Chez Pazienza (courtesy nyoobserver.com)

People who carry a gun are different from people who don’t carry a gun. They’re prepared to defend their life, the lives of their loved ones or innocent life with lethal force. Make that better prepared. I reckon most people will fight for their life and the lives of their loved ones with whatever tools are available, should the need arise. Most, but not all. Some people have one defense in a life-or-death situation: passivity. The question is, why would either of these non-gun carrying groups want to disarm people who are prepared for a violent worst-case scenario? Let’s have a look at an example . . .

There are an estimated 270 million guns in America. That’s a staggering and somewhat unsettling statistic, but by virtue of those numbers it stands to reason that not everyone who owns a gun in this country is a fetishistic, hyper-aggressive paranoiac convinced it’s only a matter of time before that gun is the only thing that stops him from becoming a human entree for Leatherface’s Grandpa Sawyer or a ball-gagged rape toy in a sadist’s dungeon somewhere. There are plenty of people who own guns for sport, for enjoyment, or, yes, on the infinitesimal chance that in the largely civilized United States, circa 2014, they’ll have to defend themselves against a direct, violent threat.

I get the impression Joseph Nizzari isn’t one of those people.

That’s the lead from Chez Pazienza’s article for thedailybanter.com called How Paranoid Do You Have To Be To Think You Need a Gun in the Shower? The famously-fired CNN producer (for slagging-off NBC in The Huffington Post) was responding to a TTAG article Why You Need to Home Carry… Even In the Shower by Joseph Nizzari.

Pazienza’s take-down begins on an odd note, stating that “not everyone who owns a gun in this country is a fetishistic, hyper-aggressive paranoiac.” Normally, anti-gunners paint all civilian firearms owners with the same broad brush. No carve outs. If they exempt any class of gun owners from their ad hominem attacks, it’s hunters. Not people who own guns for fun or armed self-defense.

So why did Pazienza create a loophole in the opening salvo of his vitriolic condemnation of Nizzari’s pro-home carry polemic? The answer is buried in the piece, well after Pazienza rips Nizzari a new one for being a fetishistic, hyper-aggressive paranoiac. And a lousy husband (“That Glock 23 will keep you warm in bed at night and you can even stick your dick down the barrel of it when you’re feeling extra lonely”).

Here’s where I once again go ahead and remind everyone that I own a gun. When I decided to make the cross-country drive alone from Florida to California, I availed myself of one of my ex-Navy SEAL father’s handguns — a Sig Compact .45 — and made the transfer legal. I did that because it was going to be me out on the road by myself for days and, yes, you never know what can happen. But I also knew almost beyond a doubt that I would never have to use it, nor would I want to. I still feel that way: Sure I have it, but it’s not like I’m ever going to need the thing because I live in an apartment near Studio City and don’t have a damn thing anybody would really want (other than, ironically, the gun). Yes, bad things can happen and random violence is possible, but statistically it’s incredibly unlikely, certainly to the point where I would feel the need to make sure I had my gun on me at all times.

Pazienza is the son of a Navy SEAL? (Later or alternatively a Miami police officer.) No wonder the writer can’t condemn armed self-defense outright. In fact, Pazienza is familiar with firearms and keeps one for self-defense. Mind you, not “at all times“. Because “it’s not like I’m ever going to need the thing.” Even though “bad things can happen.” A single word springs to mind: hypocrite. And one biblical passage: “Thou hypocrite, first cast out the beam out of thine own eye; and then shalt thou see clearly to cast out the mote out of thy brother’s eye.” 

If you truly do believe that you’re always in danger then, sure, it makes sense to carry a gun with you when you sleep, eat, shower, play with your kids, have sex, and so on. But what would possibly make you believe that you’re always in danger? What misfiring synapses would make you think so irrationally? In his piece, Joseph Nizzari quotes someone who said, “Carrying a gun is not supposed to be comfortable; it’s supposed to be comforting.” What the hell is the matter with you if being able to kill someone in an instant while inside your home is “comforting” to you?

I dunno Chad, ask your Dad. Specifically, ask your father if he believes that his being ready to defeat America’s deadly enemies helped make it possible for Americans – you in particular – to enjoy peace, prosperity and, most important of all, individual liberty. Does he believe that America is always in danger? Does he find the existence of an American cadre of trained killers comforting?

Mr. Nizzari is doing for his family what your father did for his country. Yes, there are differences in scope and scale. But both men are/were motivated by the same thing: love. They are/were prepared to defend the things they love. In fact, one wonders if Mr. Panzienza has ever faced a lethal threat – however low the odds of it happening. To paraphrase the old adage, a gun control advocate is an anti who hasn’t been mugged.

