Since the tragic shootings at Sandy Hook, there have been the predictable idiotic knee-jerk responses from those politicians and Hollywood notables who continue to show they don't know jack. To not "know jack", of course, is an abbreviated version of the actual phrase I'd normally use, but I'm trying to eliminate profanity from my speech, both vocalized and printed. Wish me luck on that. But the term means that one's understanding of an issue is so devoid of fact and knowledge that one is rendered unworthy of the privilege of offering an opinion. One who does not know jack is so ignorant of even the basics of the issue at hand that it provokes in those who do know jack great wonder that one would dare broach the subject. I myself have been accused on occasion of not knowing jack by certain visitors to this blog. But these visitors do not demonstrate a better knowledge of jack in their inability to show where my description of jack is in error. To them it is just something they say when their own limited understanding of jack, if they possess any at all, does not prove compelling or even accurate.
But I digress. This is about particular people who don't know jack and their insignificant proposals for dealing with gun violence in our culture. Before I get to the main point I wanted to relate here, I have to mention something I heard today on the radio whilst working another unnecessarily long day (another digression). Michael Medved did a quick spot on the subject of dishonest leftist stats (are there any other kind?) regarding gun deaths. In it, and I grant that I've taken no time to research this particular bit, he states that in their relentless pursuit of a defenseless population, the left likes to speak of gun deaths which include suicides. His point is that suicides from self-inflicted gunshot distorts the picture of gun violence, or more accurately, crimes committed with guns. If such suicides are removed from the equation, and added to gun suicides all other forms of suicide, the total would overwhelm the amount of murders by gunshot. Again, I did not research this stat myself. I doubt that Medved made it up, and he is known for being pretty good with stats. In any case, it does represent another case of the left doing anything they can to push their agenda.
Getting back to those with the jerking knees, I want to touch on the issue of large capacity magazines. They come up in the discussion because the gun-grabbers ask, "Why would anyone need large capacity clips?" It so happens that a good article explaining why was found at the incredibly biased, poorly written and therefor obviously unworthy of serious consideration by progressives AmericanThinker.com. In fact, the article is co-incidentally entitled, "Why Does Anybody Need A 30-round Magazine?" Check it out.
Before reading this article, I had already pondered the question and came up with the obvious answer, "Because there might be lots of bad guys." And the article addresses that. But it also speaks of how many rounds it might take to stop a single attacker as well. The stories related in the article are compelling examples of how the anti-gun goofs spend little time truly thinking about an issue before they spew their nonsensical solutions. One must wonder why that is as it happens with incredible regularity. It lends credence to my opinion that those who vote for leftist candidates don't know jack, since they routinely vote for candidates that don't know jack, either.
The same, of course, can be said about the notion of "assault weapons". I could assault you with a can of cling peaches in heavy syrup and that would make that can of peaches an assault weapon. The term is purposely vague and requires stupid people to react primarily on an emotional level upon hearing it that they respond affirmatively to the leftist politician's impotent legislative proposal to ban them. It's been tried and there was not discernible effect. Now, Sen. Diane Feinstein, who doesn't know jack any better than any other leftist politician or celebrity, what's to bring the ban back.
Then, as if that wasn't enough, some will alter the term to "military style weapons". And no doubt, we can't have people owning automatic weapons, now can we? They're only for killing, by golly! Such calls completely ignore the fact that the 2nd Amendment was intended to keep the federal government on notice.
Some are worried about the thought that people are walking around with guns or in possession of certain types of guns in their homes. We should be far more worried about politicians who want to restrict our right to protect ourselves by arming ourselves. I know I am definitely worried about people continuing to elect people who would exploit tragedies and play on the emotions those tragedies inflame. It's not about guns. It's never been about guns, or knives or bows and arrows or weapons of any kind.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
326 comments:
«Oldest ‹Older 201 – 326 of 326Yeah, I've heard of the Dred Scott case. It could be argued that the decision did not technically say that slavery was "okay", but I'll concede this point to you. It was rendered moot by the 14th Amendment so it no longer applies. But DC v. Heller still applies as does Roe v. Wade.
My point is that the SCOTUS is not the arbiter of what is right or wrong.
Agreed. But SCOTUS IS the arbiter of what is legal, as in Roe and Heller.
Marshall, I was initially happy to see that you had finally taken on the weight of the numbers and stopped avoiding them. It was clear to me that you were wresting with their import and are wrestling still. But I find your latest defense - despite the work involved - to be the most anxious one and the most unreasonable for the following reasons, the first two of which point out lies on your part:
1) I note how you first try to dismiss the significance of simple data by slipping in a lie under the guise of calling out “deceit.” This is typical of you. No one is suggesting anyone be disarmed. Let’s simply agree with Ronald Reagan – “I do not believe in taking away the right of the citizen for sporting, for hunting and so forth, or for home defense. But I do believe that an AK-47, a machine gun, is not a sporting weapon or needed for defense of a home” – or Stephen King, gun owner or Mark and Gabby Giffords, gun owners, who all say the same thing.
2) The kind of argument you want to make seeks to dismiss altogether the loss of 1,250,000 lives. Though you do not make the mistake that Glenn does of trying to paint these lives as somehow worthless, you are trying to say that they are not in themselves worth more - and therefore justify big governmental effort - than all other lives snuffed out by other means.
And you lie trying to do so.
You say, “from 2007-2011” 12,664 people were murdered. No, the FBI numbers for 2010 alone list 12,996 murders. And your number for four years, “2007-2011” is actually the number of murders for just one year, 2011.
You say, “from 2007-2011” there were 8,583 total victims of firearms. No, the FBI numbers say that in 2007 alone there were 10,129 murders by firearms. In 2008, 9,528 murders by firearms. In 2009 9,199. In 2010, 8,775. And in 2011 alone, 8,583.
You say 8,583 in four years. The FBI says, 46, 214.
(http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2010/crime-in-the-u.s.-2010/tables/10shrtbl01.xls)
Why the enormous discrepancy, Marshall?
Well, clearly, you somehow mistook data for 2011 as data for “2007-2011.” But how does such a somehow happen? The following point may help us all understand you better.
3) Ignoring your deceitfulness, my larger question rests again on data for just 2011. The FBI number is that 67.7% were by firearms – 72% in the ultra violent Midwest. Why let the presence of deaths by other means stop us from drastically reducing deaths by firearms?
Your position is that a 68% reduction in murder is meaningless? (May God have mercy on you.)
Clearly you have made your mistakes because you want to discount the weight of all those souls on the question of more tightly regulating manufacture and ownership of reasonable guns.
4) And this from you: “Take away guns of all sorts and do you really expect that the result would be 8,583 fewer murders? A thoughtful, reasonable and honest person would conclude that the perpetrators would simply find another means of murdering their targets.”
Yes, I expect there to be at least a 50% reduction of murders – just murders, mind you, not accidents – if we allow law enforcement to take true control of enforcing true manufacturing, regulation and licensing laws.
Think about this when you think about the nature of perpetrators – you, too, Glenn – if we control weapons to the point that all we have are butter knives, yes, some people will use them still kill other people. Like ten of them. You’re argument that there are bad people who will behave badly is not an argument. It’s a desire to avoid the issue – and lie to do so. You betray any ground you think you have when you argue as if anyone expects the murder rate to go down to zero where firearms are concerned. Leave us with butter knives and the rate still will not be zero. But the obvious news is that thousands of children would not be buried - every year.
The point is that reasonable people are asking of ourselves, how much control should we as a society exert to bring down the excessive killing? Clearly we need to take some action. And the only thing a civilized society can resort to are laws and law enforcement.
