feed icon

Shooting Yourself In The Foot Hurts Like A Mother

By Kleinheider Posted on December 4, 2008 at 1:32 pm

Katie Allison Granju lets us (and criminals, potential stalkers, etc.) know that there are no guns in her house:

I totally get that “mother bear” instinct. If anyone threatened one of my children, I would be on them like a crazed spider monkey. And if I thought that having a gun in my house would help me protect and defend my family, I would have one. But I know myself too well to believe that a gun would help, rather than hurt..I don’t know that I could handle a gun competently in the adrenalin rush that would come with a threatening situation - no matter what kind of training I had had. In fact, I would probably be one of those people who end up having their own gun turned on them.

SEE ALSO: Say Uncle:

First, I’m uncertain what a crazed spider monkey is capable of. But I’m guessing that 230 grains of jacketed lead could probably dispatch of one fairly easily. Second, I’ve met Katie. And whether or not she was in crazed spider monkey mode, I could totally take her in a fight. I guess what I’m saying is that if your plan is to become a monkey, it’s not a good plan. Glock or brawn beats monkey.

permalink

Tags: , , ,  

Comments

12 Responses to “Shooting Yourself In The Foot Hurts Like A Mother”

  1. SayUncle » Chicks and guns writes
    December 4th, 2008 1:38 pm

    [...] ACK says: Katie Allison Granju lets us (and criminals, potential stalkers, etc.) know that there are no guns [...]

  2. katie allison granju writes
    December 4th, 2008 2:00 pm

    Yeah, but I do have a big, mean dog, an alarm system, a baseball bat, and a machete ;-)

  3. mike w. writes
    December 4th, 2008 2:24 pm

    “Yeah, but I do have a big, mean dog, an alarm system, a baseball bat, and a machete”

    Either way none of those is going to protect your home & family as effectively as a firearm.

    If you would “be on them like a crazed spider-monkey” why would you also think you’d allow yourself to be disarmed by an attacker should you need to protect your family? The two are logically inconsistent. Either you’ve got the mindset that you’ll aggressively defend your family or you don’t. Having the most effective tool with which to do so doesn’t change that mindset.

  4. She Who Shall Not Be Named writes
    December 4th, 2008 2:40 pm

    Guns mostly kill family members in homes, accidentally. That’s just the cold hard facts.

  5. Ducet writes
    December 4th, 2008 2:41 pm

    My answer to the compentency question: a shotgun. Just point and pull the trigger. Not the take-down power of a .9mm, but you have to make do.

    Katie gets style points for the machete, but in a Glock-vs.-machete match up, I’m taking the Glock. Two words for you: “Indiana Jones.”

    Of course, you could start the job with the shotgun and finish it with the machete - this is, if you really do go all “crazed spider monkey” on them.

  6. mike w. writes
    December 4th, 2008 2:48 pm

    “Guns mostly kill family members in homes, accidentally. That’s just the cold hard facts.”

    Note the conspicuous absense of said “cold hard facts” backing up the above assertion. The above assertion is false, which is why there’s nothing substantive backing it up.

  7. Goofy writes
    December 4th, 2008 2:50 pm

    Be careful with that machete Katie. You might poke your eye out.

  8. Matthew Hurtt writes
    December 4th, 2008 3:19 pm

    It’s true, Mike! It’s true! I saw a gun the other day - hop off the desk, crawl over to a family member, and pow! I don’t know how it happened… that gun just had a mind of its own, I guess.

    - Matthew

    P.S. Obviously joking… I do love the “blood in the streets” argument, though. You know, if we were all armed, I’d bet dollars to daisies that every day at high noon there’d be gunfights in the streets.

    Fear is a motivator. Keep the ignorant afraid and only the criminals benefit.

  9. mike w. writes
    December 4th, 2008 3:26 pm

    “Fear is a motivator. Keep the ignorant afraid and only the criminals benefit.”

    Which is why we must try to open the eyes of the ignorant.

  10. She Who Shall Not Be Named writes
    December 4th, 2008 4:52 pm

    Knowing this will not change minds already made up, here’s some info from 15 years ago with a source: New England Journal of Medicine. Can find updated stats if you need them too. Clearly our society has become more unstable in our homes in the last 15 years than stable.

    N Engl J Med. 1993 Oct 7;329 (15):1084-91 8371731 (P,S,G,E,B) Cited:4

    Gun ownership as a risk factor for homicide in the home.
    A L Kellermann, F P Rivara, N B Rushforth, J G Banton, D T Reay, J T Francisco, A B Locci, J Prodzinski, B B Hackman, G Somes

    CONCLUSIONS. The use of illicit drugs and a history of physical fights in the home are important risk factors for homicide in the home. Rather than confer protection, guns kept in the home are associated with an increase in the risk of homicide by a family member or intimate acquaintance.

  11. mike w. writes
    December 5th, 2008 6:48 am

    might want to do some research on Kellermann before quoting him as fact. His so-called “study” has been thoroughly discredited.

  12. steve h. writes
    December 5th, 2008 12:12 pm

    A study debunking Kellermann et al is:
    http://www.guncite.com/journals/tennmed.html

    Kellermann’s results are mostly about suicides, and the remainder mostly about criminal gun owners, not law abiding citizens. That these weren’t controlled for is beyond belief and IMO represents the result of an agenda, nothing more.

Leave a Reply




Partly Cloudy

The Collective

The Latest from NashvillePost.com

Archives