It appears that Mr. Panzienza is a father; a fact that surely played a role in his decision to keep a SIG in his crib. And yet . . . at the risk of playing amateur psychologist, one wonders if his dietbribe [sic] is an attempt to resolve some deep-seated anger issues towards his father. Viewed in that context, what are we to make of Panzienza’s closing paragraph?

But maybe it really isn’t about comfort anyway. Maybe that’s just the bullshit story you tell yourself when your gun is so all-important to you that it’s almost literally a part of your body. Maybe it’s really about something else: power. The sense that you’re the baddest bad-ass in the land, ready to stop any threat, no matter how fearsome in your own imagination. That you’re locked, loaded, and ready to go down, as Nizzari says, in “a pile of empty brass” if necessary. If you think this way, you know what that makes you? Yeah, the last person on earth who should be armed.

Panzienza’s conclusion might echo the old man’s thought on the subject: “most people aren’t trained enough to carry a gun.” Or not. Who knows? One thing we know for sure: it isn’t the passive people who work to limit (i.e. remove) our natural, civil and Constitutionally protected right to keep and bear arms. It’s people like Panzienza who want to take away our guns while keeping their own. Usually in the form of armed police or bodyguards. But not always.

RELATED ARTICLESMORE FROM AUTHOR

124 COMMENTS

  1. “That Glock 23 will keep you warm in bed at night and you can even stick your dick down the barrel of it when you’re feeling extra lonely”)”

    Did he really write that? I am no prude. I am no stranger to foul language, internet porn (lots of that), random violence (I live in LA). I’m a vet and I work in construction.

    But I am shocked at least once a week by expressively nasty imagery and language gun grabbers use in articles and comments pages.

    Maybe I am getting old.

    • It’s called “class.” In this case, this so-called writer’s lack of it.

      That’s sad, though, really. That on the class scale, he rates clearly below pornography.

      • It’s not uniquely him. The bar is plummeting for all of society. I remember when TLC was The Learning Channel and they played shows about science. Now they play Honey Boo Boo.

        • That’s free market capitalism for you. That is a comment on society, the consumer wants “reality” television now, and since TLC is not a gov’t entity anymore, it shows what the consumer will watch, hence we see “Honey Boo Boo” and watch the commercials therein.

    • It definitely gets old to hear these antis project their feelings of inadequacy onto all gun owners. Not once have I ever thought of any of my guns as being remotely phallic, etc.

      • Only gun that I can think of being Phallic would be an AR-15 with a double drum mag and one of those rubber disks (harmonic stabilizers or something) attached to the muzzle

    • An anti-gun commentator resorting to sexual imagery to denigrate those with guns. Colour me surprised…

    • He’s thinking a man’s dick will fit into the barrel of some GLOCK brand GLOCK? And admitting it/bragging about it? I’m not going further, if the problem there is some kind of secret, I’m not telling.

    • Maybe it’s just exposition of his insecurity because HIS pecker will fit in the barrel, and he’s just jealous of we REAL MEN. These gungrabbing fools are ALWAYS co-mingling guns and sexual innuendo.

  3. Chez must be psychic if he knows when danger is coming his way. Wish I had his precog abilities because I’d just grab my AR and wait.

    This guy has beta written all over him.

  4. Ah, more fresh belittling hate from a reasonable tolerant type. The more these antis write and voice their emotional venom, the more convinced I am that I’ll need my firearms to defend myself and my family against them, This hate is boiling up and can’t stay rhetorical for long. As more liberal politicians and DAs look to abuse their positions,the breakdown of the rule of law may come faster than I’ve been anticipating.

  5. I live in the very low crime rate community of Arlington Virginia. Last Thursday night one or more thieves broke into five cars within a couple of blocks of me and removed the airbags. Suppose someone was in the wrong place at the wrong time? It is a common fallacy to believ that because some event has a low probability that it won’t happen to you. Well it’s going to happen to someone and you can’t tell the perp hang on while I get my gun. For most of us crime is a black swann event but unlike the planet killing space rock you can prepare for it.

  6. You must understand the mind of a Liberal – They literally believe that, “If they will it, it will be”. There is an air of arrogance that surrounds them in such a way that they cannot fathom that they might be wrong… or worse, that someone might not bend to their Will.

    A Conservative will tell you what he thinks – why the thinks that way – and why he thinks he is right to think that way.

    A Liberal will tell you what you think – why you think that way – and how he knows that you are wrong for thinking that way.