This is the huge lie to your sketchy mention of the CDC. Previous laws against assault weapons had corrupting loopholes for gun shows and private sellers and took the teeth out of enforcement. But who did this? Republicans who cheat for the sake of power.
Glenn, being hugely uneducated and unsophisticated, has no respect for laws or for social consciousness. And neither do you, Marshall. You two are a small epidemic of angry white men retreating from community into covens of neurotic and defensive religiosity.
And you are lying from your respective lairs. And building false, deceitful, deceptive arguments from your lies.
And, Glenn, unfortunately for you, the FBI numbers indicate that murder victims by firearms across the last five years are pretty much equally divided between whites and blacks, who together make up 92% of the total.
So, we can infer that white and black non-gang members die at the same proportional rate as white and black gang members.
Though, if we were to take your gross and immoral dismissal of human lives under your judgments of gang memberships - not that you've ever thought about what that means - it does not change the comparison numbers with military combat deaths.
Because surely you would want to take all the killed soldiers in all the wars that were coked up, stoned, and pleasuring themselves with prostitutes.
So were back to where I started with the numbers. With the addition of your total lack of human feeling.
Here you go, Glenn, take a lesson. We need police not guns.
"Police Have Done More Than Prisons to Cut Crime in New York."
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/01/26/nyregion/police-have-done-more-than-prisons-to-cut-crime-in-new-york.html?hp&_r=0
feo,
"Marshall, I was initially happy to see that you had finally taken on the weight of the numbers and stopped avoiding them."
I wasn't avoiding them. You make too much of them and abuse them to press for regs that won't address the real problems that result in gun-related deaths. Do the numbers tell us something? Yes, but not what you want it to tell and therein lies the real deceit in these discussions. Now to your points:
1) I don't merely assert deceit on your part. I point it out. For an anti-gun nut to assert any number of gun-related deaths means the problem is guns, while not saying that the vastly greater number of vehicle related deaths means the problem is car is deceitful. I would no sooner expect a law-abiding citizen to give up his Thompson Sub-Machine Gun than I would he give up his car, just because some people were careless or malicious with their own. The problem isn't the object, but the person possessing it.
And yes, if I want that Thompson because I believe it best suits my self-defense needs, needs only I have the final word in determining, I am disarmed by laws that deny me that weapon. As a responsible, law-abiding person, fears regarding my possessing such a weapon are unfounded and irrational. Who are you, or Reagan, or the Giffords, to determine what my needs are as regards self-defense? How can you prove my notions of what my needs are are irrational without a review of my life after it has ended? The fact is that addressing needs for weaponry is not based on actual threat any more than auto insurance is. Like auto-insurance, or even police protection, possession of weaponry by a law-abiding citizen comes with the hope that they will never be needed to defend one's life, family or property. If you don't feel you need a weapon, don't own one. I wouldn't presume that laws should force you to have one.
more coming now....
2) It is true that I used some of the 2011 totals as totals for a greater period. But the following totals were from the same column. I notice how you didn't bring up the fact that, along with those stats matching up, the stats of total murders by weapons were across the same period. Why the "enormous" discrepancy? Simple failure to proof read due to limited time. But you need to believe it is purposeful deceit. I have no need to be deceitful since my position is provably more correct. The point still stands. Removing guns from accessibility of law-abiding citizens does nothing to prevent Sandy Hook-type tragedies.
3) "Why let the presence of deaths by other means stop us from drastically reducing deaths by firearms?"
Because the object is to reduce violence, not the manner in which violence is carried out. Especially when the latter results in leaving innocent people vulnerable to the violent, as it has over and over again.
"Your position is that a 68% reduction in murder is meaningless? (May God have mercy on you.)"
You're assuming such a reduction despite the fact that so many murders, and especially the mass murders tragedies like Sandy Hook and Columbine, are not affected by gun regulation that deprives the law-abiding from acquiring weapons of their choice for self-defense. No reduction is "meaningless" except in how such numbers are deceitfully used by people like you. You'll need to repent of such behavior before you'll get any mercy from anyone.
4) "Yes, I expect there to be at least a 50% reduction of murders..."
Your expectation is baseless (I removed "wishful thinking" as the only possible basis for the above). It is you who misunderstands the nature of violent people. And again, the stats show that the types of weapons the Feinsteins want to regulate are not in the categories of most used means of murder. Indeed, as I understand it, Lanza didn't do most of his killing with a weapon that would be restricted by Feinstein's already proven impotent proposal. If a scumbag wants you dead, he'll find a way. THAT'S the nature of the perpetrators of murder.
"You betray any ground you think you have when you argue as if anyone expects the murder rate to go down to zero where firearms are concerned."
This is a lie of your own. We haven't made any such argument. Ours is that the regs and restrictions being proposed won't have any significant effect on the murder rate. The last ban on "assault" weapons had none. This one won't either. The reason is because the weapons don't do the killing.
more...
"The point is that reasonable people are asking of ourselves, how much control should we as a society exert to bring down the excessive killing?"
You are not among the reasonable who take into account the real issue, which doesn't include method selection. Reasonable people understand that variations of the same failed policies will fail just as badly due to the fact that they don't address the issue at all. The issue is violent people and none of these regs address them at all, except to empower them through leaving the citizenry defenseless.
"This is the huge lie to your sketchy mention of the CDC. Previous laws against assault weapons had corrupting loopholes for gun shows and private sellers and took the teeth out of enforcement.".
There are no "teeth" one can implant that will prevent the evildoer from perpetrating evil. If there were, there would be very little crime of any kind. You insist on ignoring the fact that laws do not prevent lawbreaking. I will address how you almost get it in a comment to Glenn a bit later.
"Glenn, being hugely uneducated and unsophisticated, has no respect for laws or for social consciousness. And neither do you, Marshall. You two are a small epidemic of angry white men retreating from community into covens of neurotic and defensive religiosity."
Sez you. We understand the extent to which laws impact society. The underbelly of which largely ignores law when convenient or advantageous. For example, the law-abiding, like Glenn and myself, do not own automatic weapons because they are irrationally illegal. The gang-bangers, for example, often do own them.
We are also quite socially conscious and understand how people like you fail in that area. You are too morally corrupt for that and far less objective to benefit that area of importance. The leftist notion of social consciousness has played a large part in the level of violence in our society. We angry white men do not look to retreat from anything. Indeed, we are accused of being angry by the spineless such as yourself because we don't retreat from that which is the true cause of societal ills.
You have yet to point out any deception on our part, try as you so desperately do.
I read most of your latest offering from the New York Times. Thank you for supporting our position. What the article demonstrates is what our position has maintained. The show of force is what keeps the peace. Concealed carry, the right to possess the weapons of our own choosing, presents a challenge to the evil-doers that they'd prefer not to navigate. Ignoring the police state feel of it, adding more cops to the streets does indeed bring this position to bear. However, unless there are enough cops so that I can have one of my very own watching over me 24/7, I can never assume my safety is guaranteed. At least not as much as carrying my own weapon can. And here's another plus: the article tries to compare costs between more prisons and more cops. But the state spends even less if the citizenry is armed and can protect itself.
"Reasonable" guns should include AR-15s. After all, the DHS says they are great for personal defense, even if Cuomo wants them outlawed.
http://www.nysenate.gov/press-release/department-homeland-security-latest-highlight-flawed-logic-cuomo-gun-grab
It's always nice to know that an anti-gun person gets to decide what a "reasonable" gun is.
http://www.nysenate.gov/press-release/department-homeland-security-latest-highlight-flawed-logic-cuomo-gun-grab
Feo,
Why is it you liberals can’t help yourself from misrepresenting your opponents?
