:37 — katkanning

By Kat Kanning

I have walked around with a gun on my hip before. You know why I stopped? It made me feel aggressive. It made me feel powerful. It made me feel invincible.

Recently, Freestater Jesse Maloney pulled a gun on his drunk neighbor. This is his description of what happened, "My neighbors were drinking and decided to pick a fight with me while I was visibly open carrying. I was pretty calm, polite, introduced myself, and asked them why they were being nasty neighbors. They eventually started going on some rant about how I was walking around armed in "their neighborhood", swearing, insulting, whatever. Eventually, I said "Well, what I'm doing is legal, and there really isn't anything you can do about it". One of the guys (there were four of them) got upset with this, and wailed me in the chest. I spoke loudly and plainly "Don't touch me again", and another of the guys said "Oh, yeah?", grabbed my arm, and was starting to swing. I drew my firearm, racked the slide, and leveled it, but my roommates intervened just in time."

Have you, reader, ever been young and drunk and stupid before? Have you ever done something you really wish you hadn't? Something where you knew when you woke up or later when you grew up a little that what you did was totally wrong and stupid? If so, should your stupid act have had a death sentence?

So imagine you're a drunk, stupid kid. Imagine you pick a fight with someone you shouldn't – someone carrying a gun. Should you die for your stupidity?

On the other side, what's wrong with feeling aggressive, powerful, invincible? You walk into situations you shouldn't because you think you're protected. You think that you can go deal with a group of drunks because you've got the ultimate protection.

But what if you actually have to use it? Yes, the person was stupid and picked a fight with you. Does he have kids? Does he have a family that will grieve for him? How many people will you really be ruining their lives by killing this punk? Is death for a punch really just? What will it do to your life? Will you become blasé about taking another human's life? Or will you be like my friend Duane who went to Vietnam, who remembers every damn kid he killed and who never forgave himself for any of them. He never slept well for the rest of his life. He woke up screaming and sweating in the night because of what he'd done.

To a man with a hammer, everything looks like a nail. To a man carrying a gun...is the answer to every violent problem using the gun?

The situation with Jesse pulling a gun on a punk has gone beyond mere philosophical debate. By his own words he would have pulled the trigger on these drunks if his roommates had not stopped him. Obviously his roommates did not think the trigger needed to be pulled, or they would have been helping him, not stopping him. Were there other answers to pulling a gun? When you're feeling aggressive and invincible and powerful, you don't need to look for those other answers, because you feel you already have the answer. What were the other options? Ones that come to mind: don't walk into a group of drunks shouting obscenities at you. When can you reason with a mob of drunk punks? Or when you realize you can't reason with them, walk away. I'm sure there's other options.

With death, you can't go back and fix it if you've made a mistake.

So that's why I stopped carrying a gun.

This functionally serves as a hit piece against my actions to defend myself, and defend myself well. First, you're acting as an apologist for people who act violently because they may be "young, drunk, and stupid", absolving them of any responsibility for their actions. What their life may be like, if they have loved ones, is irrelevant if they assault me. I have loved ones. I will have people grieving for me, should I have done nothing and ended up getting the shit kicked out of me. Instead of reading how blood-shed was avoided, you could very well be reading about how Jesse is in the hospital missing all his teeth and is bleeding internally because of a punctured lung and perforated stomach, like my friend Jason (see, I can bring up anecdotal instances too!).

These "punks" as you put it (more like 40 year old+ bikers) infringed on my liberty, and I would have been damned had I let them do so any further. Would that have meant death? Maybe, I don't know. I could have shot them in the shoulder or leg, which only reveals your sensationalistic writing: "DOES THIS MEAN THEY SHOULD BE EXECUTED?"

Secondly, you're writing as if you can actually read my mind-- that you know what I think when I carry a firearm, that you somehow have an insight into my head, when at best this is only revealing your own inner ideas and projecting them onto me. I have enough of my own problems, so I don't need the ones you imagine I have.

So, until this is retracted and I'm given an apology, I want nothing to do with you or this site. I'm appalled that you would write up something like this as "newsworthy" or whatever you're calling it these days.

[Russell Kanning]

I agree with your boycott.
I think Kat meant it as a hit piece.
We mostly cover the freedom movement in NH with the paper. It seems important to comment on this situation.
I agree with Kat that using guns to solve problems is not the best solution.

[Ogre]

I think its fine for Kat to have the freedom to choose whether or not to carry a gun. I don't see anything in the piece that attempts to force me to not carry a gun. Could it be used as fodder for the anti-gun, anti-freedom crowd? Absolutely. But these days, I honestly don't care what laws are passed any more. I'm going to live free, and the government is going to do what they're going to do.