  7. Notice how he had to add “My ex Navy SEAL father’s .45”. He’s doing what all the antis do: Piers Morgan always mentioning “my brother is a colonel in the British Army”, the ubiquitous “my father is a hunter” that all of the antis reference, etc.

    Somehow, this imbues them with some sort of firearms knowledge, and also makes you think that they’re pro 2A, whilst going out of their way to abolish it.

  8. “The sense that you’re the baddest bad-ass in the land, ready to stop any threat, no matter how fearsome in your own imagination. ”

    First he states that we thing we’re the baddest bad ass in the land. Then he contradicts that statement with, “no matter how fearsome.” If we are megalomaniacs, then we would not find any enemy fearsome.

    He misses the point entirely. We don’t think we are not the baddest bad ass in the land. We don’t think of threats as fearsome – we are grounded, and know that the rapist, the murderer, the armed robber is just another human, albeit bent on evil.

    Another sophomoric, crowd-surfing attack on civil rights.

  10. Why listen to a stupid liberal who knows nothing about firearms but because he inherited it he can now talk on the topic.NO he can’t he is still a liberal idiot who deserves to be accosted like millions of other people are in this country but does not make the news and get’s ignored after the police report is filed! Numskulls like this nut who lives in the middle of gang central can bitch all they want .Like it or not it is still our Constitutional Right that real men fought and died for, he can go to hell.I don’t care what ignorant to self defense and firearms especially liberal know nothings think.Go check out the prisons and parole boards if you think you are safe.Your state just let out 10,000. GO ahead idiot,don’t carry ,we don’t care what you do!

  11. His logic is backwards. One doesn’t carry a gun everywhere they go because the fear they might be assaulted by armed attackers ALL the time. That’s just stupid. One carries a gun at all times because being attacked in unpredictable. You cannot expect an attacker to stop an politely wait for you to get your gun before attacking you. Its the exact same logic used for fire extinguishers. Building owners put them everywhere, literally. Is that because a given building bursts into flames all the time? Or always in the same place? NO. Its because a fire is unpredictable so the only way to make sure people have THE TOOL that can protect them is to put them around everywhere.

    • Yes indeed. I’d suggest you tell Panzienza this very thing, but then he might speak up and I really don’t think I could stay awake through his drivel a second time. What a dullard.

    • The guy is completely f*cking bipolar, he’s all over the map…

      “I don’t need a gun.”

      “No one needs a gun.”

      “Gun owners aren’t crazy.”

      “But, I might need a gun.”

      “My dad was in the Navy and he owns guns.”

      “Gun owners are crazy.”

      “I don’t want my gun.”

      “You’re crazy if you want a gun.”

      “Guns are bad, but I might need a gun.”

      “You can’t have a gun, you’re crazy.”

      “I hate gun owners.”

      “Look at this taxi cab.”

    • This^. I have a very low probability of being attacked and I’m aware of that, however, logic and experience tell me that if I’m to be attacked I’m not apt to have much time to prepare for it. A handgun is a tool seldom needed, but when you need it you need it right now.

      These sorts of arguments ignore the basics of risk assessment: Risk = Severity x Exposure x Probability

      Even when the probability is low if the severity is high the risk is relatively high. Last I checked kidnapping, serious injury, rape and death were all severe. Exposure isn’t uniform and changes based on age, race, gender, location, time of day and activity. Some of these are fixed like race while others are highly variable, like location and time. Calculating ones exposure is necessary to define probability.

      There is a forth factor; Cost: cost isn’t just monetary, it involves time and other factors involved with whatever risk abatement strategy is implemented.

      The severity of a large asteroid strike is extremely high, exposure fixed and relatively low and probability during any human lifespan negligible. Cost for preparing for it is extremely high (think deep underground bunker with air filtration access to ground water and means for providing food for the entirety of your lifespan post event).

      A person preparing for such an unlikely event, despite it’s severity, at such cost would have made a failed risk assessment.

      The likelihood of physical violence is higher in probability and we have greater exposure, the severity is potentially just as catastrophic to us individually as an asteroid strike but the cost of risk abatement is low: Own and carry a gun, train in it’s use to a degree of competence.

      If you enjoy training with and owning guns the cost is negligible. If you don’t enjoy these things but you do them you’ve either assessed your exposure to be higher or else you’ve improperly assessed your risk. It’s fine for all those who don’t carry, but there is little to no down side of carry. Thus as risk abatement it may be unnecessary but it’s inexpensive (in all ways) and highly effective. Further, it has to be left to each individual to assess their exposure for themselves and this is key, since the individual is best suited to determine both their exposure and calculate the costs acceptable for abatement.