So, because I noted that a large number of gun deaths are by gang related violence, that therefore means I have a “gross and immoral dismissal of human lives”?!?!?! I was pointing out a fact of life - DUH! In other words, criminal use of guns are the cause of the majority of gun-related deaths, and a huge percentage of that is gang-related. I never mentioned any race - and by the way, there are black gangs, Latino gangs and, yes, even white gangs. I just said “gangs.”
Comparing any deaths by guns with military war deaths by guns is asinine to begin with. Apples and oranges all over the place.
The point is, how many are dead by illegal activity vs accidents? How many crimes are committed with guns obtained illegally compared to crimes committed with legally-owned guns? These are the only numbers that matter. And since, as far as I have read anyway, that the percentage of civilian gun deaths by crime far, far exceeds any numbers from non-criminal activity.
If you want to include combat deaths from small arms, first you’d have to isolate those out, since many deaths are by artillery, mines, bombs, etc. Then you’d have to factor in how many actual years of combat and the percentage of the population in combat.
You see, the whole issue of combat deaths is totally irrelevant to civilian gun use. You’d have to factor in the total population numbers vs what percentage were gun deaths caused by crime. Then you’d have to factor in the totals of all the years since 1775. So what percentage of the total population in all those years were killed or wounded by illegal gun use?
Statistics can show anything you want them to show, but to be valid you need to make adequate comparisons.
And for all you liberals wanting to take away guns because you have some sort of phobia about them, how about doing something to stop multitudes more murders by making abortion illegal. You whine and cry about people dying by guns and don’t give a darn about abortion.
Feo,
YOu are really proving yourself to be a total fool. How dare you say I am "hugely uneducated and unsophisticated, has no respect for laws or for social consciousness"?!?! You don't know anything about me, you moron! Because I have no respect for laws that promote homosexual behavior and abortion, or laws that violate my right to own a firearm, laws that steal from hardworking people to give to lazy bums, and other laws of that nature I therefore have no respect for laws in general?!?!? You are a jackass!
Social consciousness?!?!? I'm probably as socially conscious as anyone you know, but the difference is that I assign personal responsibility for peoples' actions rather than blame a gun, or how they grew up, or any other psychobabble whine. You are the biggest liar on this comment string. You have libeled me to no end.
You are a typical left wing radical who wants to punish law-abiding citizens to solve problems you cause with your stupid policies.
Feo,
We need more police as WELL AS more guns. Police can never be every where when needed.
And, remember, the 2nd Amendment is about protecting ourselves first and foremost from the government's tyranny.
Can you say "Kristallnacht"?
I'm looking through all the froth for an argument being made... looking... looking... more lies, check... looking... falsehoods, check... looking... angry white men hysterically worrying about Kristallnacht in America, thereby defaming both country and historic tragedy, check... looking... Marshall makes his bed with Ted Nugent-like weirdos while I'm solid with Ronald Reagan on guns, strange but check... still looking for an argument...
I find these two:
1) Bad people will be bad. (I suppose this constitutes an argument for the level you guys are at.)
2) Laws can't change realities.
Well, smokers have said laws and labels wont change anything. They've said that for decades. It turns out that while 45% of American adults smoked in 1965, 18% do now. Resulting in massive reductions in smoke related cancers and savings in billions of tax payer dollars. And whereas 50% of women smoked while pregnant, now less than 10% do. Untold improvement in the health of newborns. Laws have dramatically reduced the use of death dealing cigarettes - both in this country and Europe.
Laws have changed how much drunken driving deaths occur each year. So, too, seat belt laws.
So, too, infant deaths have been greatly reduced with tough consumer regulations of cribs, toys, flammable clothes, etc.
Laws - enforceable laws - change things.
And in New York, yes, Marshall, the show of force is what keeps the peace - government executive force. Since Clinton passed budgets that allowed NYC to put cops on the beat, crime has been reduced by incredible, historic proportions. And it was people just like you in the 80s who declared safety could never come to US cities. Partly a racist response, or maybe mostly so, you've been proved wrong.
And this in a city that has the strongest anti-gun legislation in the country. Get that, Glenn... the most punitive anti-gun legislation in the country.
Police, enforceable laws, and keep heavy weapons out of the hands of all people. It works. Just like Reagan thought it would.
And, remember, the 2nd Amendment is about protecting ourselves first and foremost from the government's tyranny.
From drones? Tanks?
Can you say "Kristallnacht"?
Possession of arms by the Polish Jews might have saved them from the gas chambers but it would not have saved them from death, only hastened it.
"And it was people just like you in the 80s who declared safety could never come to US cities."
Aside from this being projection, because you really need to believe that we are racist or some such crap, safety has not come to any major US city. The fact that crime is down does not mean the streets are safe. "Safer" is relative to how bad it was. That does not equal "safe". What's more, police protection is limited to their immediate presence. As I said, until I get to have my own cop traveling with me as would a personal bodyguard, I am only as safe as I am able to make myself.
One of these days, you'll have to provide an actual argument of your own. Believing that guns compel people to violence is childishly stupid. Then, to compound that idiotic notion by insisting that ridding the law-abiding of their weapons of choice because they can't be trusted to responsibly own them is also unsupportable. It would also be nice if you would cut the Parklife crap and point out what you think are lies and why you think so. I haven't put forth any lies and I haven't seen Glenn do it, either.
Jim,
How would drones be used to quell a righteous defense against a tyrannical gov't? Would they be used to blow up entire neighborhoods if the entire neighborhood is armed and defiant? What about any people within that neighborhood that isn't a rebel?
What's the point of oppressing a city if the city won't comply at some point? Even if all die in the resistance, they choose to do so rather than be enslaved to a tyrant. You are more than free to submit to oppression if you like. I've no doubt you'd be among the first.
http://www.oup.com/us/catalog/general/subject/Sociology/CriminalJustice/?view=usa&ci=9780199844425
The more we raise shooters, the more shooters we'll get.
"The pages of Junior Shooters, an industry-supported magazine that seeks to get children involved in the recreational use of firearms, once featured a smiling 15-year-old girl clutching a semiautomatic rifle. At the end of an accompanying article that extolled target shooting with a Bushmaster AR-15 — an advertisement elsewhere in the magazine directed readers to a coupon for buying one — the author encouraged youngsters to share the article with a parent.
“Who knows?” it said. “Maybe you’ll find a Bushmaster AR-15 under your tree some frosty Christmas morning!”
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/01/27/us/selling-a-new-generation-on-guns.html?hp
feo,
Is there a point hidden somewhere in either of your last two comments?
For your first, let's concede that the point not apparent is somehow valid for some discussion somewhere. Here, I don't see a connection. Is your point that a seemingly safe community renders useless the right to bear arms, and thus should be rescinded? As usual, no logical connection exists in this presumption of yours.
"The more we raise shooters, the more shooters we'll get."
So what? I'm guessing you are making the still nonsensical assumption that shooters equate to murderers and cold-blooded killers. The numbers don't support this silly notion. Despite your being enamored with the number of gun-related deaths since whenever, you still must compare that to the total numbers of weapons owners during the same period. Doing so shows that your numbers don't suggest restrictions are in order.
No, no hidden points that I know of. Just the obvious ones similar to the ones you miss all the time.
If there are no hidden points in your cryptic posting, then there is no point at all. If there were obvious points, I wouldn't have asked the question. I'm guessing my response thwarts any possibility of you even clarifying, since the points you were trying to make were as insipid as in previous attempts.
That's it, Marshall, keep guessing about all the obvious things in the world. What would you do without the veil of opacity wrapped around your brain to keep it warm.
That's funny. You defending what is obvious. What a cut-up you are!
I couldn't resist this one: "police protection is limited to their immediate presence. As I said, until I get to have my own cop traveling with me as would a personal bodyguard, I am only as safe as I am able to make myself."