Is it overkill to shoot someone who, with a gang of four others, threatened your life? I don't think so, but Kat does. Would Kat choose to be killed if put in that situation? Perhaps she would -- that's between her and her maker. Do we have a right to defend our lives? I don't think Kat says that we don't -- just that she, in that situation, would choose not to.

Now, is the article consistent with the freedom movement in NH? Without a doubt. Still living afar (sadly, let me tell you, and yes, I'm aware of 'just do it'), I see the freedom movement in NH acting in numerous ways, and I think that's great. I think seeing people running for office for freedom to change the system is good for freedom. I think people ignoring bad laws and going to jail is good for the freedom movement. And yes, I even think armed resistance, aka the Browns, is good for freedom. But I also think completely peaceful, non-violent resistance aka Gandhi, is also good for the freedom movement. We all need to do what we can for freedom. Perhaps one day, there will be a place where we no longer have to fight to have our freedom.

[slave_3646]

Jesse, Kat, Russell... You're all correct.

Jesse, you most certainly have the right to denfend yourself.

Kat & Russell, you have the right not to defend yourself.

All of you... you all have the right to share your opinion as vociferously as you wish. Jesse, I'd ask you to reconsider your boycott. If we're going to move forward and be the example for those who will follow (and they will) how can removing yourself from a debate in which you offer a contrary viewpoint be a good thing?

If we can't agree to respect each other's differences in opinion we're doomed.

[Jitgos]

First of all I agree with all of Jesse's points so I won't restate those.

To defend Kat I wanted to point a couple things out. One, I agree that walking into that situation, in retrospect, was not the best idea. He did it with the best of intentions and it's certainly not his fault that the guys were being violent idiots, but this incident would factor into my decision to stay away if in a similar situation. So I'll give you that point. I don't agree that once he was in that situation he was wrong for defending himself against a gang. Maybe Jesse won't post a response here, but I wonder if he had it to do over again, knowing what he knows now, would he avoid engaging them even in a friendly and neighborly way?

The last thing I'd point out to those offended is to remember the source of the article and their philosophy. I'm not saying that in a good or bad way, but if I remember correctly Russell has said even if a family member was being raped he wouldn't favor using force to intervene. That's hard for me to understand, but I respect that as his philosophy (and I'm presuming Kat's is similar) and that's the point of view the paper is likely to project. The points in this article would have made for a good philosophical discussion if written as generic fiction, but when it actually happens in real life it looks like a personal hit piece to the person critiqued.

[Caleb]

It seems like disaster was narrowly averted.     It's a shame that people take offense rather than listening to the heart of Kat's article. I think this article was one of the best Kat has written.  Sometimes the best friend is the one who will tell you when you are wrong.

[Jitgos]

It seems like disaster was narrowly averted.     It's a shame that people take offense rather than listening to the heart of Kat's article. I think this article was one of the best Kat has written.  Sometimes the best friend is the one who will tell you when you are wrong.

The disaster was averted because he had a gun. If he didn't he would have been beat up by a "biker gang". He seems to have restrained himself pretty well. From my understanding he was surrounded by a group of men, pushed, and punched and only drew his weapon when his arm was being held (so he couldn't defend himself easily) and another punch was imminent. The only correlation with him carrying a gun and this group of drunk men assaulting him is that they apparently didn't like that he was carrying. I guess if they didn't like people writing their own newspaper and attempted to assault Kat and Russell then that means they should stop publishing. That makes no sense.

[David]

they were not a biker gang, but rather neighbors. 

[K. Darien Freeheart]

I'm not sure what I think about the piece. This is the second time I've seen something in the NH Free Press that I wasn't very... fond... of.

That said, Kat herself is a Free Stater, and I think there is some value in expressing the idea that NOT all Free Staters are gun waving crazies (not saying anybody is... But it IS a stereotype) and that "within our own ranks" we can disagree with the actions of others.

That said, I agree. Guns are as "dangerous" or "empowering" as iPods or crayons. People should be well balanced before carrying though only THEY should be the one to make that choice.

Jesse, I would strongly suggest, rather than boycotting the paper, write an editoral piece. Like this article or not, it is helping people get "the liberty message" and until Kat is advocating the BANNING of guns, I'll use it as that. I think your side or rebuttal might be useful.

[Puke]

Sometimes just having a weapon is enough deterrent.

I have no sympathy for the drunks who choose to be violent and suffer the consequences.