      Where the anti’s really pervert the risk issue is with Cost. They suggest, without evidence, that the cost is very high (in terms of accidental shootings, increased murder and suicide rates, etc) which in turn means that despite the severity, the low probability negates any utility in abating the risk by owning a gun. If cost is correctly examined (DGUs versus murders, murders in disarmed populations versus armed, suicide rates in disarmed populations versus armed etc) we find a very low cost or even profit from unintended beneficial effects (gun carriers are statistically less criminal, concealed carry at least by degrees suppresses crime, etc). With cost correctly sorted, we’re back to severity x exposure x probability and in this calculation the ‘average’ person is in no way making a poor risk assessment by carrying a gun for abatement.

    • If I thought I would be attacked (rather than there being a small chance of it), I’d certainly not bother with a mere handgun.

  12. “the infinitesimal chance that in the largely civilized United States, circa 2014, they’ll have to defend themselves against a direct, violent threat.”

    Waitaminit…I thought there was an epidemic of violence in this country, as the VPC and MDA and Dear Leader keep telling us. Dammit, antis, can you just pick one narrative and stick with it?!

    • Good points.

      This should make a few heads explode. Victims reported over 1 million violent crimes to law enforcement agencies last year. There were countless more victims who chose not to report to law enforcement for various reasons but we will stick with that 1 million number anyway. And there are about 310 million people in the United States. That means that at about 1 in 310 people were victims of violent crime last year. I agree those odds are pretty small. But Mr. Panzienza assumed the wrong question. The more compelling question is how many people will be victims of violent crime over their adult life, say between the ages of 21 and 71? The answer: roughly 1 in 6! Where I come from, those are not trivial odds … and being concerned that I might be that one out of six people does NOT make me paranoid.

      Caveat: I presented simplified numbers for brevity’s sake. More exact numbers for any given person would depend on their lifestyle choices, occupation, where they live, etc. And while that means some people should have much lower odds of being the victim of violent crime, it also means that some people should have much higher odds of being the victim of a violent crime!

  14. From the Daily Banter “Chez Pazienza is the CEO of DXM Media, an award-winning television news producer”. Pazienza is a professional propagandist. Logic, reason and reality have no place in his “mind”. He has an agenda to further, a narrative to reinforce – the little people are not stable or enlightened enough to be trusted with firearms. The poisonous bile that passes for wit is a tacit acknowledgment that his side is losing the campaign to shape public opinion.

  15. “What the hell is the matter with you if being able to kill someone in an instant while inside your home is “comforting” to you?”

    Well, I figure if I’m trying to do some instant killing in my home the person who needs instant killing isn’t supposed to be in my home.

    So, yeah, it’s comforting.

    • Pretty much yes. Turn it around, what the hell is wrong with you if you want to be at the mercy of someone who enters your home unlawfully?

  17. Well he said it all, I guess, as for me I would rather bury the BG than have my love ones stand over me. Here it is, shit man that Lhstr is quick! Amen.

  18. It wasn’t until I was attacked by a human predator at thirty six Y/O that I finally woke up to the need for an equalizer. Pretty shocking, frightening and a blessing. It woke me up to the lies and delusions I had been indoctrinated to believe about what it is to be a mature responsible adult in a liberal/progressive world.

    A mature responsible adult in the liberal/progressive world.

    1. Fire extinguisher by the stove and in the car- check.
    2. Seat belt, good drivers awareness, car insurance, not in the blind spot.- check
    3. Certified in CPR- check
    4. Teach your kids to never talk to strangers; stop drop and roll and know the address and the parents phone number- check.
    5. House, flood, earth quake, fire, robbery insurance- check
    6. Health insurance, life insurance, diet and exercise- check.
    7. Retirement fund, investments, 401K, -check
    8. Carry a gun to protect against a mugger! That would mean I’m being paranoid! Just think good thoughts and trust things will be alright.

    It is very interesting the disconnect between being prepared for all the forces of chaos that can cause injury and death. We all could be in agreement as to what being a mature responsible adult meant; except for when dealing with a human predator, Then the wheels come off and most liberal/progressives revert to a childish, wishful and ultimately delusional view of how to effectively counter this particular force of chaos and death; which is by wishing it away.

    The vicious. hateful and usually sexual nature of the ad-hominem attacks says a lot about the underlying motivations of the gun-grabbers. What is also telling is that they will accept the state enforcers need for carrying a gun, that is a given for them. But when a fellow citizen chooses to accept the role of a protector by carrying a weapon; then the long knives come out.