Seriously? You honestly believe you live in constant threat of imminent harm on the streets of Chicago? Or its suburbs? The worst thing that would happen to you is someone would be rude to you, Art. You're more in danger of being in an automobile accident within a few blocks of your home than were you to walk the streets of Chicago at night.
How can I say this so blithely, you may ask? Because I've done it. With my family. Including children.
If you are afraid, it isn't because evil hordes of murderers are out to get you. It's because you're delusional.
Geoffrey,
Do you carry car, health or home-owner's insurance? Do you honestly live in constant threat of auto-accident, medical issues or fire/flood or other damage to your home? Guns are insurance. You like to believe all who desire to own guns are bloodthirsty, because you think your perception of reality should dictate what others believe about the world around them. You want to do away with the 2nd Amendment, when that won't do a thing to prevent violence in our society, but will in fact allow for more?
And WOW! Geoffrey! You've actually strolled the streets of Chicago without incident? Good gosh! That means I can remove the sandbags, unbolt, unchain and unlock my doors and come out into the world glory be!!! What in idiot you are. Tell me, Geoffie. Were these excursions in areas where even the residents don't walk outdoors at night? And if so, do you think those residents are now strolling the sidewalks every night due to your example?
I just checked out your last post at your blog and I really wonder just how far up your backside you must reach to pull out perspectives like that.
But I digress. Getting back to the quote of mine you highlighted, I'll explain to you what the point was, since you missed it. It was in response to feo's argument regarding the increase of police in NYC connected to the decrease in crime, the implication being that all we need is more cops and the streets will be safe. That, like the post at your blog, is incredibly stupid. But hey, if you wish to abdicate your responsibility as a husband and father for the protection of your family to cops who will need a few minutes to get to you, feel free. Responsible adults think differently.
By the way, do you lock the doors to your house at night? If so, why? Do you believe that evil hordes of murderers are out to get you?
Perhaps, Geoffrey, you missed the part at Dan's where I answered Alan's question about whether or not I own any guns.
But here's what I really fear: I fear for your children. They have you for a father and that's a horrible thing to inflict upon a child. May God protect them.
Here's where you fail at analogies, Marshall, being infelicitous with higher order language: financial insurance is not an apt analogy. In fact, insurance is precisely the responsible and appropriate preparation for the unexpected. I buy life insurance to protect my family in case of fate.
Here's the analogy for assault weapons: are you going to buy a Hummer, Marshall, to defend yourself on the road? Or a Gurkha F5?
I can always count on you guys to give evidence that higher education does little to instill common sense and wisdom.
The analogy works this way:
Guns and home-owner's insurance compare in the sense that they are that which we hope never to need, while having it nonetheless. Most cops hope never to have to draw their weapons, but they understand the need to carry them. Yet, fools like yourself, Geoffrey and other gun-grabbers have no doubt that in the hands of the average citizen, bloodshed is automatic.
At the same time, people often DO make their auto purchases based on safety features. Those features are added insurance against harm. Thus, either way, my framing gun ownership as insurance is incredibly appropriate. Thanks for the help once again.
You are more than free to submit to oppression if you like.
What oppression? Oh yeah, the incandescent light bulb thing.
Geoff is right. Collision insurance doesn't prevent collisions. It pays for the damages after they occur.
Guns and home-owner's insurance compare in the sense that they are that which we hope never to need
Somehow I bet the latter may be true but not the former.
You're such a piece of work, Art. Ignorant, delusional, yet totally unafraid to venture forth where your brain has never been.
I suppose there's courage in that.
Carry on, fellows. I just couldn't help pointing out the basic paranoia at the heart of Art's sense of imminent harm.
So, are you going to buy a Hummer, Marshall, to defend yourself on the road? Or a Gurkha F5?
Well, you know, home invasions DO happen.
Hey Jim,
Can you find any other aberrations that won't overwhelm the many instances of justified home defense?
feo,
"So, are you going to buy a Hummer, Marshall, to defend yourself on the road? Or a Gurkha F5?"
Still intent on distorting the legitimate point I made, aren't you? Typical.
Geoffrey,
So nice for you that you always have character assassination for a fall back tactic when no real argument can be offered to counter reason and truth. That must help with the blubbering.
I would like to know how you get "paranoia at the heart of Art's sense of imminent harm" out of any of my comments. More to the point, how do you deflect that very accusation toward yourself considering your paranoia at the thought of your neighbor owning weapons for self-defense? The irony is incredible.
Parkie,
Nothing like you once again exposing your own stupidity. Unless, of course, displaying a quote of Geoffie's wherein he uses my name constitutes referring to myself in the third person. You're an idiot.
Since you're so set on insurance and protection - and dismissive of governmental action - I'd suggest something like the following to add to your assault weapons with maxed out magazines:
http://www.doa.louisiana.gov/osp/images/PierceMfgFireTruck.jpg
OK, feo, I'm convinced already. You really are an idiot. I need no more evidence.
And yes, I am more than "dismissive" of governmental action that is both impotent AND un-Constitutional, as these gun-grabbing proposals are. What has been offered has been nothing more than proposals offered to project to fools like yourself that the leftist buffoons are "doing something". And there is no better group of chumps than those who support the Obamas, Bidens and Feinsteins of the world.
But are you going to protect yourself on the road and from fire to the same hyperventilated level you think is your right and duty from the massively armed gangs who even now may be putting together a plan to storm your home - as crucially valuable as it is to them?
Parkie,
Please have a little courtesy. feo's trying to show he's the biggest idiot here. It's not nice to come in now and try to show it's really you. And please don't try to make me judge either of you as more of an idiot than the other. That's just too difficult a call.
You're the one claiming that people have a right to assault weapons with maxed out magazines to defend themselves from gangs of bad people that descend on little homes like yours.
You've said that high lethality assault weapons are insurance. Just as one needs insurance from fire and road dangers.
I just gave visuals to the most apt comparisons that result from your argument.
And now you prevaricate because you have no substantial response from the corner you've put yourself in.
No prevarication on my part. That's all on you and your like minded small minds.
"You're the one claiming that people have a right to assault weapons with maxed out magazines to defend themselves from gangs of bad people that descend on little homes like yours."
I'm claiming, and righteously so, that the 2nd Amendment guarantees our right to bear arms to protect ourselves from threats to our life, liberty and property. This is an absolute fact. No prevarication.
"You've said that high lethality assault weapons are insurance. Just as one needs insurance from fire and road dangers."
I didn't specify what weapon, but all guns are equally lethal in the hands of a trained individual. Are you suggesting that there are varying degrees of dead?
You gave no "apt" comparisons since you decided to dictate what my argument was promoting. Insurance. You needed it to mean only physical harm. I made no such allusion. Harm does not need to be physical as one's house burning down can happen while the family is away and yet, there is immense financial harm wrought by the destruction of one's home.
The only one stuck in a corner is you. The dunce cap will fit nicely upon your pointed head.
There are varying degrees of dead. As Mark Giffords testified before Congress, the Tucson shooter used a semi-automatic pistol with a 30 round magazine. He shot 19 people, 6 died.
He was stopped from shooting more when he had to pause to reload.
He was stopped from shooting more when he had to pause to reload.
If his magazine was limited to 10 rounds before he had to reload, then - doing inferential math - six people would have been shot and only 2 dead.
That's a reduction in the degree of fatalities of 66%.
Or don't you follow math?
I just have to toss this out to Art and Glenn and like-minded folk:
Do any of you know anything about anything at all?