[Caleb]

There's something seriously strange about approaching a neighbor with a gun.  Ok, I understand going out in public with a gun.  I've never once been assaulted by anyone in public, but if you think its a possibility and you want protection ... ok, i understand.  But a neighbor?  What's next, guns at the family reunion?  Guns during sex?  Guns during a nice romantic date out?  You never know, that lady might go all lorena bobbitt on you, and you will need protection. (Not the latex kind  )

Within a community, isn't there a level of trust that the very presence of a gun betrays?  While I'm sure your drunken neighbors were not capable of expressing that, don't you think that is what they were reacting against?  We all the time point out that laws are enforced at the barrel of a gun.  What did Jesse's gun on that occasion say?  To me it said, "hey, I'm being friendly now, but I don't trust you and I am prepared to kill you if I feel threatened."  Nice neighbor.

[AntonLee]

I'm confused, who initiated the entire conversation?  Was it Jesse because he was doing something some claim to be 'weird' and 'unnecessary'?  Or was it the drunks who, after seeing Jesse doing this heinous act of arming yourself, decided to initiate force against him?

Why would someone feel bad for the drunks who decided to bully Jesse?  Is there more to the story that has not been released or is behind the scenes information?  Please share.  With the statements I've seen so far, I'm not sure why people would get upset at someone defending themselves.  The bully drunks put up their dukes (shown weapon) and used force.  Jesse in return brandished his weapon and didn't use force. 

Would this situation be different if Jesse had simply used his fists to try and ward off the bullies?  Sometimes, people can die from just one punch.  Is he wrong to show that he won't be beaten without defending himself?

There are always better ways, Jesse could have tried to talk himself out of it and might have ended up more hurt than he was.  I guess we'll never know now.

[Roycerson]

Within a community, isn't there a level of trust that the very presence of a gun betrays?

Not in this community apparently.  Looks to me like they proved the necessity of carrying a gun in that neighborhood.  There are drunken asshats there that initiate force on people.  I would prefer to carry concealed but when that requires purchasing permission from the government there is little principled choice, knowing your permit fee will be used to crap on liberty.

[MaineShark]

There's something seriously strange about approaching a neighbor with a gun.  Ok, I understand going out in public with a gun.  I've never once been assaulted by anyone in public, but if you think its a possibility and you want protection ... ok, i understand.  But a neighbor?  What's next, guns at the family reunion?  Guns during sex?  Guns during a nice romantic date out?  You never know, that lady might go all lorena bobbitt on you, and you will need protection. (Not the latex kind   )

Within a community, isn't there a level of trust that the very presence of a gun betrays?  While I'm sure your drunken neighbors were not capable of expressing that, don't you think that is what they were reacting against?  We all the time point out that laws are enforced at the barrel of a gun.  What did Jesse's gun on that occasion say?  To me it said, "hey, I'm being friendly now, but I don't trust you and I am prepared to kill you if I feel threatened."  Nice neighbor.

Pragmatic reasons for gun ownership are amusing, as talking points, but it really boils down to one simple question: are you civilized, or not?

Violence exists, as a matter of fact.

Uncivilized individuals believe in brute force (clubs, bare hands, calling upon groups of others). To them, might makes right. Someone from Australia once told me that shooting an intruder would be wrong, but beating him to death with a baseball bat would be perfectly acceptable. This is rule by the young, the strong, and the popular.

Civilized individuals believe that violence should be a matter of intellectual skill, not brute force. When violence is a matter of intellect, it can be addressed in an intellectual way, and bounded by strict rules of conduct. It is also available to the old, the weak, the crippled, and those who don't have popular support.

I install boilers for a living. I could deal with most attackers without a firearm, I suppose. And I know how, because it never hurts to be prepared in case you can't use proper means of defense. I carry every day, however, because I am civilized. My sidearm is not just a tool, but also a symbol. When I strap it on, I am telling the world, "I am a civilized person: I will always think before I use violence, and strive to use it competently, only when it is necessary and proper to do so."

There's no betrayal of trust within a community by the mere presence of a gun.  On the contrary - if I wear a gun to a friend's house, I am making the statement that I will defend not only myself, but that friend, and any others present.  When I wear a gun on a date, I am telling my date that I will defend her life as if it were my own.  For the record, I've never been unarmed on a date, and the only questions that have ever come up were related to which particular gun I chose to carry, or the type of holster I was using, but I only date civilized people, so that might have something to do with that.

Those who believe that the mere presence of a tool indicates some sort of threat are quite blatantly projecting their own violent tendencies.

Joe

[Jim Johnson]

I boycotted the NHUnderground forum once... because I ran out of strawberries... No One seemed to notice.
Nothing got better either...  until I bought more strawberries.