    It comes down to what Freud Said; (paraphrasing); “a fear of weapons is a sign of sexual and emotional immaturity”.

    It really is true; the gun- grabbers definitely show this immaturity in their attacks. The hate covering up their own fear at the idea of being a responsible adult; and the projection of that fear of being an adult upon those of us that have chosen not to be a victim (a child) by not depending on “Big Brother”, the “Nanny State” to protect us and to keep us safe.

    So they accept their “Nanny’s” carrying a gun; they are the adults, the parents. Those authority figures are the grownups; they keep us chillins safe.

    But when one of the “Children” decide they are going to be an adult; it shows the rest of the children what they truly are; and it frightens them to their bones.

    Yep; sexually and emotionally a child in an adults body.

    • “But when one of the ‘Children’ decide they are going to be an adult; it shows the rest of the children what they truly are; and it frightens them to their bones.”

      Ooooh. That is really profound. I am going to use that as often as possible.

    • Excellent! Well thought out and well expressed, not to leave out very true in so many cases. They hate us so viciously because we’re being responsible, proactive and self reliant, all the things they aren’t and the comparison is acid on their egos; corrosive and painful.

      We chose the red pill, and reality. Every time they have to think about that they have to acknowledge that they took the blue pill and went back to sleep in ignorance and bliss. They hate us because we’re stronger and more mature than they are. They’re so caught up in their self serving lies and delusions that they’ve actually managed to rationalize that we are the problem.

      Why cant we just give everyone free food, housing, education, and health care whether they produce anything or not? Don’t threaten me with facts like we can’t afford it or it’s not even good for the people we provide it to.

      Why can’t we just ban guns so that everyone will just get along? Don’t threaten me with facts like there are just nasty violent people who will kill you with or without a gun.

      These are people who actually believe that a hashtag campaign is an effective means of international diplomacy and that freezing the US assets of a few key leaders will stop the Russians from taking over Ukraine.

      I suppose once you and all your friends agree that reality is a drag and that pragmatism sucks you can just make up anything you want, agree on it, and that’s the way it is until you decide to change it again.
      Reminds me of my circle of pot head friends in college: the real world sucks, lets sit around and talk about how we think it should be, we’re doing something here. . . we’re changing the world!

      Fortunately most of us grew up, embraced reality and become pragmatic in our approach to life.
      Unfortunately there are huge numbers of people who are never going to see that level of maturity, we call them progressives. Quite frankly an American leftist isn’t really part of a school of political thought. What they are is deluded, immature and unserious.

      • #socialMediaTotallyMattersInTheRealWorld #wordsOnAScreenAreJustAsGoodAsActions *runs from room, crying*

  19. “…Yeah, the last person on earth who should be armed.”

    I always giggle when I hear an anti-gunner make the clam that wanting a firearm for any reason should automatically disqualify you from owning a firearm.

  20. What a twit. Terrible writer, no grasp of the real world and dull as dirt. His Pa must be proud.

  21. He should go on a crusade to ban fire extinguishers because it’s so unlikely that you’ll burn down your own house, and putting out fires should be left to the professionals.
    </sarc>.

    • I can just hear the gun grabbers shrieking, “But but but … fire extinguishers were not designed to kill people.” My response, “and?” In all seriousness we have to remind people that design intent is not relevant.

      However, should a morbid sense of curiosity compel us to go down that rabbit hole, we have an obligation to remind gun grabbers that firearms are NOT designed to kill people. Firearms are designed to expel a projectile at velocities between 750 and 4000 fps, nothing more and nothing less. Similarly, fire extinguishers are designed to expel gas or powder at several hundred feet per second, nothing more and nothing less. As it turns out, a person could use either object to save a human life. And it also turns out that a person could use either object to take a human life. The key is the person, NOT the object.

    • When I discuss gun control with antis (generally family) I usually go with the car/speed boat rationale, that if no one needs an AR then no really needs a sports car or speedboat. Speed is perhaps the single biggest contributor (though distracted driving is rapidly overtaking). So no one really needs a car with more 50HP…right? And when we transition to well guns are only meant to kill, then I bring up alcohol…which contributes to crime and accidents of just about every category…so since it has no nutritional value so to speak or health purpose, in fact misuse can be deadly, why would you allow alcohol sales and even advertise it on TV. So tell me again my anti friend, while we sit here and have a drink and slowly degrade our faculties why thats acceptable…but responsible ownership of an AR is not….its a great way to make their head spin….

        • Legal marijuana means that law enforcement agencies no longer have the cash cow that was drug bust asset forfeitures. That is probably why the Drug Enforcement Agency is livid.