I ask this in all seriousness because you pontificate and elaborate and, at the end of the day, you sound like childish buffoons. You attack the rule of law ("Who cares what the Supreme Court says?!?"), the police powers of the state ("I need guns to protect me from crime!!"), and even the US government and the military ("I need guns to protect me from tyranny!!!"), all institutions that you otherwise insist we respect with some kind of absolute fervor. Except, alas, when it comes to your precious little metal penises that go boom all over strangers.
There's a reason I don't take any of you seriously; you are, to a person, unserious. You know nothing, you say nothing except what all the other morons on the right say, and you lack any capacity to understand the words you have actually mean things.
Art's insistence that educated folks are really stupid is the best example I can imagine. Among his frequent attacks are that Feodor and myself, being educated, are in fact demonstrating the failure of higher education because . . . well, he never really gives a reason. So, it's a claim rooted in ignorance, expounded without reason or evidence, based upon the widespread lie that academia, being a bastion of left-wing cranks, doesn't actually teach anyone anything. Little different in kind from the kind of bilge you read from George Will, except the grammar from Art and Glenn and the rest is poorer.
The public demonstration of such ignorance is the best argument against widespread gun ownership I can imagine. You demonstrate, each and every time you write something, a lack of even basic communication skills, reasoning skills, or any acquaintance with concepts like neighborliness or the need for civility when living in community. The last people I would trust with any firearm are the very people who slaver over them so verbosely.
As this comment thread approaches three hundred, I do hope the gerbil wheel is familiar to you.
What a puss you are.
"Harm does not need to be physical as one's house burning down can happen while the family is away..."
Then you really can't compare it to assault weapons, can you?
This is exactly why you hate to offer your own thoughts or substantive responses. You just know you'll be burned - so out of your league.
http://townhall.com/columnists/johnhawkins/2013/02/02/10-stories-that-prove-guns-save-lives-n1503549/page/full/
Yep, police were always readily available, weren't they?
I just have to toss this out to Geoffrey:
"Do any of you know anything about anything at all?"
Are you about to enlighten us as to where or how we are lacking? We've provided arguments, with evidence and statistics, and you've done little more than pretend we know nothing.
"You attack the rule of law ("Who cares what the Supreme Court says?!?")"
We attack what we see is bad interpretation of the US Constitution. This is not attacking the rule of law. An example of that would be allowing non-citizens from entering our country without a visa, letting a visa lapse without reinstatement or by simply foregoing current immigration procedures and protocols. We acknowledge that the Supreme Court is not infallible in their decisions and that decisions can be overturned by future Justices.
"the police powers of the state ("I need guns to protect me from crime!!")"
Aside from the fact that the police are limited in their ability to protect the citizens, nor do not necessarily exist for that purpose primarily, as free citizens of the state, we acknowledge our own duties and responsibilities for maintaining our own safety. You, as leftists and willing to abdicate responsibility, are free to wait for police to respond to your cries for help.
"and even the US government and the military ("I need guns to protect me from tyranny!!!"),"
We don't attack the military at all. That's your job as leftist simpletons who are willing and eager to reduce military capability. We understand, however, that no one can stand pat under the proven ridiculous notion that "it can't happen here".
"all institutions that you otherwise insist we respect with some kind of absolute fervor"
We do respect the rule of law, our police and military (and the gov't actually), but do not regard them as infallible or mandated to wipe our noses for us.
"Except, alas, when it comes to your precious little metal penises that go boom all over strangers."
Geoffie say "penis"!! It must excite him. But note here, Geoffie's delusional fear of his fellow man. Neighbor owns a gun? Neighbor will kill people. Yeah. Rational.
"There's a reason I don't take any of you seriously"
It's because you're stupid. You certainly haven't given any reason why our arguments and positions are in any way unsound. Certainly not on this issue.
"Art's insistence that educated folks are really stupid is the best example I can imagine."
I know without a doubt you're not missing this point, but are instead far too dishonest to state it in the manner I do. I do not insist that educated folks are really stupid. I insist that two who claim to be highly educated (you and feo) are incredibly stupid. Do you see the difference, or are you too educated to get it?
" Among his frequent attacks . . . well, he never really gives a reason."
I give a reason each and every time I state that obvious truth. Try paying attention. Just to be clear, my position on higher education is that when someone considers whether to send their children to university, you and feo prove that a diploma doesn't mean one is smart.
"The public demonstration of such ignorance is the best argument against widespread gun ownership I can imagine."
I have yet to see Geoffie demonstrate in any way where ignorance has manifested in our comments. Like feo and Parkie, Geoffie contents himself with baseless accusations.
"You demonstrate, each and every time you write something, a lack of even basic communication skills, reasoning skills, or any acquaintance with concepts like neighborliness or the need for civility when living in community."
Examples would be helpful here, if any existed. I can't think of any that would indicate that I don't live in harmony with those around me, that I lack civility "when living in community". That I might be uncivil here ignores what provoked any uncivil comment on my part. I know without any shred of doubt that visits to Geoffie's blog never render a feeling of gracious welcome. Geoffie has no standing to speak of civility, especially when he suspects the average citizen of being bloodthirsty for merely preparing for the unexpected.
"The last people I would trust with any firearm are the very people who slaver over them so verbosely."
How dishonest to pretend you would ever trust anyone in possessing firearms. How dishonest to pretend that anyone who defends the 2nd and the spirit of it is "slavering" over them. Here's how it works:
If Geoffie suggests one be denied the right to free speech, defending one's right is "slavering" over it.
From feo:
"What a puss you are.
"Harm does not need to be physical as one's house burning down can happen while the family is away..."
Then you really can't compare it to assault weapons, can you?"
If by "puss" you mean "handsome and intelligent with a keen insight into the world at large", then thank you. Otherwise, how typical of a false priest.
And, as if to argue against Geoffie on my behalf, you again make a stupid comment that doesn't in the least bit reflect anything I've said. It's obvious you're too highly educated to understand a simple explanation of gun ownership as insurance. More likely, you're too lacking in honesty and honor to acknowledge the explanation, but instead distort it to imply something negative about it. Tough call.
But once again, gun ownership is insurance against one form of harm, and auto insurance against another. The harm of the former is immediate, personal and physical, maybe life-threatening. The harm of the latter is financial. YOU insist the harm must be the same in order for my comparison to work. It doesn't have to be at all.
I offer my thoughts and responses all day long. You haven't burned me once in all the years you've tried. Out of my league? Loser, I'm in Cooperstown and you can't get a spot on a T-Ball league. You're just too highly educated to see it.
And as to your Giffords example, that is one case where a reload offered an opportunity. I have presented an example where a victim testified as to how quickly the perpetrator who killed her parents was able to reload, AND, I've offered an example of how quickly one could reload with practice. Had he not been in the middle of a crowd of people, one of the several citizens with concealed carry permits could have dropped the dude before his second shot was fired. You've merely taken one example where the circumstances seem to support your argument. It doesn't. Not for you. Not for Giffords.
The reality is really simple: The worst thing on offer is a ban on future sales of particular designs of a limited style of long-barreled firearm, as well as limiting the capacity of ammunition can be held in the magazine.
At most, this is a slight inconvenience. No one, and by that I mean people in positions to actually make decisions, is proposing any realistic restrictions on gun ownership such as happened in the UK and Australia, measures, by the way, that have made gun violence nearly extinct.
The real culprits in all this aren't the whack-a-loons like Art and Glenn. No, it's the gun manufacturers whose only concern is the continued viability and profitability of their products. They take a horror show like Newtown and turn it upside down and inside out and the result is over 260 comments about how the evil liberals want to steal our guns and our freedoms, instead of reasonable, perfectly legitimate measures we as a society can take to reduce the carnage from firearms.
Art and Glenn, you folks only count because you're a distraction. Money talks and BS walks, and time should be spent focusing on the gun manufacturers, not you ignorant yahoos.
"But once again, gun ownership is insurance against one form of harm, and auto insurance against another. The harm of the former is immediate, personal and physical, maybe life-threatening."
Oh, God, you're back to failed language, Marshall. Do you not know that auto insurance IS insurance? Do you no know that home owner's insurance IS insurance. Do you know that health insurance IS insurance.
And guns are not?
You are using simile.
So, yes, "it's obvious that I'm too highly educated to understand a simple explanation of gun ownership as insurance" when such an explanation cannot understand it's own terms.
But I do get your similar analogy. I also get how unbelievably weak it is.
"The harm of the former is immediate, personal and physical, maybe life-threatening..."
So guns provide insurance from immediate, personal, and physical harm - maybe life threatening - like why I wear socks to avoid busters.
Guns are like why I drink espresso in the morning in order to ward off harmful sleepiness.
Guns are like wearing wool hats in blizzards.
Guns are like holding on the railing when going down steep stairs.
Yes, I see Marshall. I see how tempered and strong your simile is. i see how supply your mind grasps what comes out of your mouth.
And I see how you avoid this:
There are varying degrees of dead. As Mark Giffords testified before Congress, the Tucson shooter used a semi-automatic pistol with a 30 round magazine. He shot 19 people, 6 died.
He was stopped from shooting more when he had to pause to reload.
He was stopped from shooting more when he had to pause to reload.
If his magazine was limited to 10 rounds before he had to reload, then - doing inferential math - six people would have been shot and only 2 dead.
That's a reduction in the degree of fatalities of 66%.
Or don't you follow math?
Feodor,
If someone near by had a gun, they wouldn't have to wait for him to reload! They could have shot him before he had 10 rounds off.
Feodor,
Let me give you a better analogy:
A gun is like a parachute, if you're in a situation where you really need one and don't have it, chances are you'll never need it again.
"If someone near by had a gun, they wouldn't have to wait for him to reload! They could have shot him before he had 10 rounds off."
Apparently, Glenn, it's not possible for you to be further from the truth.
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/02/04/us/chris-kyle-american-sniper-author-reported-killed.html?hp
Feodor,
He shot one person. DUH!
He obviously wanted to kill that guy for some reason. It would surprise me if he was paid off by Muslims who didn't like the idea that he took so many of them out single-handedly. Catching someone by surprise as he did, he could have just as easily used a knife. The gun didn't do anything - the person wielding it did - something you liberals seem to never understand.
You're just concrete stupid aren't you, Glenn?
Mr. Kyle is the "deadliest" sniper in US military history. He's at a "safe" gun range. And he has a gun.
And what do you say? ""If someone near by had a gun, they wouldn't have to wait for him to reload! They could have shot him before he had 10 rounds off."
And now Mr. Kyle is dead.
And what do you say? "He shot one person."
Wrong again.
And they you go off on your paranoid, McCarthyite rants.
Feodor,
Well, the first reports I read said only one was shot. I Have looked at newer reports and see two were shot. Hey, don't blame me for poor news reports.
The point is that he was caught by surprise, not expecting to be in a combat situation. Again, if the killer wanted to kill him, he could have done it with a knife at a different location. What is clear, is that the killer intentionally chose Kyle as his target for some reason.
This does not negate the FACT that in situations where a bad guy is popping rounds at people, anyone with a gun who sees it happening can stop the shooting before he can empty 10 rounds. It is indeed possible.
"The point is that he was caught by surprise..."
Yeah; thank God all other shooters release press announcements.
"Well, the first reports I read said only one was shot."
Bullshit. You're still a liar.
Feodor,
The news I read said that Kyle was shot point blank and the shooter was captured. There was no mention of another person being shot. I am not a liar. That is all the article I read said.
Now it looks like there were a total of three people there and two are dead. So the idea that someone could have stopped a surprise like that is nonsense, and notice there weren't 10 rounds shot either.
You are a complete jackass.
You're a complete liar. My mother lives in Glen Rose and from the first everyone heard about two bodies. And no, there is not third victim.
Classless.
Apparently, Glenn, feo has the power to know every report delivered to the public everywhere in the nation. He also has the power to make a big deal about something so insignificant as whether or not you were aware of the exact details of the story, just to demonize someone with whom he disagrees. It's a gift, really.
What's wrong with you guys? Don't you know there's a football game in progress? (I'm typing my stuff during replays since checking out the blog during the power outage)
This isn't the first time Glenn has made stuff up.
Geoffie,
The reality is really simple:" The worst thing on offer is basically a repeat of the same impotent and ineffective ban that expired in 2004. I know it will make the losers that comprise the majority of the left-wing feel as if they've done something, but doing something that accomplishes nothing is no better than doing nothing.
The worst part is the fact that what makes a gun an assault weapon, according to the gun-grabbers, are superficial attachments. Idiots believe that such distinctions matter, and worse, idiots think that eliminating guns eliminates violence. It doesn't. It just alters the means of perpetrating violence.
What's more, it alters the efforts that one must go to acquire such weapons, and that kind of effort is so often viewed as worth it to those who would ignore the law. This type of thing has been demonstrated over and over again when one considers laws already in effect and the fact that crime occurs despite it. But to the Geoffies of the world, maybe this time it will matter.
The real culprits are those who believe this nonsense and continue to favor ineffective laws that leave innocent people, and kids, vulnerable to those with no respect for the impotent laws lefties enact. Instead of pulling their heads out of their asses, they insist on that which has proven ineffective. They might as well be killing innocents themselves. Whether lefties are evil or not is not as important or true as how stupid they are on issues of this magnitude. They take a tragedy like Newton, and instead of proving to them the stupidity of their position, they push for more of the same that did nothing whatsoever from preventing either the tragedy itself or limiting the deaths that resulted from it. Again, they might as well be driving the Lanzas to the gun-free zones themselves. May God forgive them their willful stupidity.
"Do you not know that auto insurance IS insurance? Do you no know that home owner's insurance IS insurance. Do you know that health insurance IS insurance."
REALLY feo? Wow! You're a fart smeller. I mean, smart feller. I guess what you're saying is that that which is called insurance is insurance, but that which provides insurance is only...something different. Guns provide insurance against harm by those who would seek to inflict it upon one or one's friends and family. The forms of insurance you listed provide insurance that one won't suffer financial harm as a result of the various means of inflicting such harm against which the policies insure one. You really need to find someone who can explain this comparison to you. But it has nothing to do with the fact that the harm isn't comparable, but only that each protects against harm. This is consistent with every attempt to explain this very basic concept to your highly educated, but poor excuse for a mind. However, your weak mind seems to grasp the concept just a little bit, based on the conclusion of your 3:01PM comment. Too bad you likely don't see it.
Auto, health, home-owners insurance is insurance that protects against the financial harm auto accidents, health issues and damage to one's home might bring about.
Warm clothing is insurance against the harm cold weather might inflict upon one.
Railings are insurance against the harm falling down the stairs might inflict.
Coffee is insurance against the effects of low energy or sleepiness.
I'm so proud of you that your highly educated mind is beginning to get the point. When your ego can step aside, I think you'll be successful in this endeavor.
"There are varying degrees of dead."
No, there are not. There is only dead. Two people dead are two people each who are dead. Two people dead does not constitute twice as dead.
"He was stopped from shooting more when he had to pause to reload."
In this case that might be true. But I posted a link to a video of a woman giving testimony who, having experienced a mass shooting and losing her parents as a result of it, plainly indicated how quickly THAT assailant was able to reload. I've also listed several examples of people being stopped after firing only a shot or two by a civilian carrying a weapon. There were such people at the event where Giffords was shot, but they withheld fire due to the numbers of bystanders.