        • The horrors! If the drug dealers are going broke; then the DEA won’t get their regular payoff.

        • State law may have decriminalized it, but it’s still a no-no at the federal level. This doesn’t really impact Fed LEO mission or charter.

          In fact, they might be able to spin it to require bigger budgets because they no longer have State/Local LEO support.

          • I’ve heard rumors that the Obama administration and its minions, like AG Holder, are talking about lightening up enforcement. I think that, the ONE thing that the big O has done right, should be encouraged!
            Of course, I’m probably pissing off the 2,2,2,2,2,2,2,2,2,2 crowd. 😉

  22. Mr. Panzienza offers two unconvincing claims:
    (1) Firearms owners are paranoid (which means crazy).
    (2) Being crazy and paranoid disqualifies people for exercising their rights.

    Let’s see. Mr. Panzienza operates with the world view that good people who own firearms are seething cauldrons of rage who will explode at the slightest provocation and kill innocent people. Somehow this does not make Mr. Panzienza paranoid or crazy even though this happens at most a handful of times a year in the entire United States. And yet good people who own firearms in response to the more than 1 million violent crimes reported to law enforcement agencies in the United States last year are somehow “paranoid”. Got it.

    Of course Mr. Panzienza claims that government should deny rights to people who are crazy paranoid. Now that we settled that, can some government agency please deny Mr. Panzienza his right to free speech? Because he is clearly crazy paranoid for being so worried about a handful of events.

    • “explode … kill … a handful of times …”

      And most (if not all) of the times that it has, the perp was a democrat, and the venue was a gun-free zone.

  25. Linked to TAH, the Stolen Valor site. Daddy may well have been a Navy SEAL.

    But somehow I doubt it.

  27. Am I the only one who thinks that Chez Pazienza sounds like the name of a bad Italian restaurant in Bayonne, NJ?

    • Look at this guy’s smug face. What is it with hipsters/liberals all having that look/demeanor?

  28. Maybe it’s really about something else: power. The sense that you’re the baddest bad-ass in the land, ready to stop any threat, no matter how fearsome in your own imagination.

    Do they teach this “close your little vignette with a leap into madness” in journalism and film schools? One minute Panzienza has acquired a Sig. So far, normal. The next minute he’s back identifying gun possession with a power fantasy. He should learn more about his pistol. He may be dismayed to learn it doesn’t come with much power beyond the ability to stop a burglar or car-jacker similarly armed…if he’s lucky. And of course Panzienza thinks everybody but he thinks of a pistol as a sex-toy or penis-enhancer. Where, oh where, do they get this stuff? Is a kitchen knife a tongue enhancer? TV. Films. The typical progressive if not well-read is at least ‘well-viewed,’ and has a false-memory syndrome of guns, which memories are of nothing but fantasies delivered in technocolor, based on scripts written in some quiet office or den by a slippered person who typically has no live experience of guns used in defense or in war. Writers like Panzienza seem to consider the lurid imaginings of inexperienced writers as a reference work on gun truth, and a tunnel into the minds of every gun owner …except himself.

    As for having a gun in the shower? Lock the bathroom door. Leave your gun in your bathrobe pocket. Simple.

    • Good points; where indeed do the get the guns=sex concept? I’ve never seen a ‘sexy’ gun, never equated one with sexuality in anyway. In fact, I can only really conceive the concept in an academic way, elongated tube that forcefully expels material. . . however, it’s such a juvenile concept that once one is done giggling at the words penis and vagina in sixth grade health one should be well past equating firearms and sexuality. It’s not even a pop culture thing, I really don’t know where they get it unless some significant number of lefties are sexually aroused by firearms or really do suffer from the condition Freud alluded too regarding sexual immaturity and fear of weapons. I suppose if you see a gun as a substitute penis, and it’s more impressive in your view than your actual penis, that could be disturbing, but it’s also a whole new level of insane. Why anyone would admit to such or even allude to it while attempting to make an argument about gun control is just beyond me. Most the garbage they write must be intended for internal consumption, because it sure isn’t making any sense over here in the real world.

  29. It’s so damn pathetic to see these type of assholes constantly resorting to personal attacks and trying to dehumanize those of us who are pro-gun. If you’re argument is so strong, and you are on the side of right, why do you resort to petty childish name-calling?

  30. “on the infinitesimal chance that in the largely civilized United States, circa 2014, they’ll have to defend themselves against a direct, violent threat.”