The point here is that despite the best efforts of feo and Jim to use single incidents as if there are no others that contradict them, there will always be situations that will seem to make one proposal or another less than perfect. But if we honestly weigh all proposals based on evidence of all shooting incidents, there is no doubt that arming those who choose to arm will more greatly reduce the death count.
In his continuing effort to further dishonesty, feo offers the case of the sniper shot to death on a gun range.
First off, who would suggest that gun ranges are safe, that is, that no one could pull off a murder at a gun range? That would require the same level of dishonesty so willfully employed by the gun-grabbing leftists.
Secondly, to use such an incident as proof of anything that supports the gun-grabbing side of the issue is, as I've said, greatly in need of dishonesty or willful blindness. It proves nothing except that despite the best intentions, bad things happen.
It is obvious that this perpetrator meant to kill someone. It is stupid to suppose that because one cannot acquire a gun then no murder would have been committed. It's that type of thinking that allows Columbines, Sandy Hooks and other such tragedies to occur, as well as the common street shooting.
As to Kyle being the "deadliest shooter", I recall Bruce Lee being asked a question. What would he do if someone was to sneak up behind him with a length of piano wire or garrote? His answer? "Die." The point being that anyone can be sucker punched. Your offering of the Kyle incident is worthless.
As Mark Giffords testified before Congress, the Tucson shooter used a semi-automatic pistol with a 30 round magazine. He shot 19 people, 6 died.
He was stopped from shooting more when he had to pause to reload.
He was stopped from shooting more when he had to pause to reload.
If his magazine was limited to 10 rounds before he had to reload, then - doing inferential math - six people would have been shot and only 2 dead.
That's a reduction in the degree of fatalities of 66%.
Or don't you follow math?
Feodor,
You are a complete jackass.
Read my lips. The first news I heard was that one person blew away Kyle at point blank range. There was no mention of another person. I did not say where I got my news so you have no idea what was the content was.
Since you mentioned a second person I googled to see what I could find and what I found that there were a total of three people at the range. THREE. So there weren't others around to stop the murder.
The killer as a person being helped and the men helping him would not have considered him a danger, hence the surprise. Three people were there, one killed the other two.
This has nothing whatsoever to do with the whole gun control, 10-round limit to magazines, etc. It is nothing but a red herring.
And you are proving with every post that you are being intentionally stupid.
Feo,
I have NEVER made stuff up. I don't do things like that - that's what liberals do.
lying "... that's what liberals do."
Aluminum tubes and yellow cake.
And 58, 000 deaths and 120,000 wounded followed.
OH! You're so very close, Benny. You'd be totally correct if you had said "I'm incredibly disappointing."
And feo? Lying is purposely saying something one knows is untrue. Like what you're doing by accusing the Bush administration of lying about aluminum tubes and yellow cake. Like pretending that was the deal breaker for going to war. Like pretending any deaths or wounded can be laid at the feet of Bush, America or anyone else but the despot the engagement sought to oust. In other words, thanks for proving Glenn's point.
Rice was told a number of times that the aluminum tubes were NOT suitable for centrifuges but were likely to be used as rocket bodies. Still she said that the tubes could only have been meant for centrifuges.
She was lying.
As Mark Giffords testified before Congress, the Tucson shooter used a semi-automatic pistol with a 30 round magazine. He shot 19 people, 6 died.
He was stopped from shooting more when he had to pause to reload.
He was stopped from shooting more when he had to pause to reload.
If his magazine was limited to 10 rounds before he had to reload, then - doing inferential math - six people would have been shot and only 2 dead.
That's a reduction in the degree of fatalities of 66%.
Or don't you follow math?
"When a woman is legitimately raped, nature has a way of shutting that whole thing down."
Jim,
Wiki has a good synopsis of the events under the heading "Iraqi Aluminum Tubes". The last line is particularly interesting. In short, there was no lie told by Rice or anyone else regarding the tubes. Simply because some said they were meant for conventional rockets does not mean that that was the truth. You still don't understand the definition of the word "lie" or are lying yourself now.
feo,
I realize you really think your 4:41AM comment is compelling, but that's true only if you are mentally challenged or a liar. It is meaningless as an argument for gun bans or restrictions. Without knowing for sure, I would suspect that the shooter in Tuscon was either over confident in his ability to prevail and thus took more time than necessary to reload, or he was a clumsy oaf who couldn't do it smoothly. Whichever, we can give thanks it gave people the opportunity to subdue him. All this story shows is that there are variables for which no one can fully account. In other words, and more simply for highly educated people like yourself, shit happens. There's no way to prevent the unexpected.
more later...
"Whichever, we can give thanks it gave people the opportunity to subdue him."
And that is all that gun legistlation and enforcement is looking for: opportunities to stop the incomparable level of gun violence in this country. Nothing that has ever been mentioned would take away the right to own a gun - whether for hunting or defense of one's home - from responsible citizens.
That is all. But it means discomfort: licenses, training, waiting. And you would vote to keep the bloodbath going rather than take a little discomfort with dangerous tools.
All because you hate to think, and hate social community.
"And that is all that gun legistlation and enforcement is looking for: opportunities to stop the incomparable level of gun violence in this country."
No kidding, feo. But here's the point of departure: what has been proposed will not get the job done. The reason begins with the notion of "gun violence", as if removing the tool is the key. It ain't because the problem isn't "gun violence". It's criminal activity, some of which is violent in nature. The real issue is a whole 'nuther post, but the point here is that what is proposed is so incredibly off the mark that it will continue to be as impotent as all the current gun laws and regulations have been thus far.
"Nothing that has ever been mentioned would take away the right to own a gun..."
Unless that gun is the ambiguously labeled "assault weapon".
"But it means discomfort: licenses, training, waiting. And you would vote to keep the bloodbath going rather than take a little discomfort with dangerous tools."
Now you're sounding like the boy with whom you share half a brain, Geoffie. Those who are perpetrating the behavior that results in bloodbaths do not bother with licenses, training, waiting or any of the worthless laws absolute idiots are looking to pass. You call that thinking? You call that love of community? I call that laziness enacted to posture yourselves as having done something. It's how the bloodbaths were allowed to happen in the first place.
Parkie AKA Turdboy,
You said it wrong again. "I am disappointing." When you say that, you've finally spoken truth.
"I dont always have to state the obvious."
No, you don't. I just think it would be a nice change if you could do it at least once. If you post the comment, "I am disappointing." every time you post here, you will be stating the obvious over and over again.
"How about some more crazy comments from you..."
How about finding one I've actually said that was crazy and explaining why it is. That would be an astonishing bit of work if you can do it. (Here's a hint: You can't. I haven't said anything crazy.)
Perhaps people should read this study which demonstrates that mass shooting decline where ever there is a concealed carry law:
http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=161637
Leave our guns alone, and make every where conceal carry legal.
Hey, Glenn, isn't this the same guy that says giving women the right vote way back in the 1920
1) exploded government budgets, and
2) is the real cause to a gap of earnings between the sexes?
I think it is. Yeah, really credible guy you picked. He on staff as a commentator for FOX News.
Feodor,
It isn't just one guy. Did you even read the data? Of course not - truth would hurt.
John R. Lott - the lead author of the article you cite - has written stacks of articles purporting to do research on gun laws. (In addition to arguing that giving the vote to women in 1920 had disastrous effects for the county.)
HIs work in Chicago was funded by the trust of a gun manufacturer. His work has variously been built on surveys conducted by retired private detectives and former NRA board members.
Yes, Glenn, I don't read paid public relations work. And I particularly don't read the data in the same. Because the data is chosen to reach a determined point.
You're not giving us truth. You're giving us a used-care salesman.
I decided to delete all of Parkie's comments. I just couldn't come up with decent counter arguments to his incredibly tight and compelling points.