    Pretentious little bastard. The sky is falling cause some glaciers are melting for the umpteenth time since the Pleistocene but the ever growing government onslaught and piecemeal dismantling of our rights and the Constitution that defends them, with every “war on” be it drugs, terror, gun violence or whatever other feel good political gimmick the talking heads can coin into jargon. It’s not infinitesimal, no amount of deluded Liberal kool-aid will render it as such. We are seeing a redux of the same exact things our founding fathers decided to risk a Revolution for happening now, taxation without representation, religious pontification, general warrants, invasions of privacy, mandatory prison sentences for victimless crimes (like debtors prisons), couple that with socialist entitlements, radical environmentalists hellbent on destroying our economies and lifestyles with their “let’s grow hemp on a commune” fruitopia vision, and an onslaught of oligarchical millionaires doing whatever the billionaires ask of them for a bit more money while lying to the people who elected them, convincing themselves they RULE the public rather than SERVE it. When the debt bomb bursts, and the money hoses suddenly run out of tax dollars to piss away on entitlements as well as necessary services, what is going to happen? I don’t think it’s going to be pretty, unlike the alarmists about climate change, this is something that could happen in our lifetime and would have negative ramifications worldwide, and especially at home.

    • Road Warrior on steroids, unless enough people clue up to get a bunch of Libertarians elected. I fear the Rs will win by landslides in the midterms and 2016, and the right-wing anti- Obama backlash will snap us back to the days of the Salem witch hunts. They’ll double down on the war on terror, but now that they’re in power, the Rs will be all for surveillance, since they were pro-surveillance state in the first place, that’s why all the anti-NSA stuff is bogging down; the R’s simply don’t have anything different to offer.

  31. BUSTED!

    I just heard back from Don Shipley and nobody with the name of Pazienza was ever a Navy SEAL.

    So either Chez is a liar or his dad lied to him. Typical sloppy and lazy journalist.

  32. He started OK. His personal position on self defense is reasonable. He does not want to carry a gun and likes his odds of not needing one based on his lifestyle. I can not only respect his choice, I can even understand where is coming from.

    But what followed showed that Pazienza probably wouldn’t offer me the same courtesy.

  33. I am the author of the “Home Carry” article that originally appeared here on TTAG on March, 17th, 2014. Everything I referenced in the article exists in the real world and it can happen to you. No matter how prepared you are, and what measures you take (i.e. alarms, cameras, dogs, etc) you are still vulnerable. That’s why I believe that if you own firearms you should carry on your person while at home.

    When I mentioned that leaving loaded guns lying around the house was not a good idea I meant it. Reason being, if a burglar enters surreptitiously and finds your gun(s) you will be at a grave disadvantage (see link at the end of this post).

    After my article was published on TTAG I was lambasted relentlessly by gun owners and anti-gunners alike for my various stances in the article including my suggestion to carry while in the shower. I was not actually advising people to WEAR a gun in the shower… just have it with them (boy did they have a field day with that suggestion).

    This Chez guy and his anti-gun cranks are the real whack jobs, not me. I appreciate all of the positive support to Chez Boy’s ad hominim attack on me, and I thank you all.

    I will continue to submit articles to TTAG, and I will also be submitting gear reviews.

    The below just happened in Las Vegas, in a good neighborhood, in the middle of the day. The suspect entered from a second story balcony after stacking logs to use as a ladder. Two children and a grandmother were home along with two dogs. He was never seen or heard.

    Yep, it does happen…

    http://www.jrn.com/ktnv/news/Surveillance-video-shows-burglar-inside-local-familys-home-259887191.html

    • Nah Joe; it’s human nature; at what ever level of preparedness a person has decided to live their life; any one more prepared is just being paranoid.

      So a person carries no weapon; reasonable; you carry an unloaded gun; “Ahh; you’re just being paranoid; Oh; and also a boiling cauldron of rage just eager to shoot someone”.

      So carrying one gun unloaded with no extra mags; reasonable; a person carrying a loaded gun with an extra mag; “Ahhh, you’re just being paranoid”

      Carry a loaded gun and two extra mags; reasonable. Carry a back up gun with an extra mag; “Ahhh; you’re just being paranoid”

      Take your gun off when you get home; reasonable; Home carry; “Ahhh; you’re just being paranoid”.

      Home carry, reasonable; you take a gun in the shower; “Ahh; you’re just being paranoid.”

      But it goes both ways; it is also human nature that at what ever of preparedness a person has decided to live their life; anyone less prepared is just being delusional, living in the La La land of wishful thinking. That they believe in the tooth fairy; that Santa Claus is real and that bad things happen to other people.

      In the end; each person has to make up their mind what level of preparedness is appropriate for them. Of course; the next time there is a Katrina, LA Riots, massive earth quake, Polar Vortex winter storm or Cat five tornado; don’t go crying to the “better prepared but paranoid” neighbor down the street.

      • The late great George Carlin had a great piece on this very topic though his exemplar was driving, I’ll spare you the joke but the premise was: “Have you ever noticed that anybody driving slower than you is an idiot, and anyone going faster than you is a maniac?”

        It’s human nature, and we never stop to think ‘is the person driving slower impaired, distracted or simply trying not to spill a potted plan they are transporting?’ ‘ is the faster driver late for some important event, concentrating and sure of their skill?’

        We (mostly) like our own judgments on such things and that’s natural, still, we shouldn’t let it blind us to the concept that the other person might be onto something.

  34. We need to get TTAG to post this guy’s lies as a standalone story, or do an update to this one.

  36. You are not looking at this from a gun grabber’s POV. It’s not the intruder in the home, its the shower. We must ban showers! For the children.

  37. “Maybe it’s really about something else: power. The sense that you’re the baddest bad-ass in the land, ready to stop any threat, no matter how fearsome in your own imagination. That you’re locked, loaded, and ready to go down, as Nizzari says, in “a pile of empty brass” if necessary. If you think this way, you know what that makes you? Yeah, the last person on earth who should be armed.”

    Frankly, I don’t see why. Yes, he makes it sound unpalatable, though he hasn’t a shred of evidence for its truth—but even if there were a million people heavily armed inside their own homes purely for a sense of power, and obviously (from the lack of rampages by such persons) only unleash such firepower on those who break in or try to take it from them, what exactly is Panzienza’s problem with that?

    I’d rather say that if he’s the type who sits and just can’t live with the idea that people are too heavily armed in their own homes for others to push around, if he feels he must write crude sexual taunts and so on targeted at such people, then HE is the last person on earth who should be armed.

    And I’m not all that sure he should be a writer, either. He hasn’t thought through his own positions.

  39. “Never ascribe to hypocrisy that which can be adequately explained by dishonesty.”

  40. No one with the last name of Pazienza was ever a Navy SEAL. No man by the last name of “Page” that would fit his timeline either. The author is simply lying, or his father is lying to him. Either way, the author attempts to add legitimacy to his BS article using a “fact” that is easily verified.

  41. Yawn, I wish one of these antis would give me a challenge someday in categorizing them.

    Here we have the “self loather.”

    He’s subconsciously damaged by his insecurity. He sees people who are secure and confident around guns, people who are responsible and full of self control while handling potentially deadly power, people who are honest in their principles and take a stand against evil. And he knows, deep down, that he is none of those things. He is not strong, or confident, or principled, or responsible, or even a decent person. And it makes him resentful.

    Remember, self preservation and self defense are the most basic laws of sentient life. It takes some major league mental damage to make a sentient creature want to actively put itself and its “clan” at deadly disadvantage to those who would do them harm. And when you get the “self loathers” who make angry, crass remarks and have absolutely no data or argument aside from their own petty lashings, it’s obvious what’s at the root. He doesn’t hate us. He resents us for our abilities and hates himself for his mental or emotional weakness. He is unnatural and, deep down, he knows it.

    Ever wonder why antis are always so vulgar, hateful, and angry? They know they’re wrong and they can’t face it, because to face it means to recognize they’re own pathetic shortcomings. So they lash out at and blame those who stand in contrast to their weakness: us.

  42. My comment:

    “…I availed myself of one of my ex-Navy SEAL father’s handguns — a Sig Compact .45 — and made the transfer legal.”
    In Florida (if you both lived in the state), that would consist of your father handing you the gun. So….
    A. What was your point?
    B. What do you claim to have done to “(make it) legal”?

  43. @RF,

    These guys have proven that Chez Pazienza’s claims of his father, Ralph Page, being a SEAL (changed to UDT in Twitter response; no Pazienza or Ralph Page in the database) are false. Can we get a story update to reflect this?

    • How so? Frankly if some a-hole wants to use stolen valor to steal our rights then he needs to be exposed.

  45. Cancer rates, mental, magic flight launch box are more
    in control’ and ‘natural and healing tool. The laxative
    property of Herbal Policy at the blood from thickening. Mainstream
    medical magic flight launch box authorities and professionals.
    A friend inquired about a detective and look for. Even magic flight launch box so somehow the patient.

    Columnist Anahad O’Connor explores the claims for coconut oil
    on hair as it is generally considered safe and effective treatments,
    bipolar patients. Also a lot of lessons about suffering, too!

Comments are closed.