BWA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA!!!!!
OH! That was funny! WHEW! "compelling points" OH! My sides hurt!
feo has a nasty habit of not doing a damned thing to refute anything linked to by a commenter. He would rather dismiss the author cited in the link and pretend that's good enough. It isn't. It's rank cowardice and a pretty fair indication that he has no counter argument that can do damage to the argument of the linked author. Far easier to attempt to cast aspersions.
Here is the article regarding women's suffrage to which feo refers. There are any number of points that feo could debate if he had evidence that shows Lott's implications are erroneous or even less of a possibility. (BTW---I didn't see anything that suggested women voting caused a wage gap. Apparently, feo didn't read it to begin with.)
In addition, I find it a weak tactic to point to those who might fund research, as if it is an automatic and legitimate reason to dismiss the results of the research. Sure, it's easier than an actual rebuttal. But it's extremely pathetic.
If Lott's work with gun laws and their effects are worthless, prove it. Otherwise, be a man and concede or at the very least, step aside until such time as you can mount a rebuttal.
Feodor,
Just because someone who is a gun-lover proves that guns aren't the problem, that doesn't mean the data isn't sound.
Oh, and the women's vote DID have disastrous effects. Women, for the most part, vote with emotions. Which is why they will almost always vote for the best-looking guy. They also, generally (there are women who actually use their brains), vote for every liberal cause out there. And since it is the liberal ideologies which have ruined this country, I guess the conclusion Lott came to was quite sound. But men have been saying that for decades - why attack Lott for that?
Marshall, Glenn just made my best argument against Mr. Lott's junk science.
Feodor,
Let's say Lott is a radical gun supporter, that he is a jerk, that he is a racist, that he hates Democrats, that he is a far-right wing wacko;
Prove his data wrong instead of making ad hominem attacks!
People with more guns tend to kill more people—with guns. The states with the highest gun ownership rates have a gun murder rate 114% higher than those with the lowest gun ownership rates. Also, gun death rates tend to be higher in states with higher rates of gun ownership. Gun death rates are generally lower in states with restrictions such as assault-weapons bans or safe-storage requirements.
According to the department of Pediatrics, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2013/01/pro-gun-myths-fact-check
Feo,
I have four guns and I haven't killed anyone. By your claim, I should have killed at least four people!.
You stinking hypocrite - you call my site biased pro-gun and YOUR site is stinking anti-gun pro-liberal ideology!
And I'm really going to trust anti-gun data provided by the government?
Glenn, clearly, blatantly, you do you understand at all what statistics mean. Because one smoker never gets cancer does not mean that cigarettes are harmless.
You're pathetic.
"YOUR site is stinking anti-gun pro-liberal ideology!"
The Center for Disease Control and Prevention?!?!?!
Glenn, you're juuuust a little more psycho fringe than I had thought.
Feo,
Your site was Mother Jones. They cited the CDC, a government organization, and it is the gov't who wants to control our guns. I'd call your site and the CDC both biased!
Whew! Glenn, you're almost better than watching Seinfeld reruns for the tenth time!
But maybe you're on to something. After all, CDC(P) (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention) is very close to CCCP, isn't it? Too close for comfort.
After all, why DO they leave off that final "P" from their acronym? Hmm? HMMM?
Does the Mother Jones piece, or the CDC report it thinks it is accurately interpreting, state who those murderers are? Are they people with histories of violence? Are they criminals in possession of guns (that is, criminals who have been arrested but never convicted and therefore haven't lost their right to possess a weapon)? Does it even connect ANY murder to a person with a legal right to own a weapon? Which came first in these stats, the murders or the gun ownership?
The point here is that states with a large number of gun owners might be states where the crime rate compelled more gun purchases for protection. I would suspect that to be far more likely than the reverse.
wow.. Glenn is more nuts than I thought. And.. marsha.. lots of studies have been done to counter Lott. Such is life.
What YOU think, Parkie is of little value to anyone, yourself included. Indeed, I don't believe you think for yourself, anyway, and let progressive idiots do your thinking for you.
And turd-boy, "lots of studies" claims require at least one link to such a study. But then, you're satisfied with making claims just to contradict better people. What's more, you don't concern yourself with the quality of conflicting studies as long as it contradicts positions with which you disagree. Such is Parkie the turd-boy.
"Which came first in these stats, the murders or the gun ownership?"
Well, this may be too complicated for you Marshall, but the murders are gun murders.
So... maybe it's just me but I believe a gun murder requires first a gun, then the murder.
Wow, feo! Aren't you the clever one? Answer: No. You're not. A highly educated intellectual would understand my clear implication, especially considering the point regarded the areas with the larger percentage of gun ownership. Did that percentage grow as a result of crime, or did the crime, particularly the murders, stem from the increased percentage of gun owners? It simply states that they are connected. That's rather meaningless without my question answered.
What's more that Mother Jones piece is, I believe, the very piece ripped to shreds by Ann Coulter, who Jim wouldn't ever believe no matter what she stated. Case in point, Myth 4, which it fact-checked: Mass shootings stopped by armed civilians in the past 30 years: 0 Coulter provided a list of almost a half-dozen examples where massed shootings were indeed stopped by armed civilians. But that isn't all...
Look at Myth 7 regarding guns making women safer. Here are the three "fact checks":
-In 2010, nearly 6 times more women were shot by husbands, boyfriends, and ex-partners than murdered by male strangers.
• A woman's chances of being killed by her abuser increase more than 7 times if he has access to a gun.
• One study found that women in states with higher gun ownership rates were 4.9 times more likely to be murdered by a gun than women in states with lower gun ownership rates.
What's missing from these "facts"? None of them speak of women possessing the gun. The notion of guns making women safer requires them to possess the weapon for protection. It also makes no allusions to cases where men used a weapon to defend a woman. It deceitfully changes the terms of what it means for women's safety because of guns to the mere existence of guns. How many of those women murdered by husbands, boyfriends or ex-partners were killed with their own weapons as opposed to weapons owned by the man?
Then, there is Myth 10. Weak laws and "loopholes" in the law do not constitute "illegal". What makes a law "weak"? That would be laws that are vague or narrow in their scope as related to reducing crimes committed with guns. But, whatever the law says, if the law does not cover a specific purchase, then the purchase is not illegal. "Loopholes" are generally areas the law does not specifically address. These also do not constitute illegality.
As to straw purchasing, how does one know the buyer is not buying for himself? Would anyone buying for a felon admit it? It does not seem likely. Who are these sellers who would knowingly sell to such people? How could they refuse to sell to anyone not restricted from legally purchasing a weapon? If I was selling and a researcher claimed his intent was to buy for someone who was not legally able, I certainly wouldn't sell. I am totally suspicious of this stat.
I didn't address your "clear" implication because it is wholly smoke and mirror conjecture on your part. I wanted to show again how what you think is clever is really unconnected senselessness that seems to make a rhetorical point but which - with just a little thought - shows itself as a thin veneer covering empty logic. Plus the fact that as you mistakenly whine about data - you offer none.
Here's some date, whiner.
1) Total households that own guns is not increasing but the number of guns in gun owning households is increasing. So, more guns are being sold, but mostly to the same people. Ownership is not spreading out in the societies of more violent states, it's just more concentrated in the same number of homes.
Conclusion: your stab in the dark that more crime makes more more people buy guns is totally wrong. It's more guns that makes for more homicides.
2) The states with the highest gun ownership rates have a gun murder rate 114% higher than those with the lowest gun ownership rates.
Conclusion: your stab in the dark that more crime makes more more people buy guns is totally wrong; because no state has 114% more crime than another per capita - and how much less 20 states having 114% more crime than the other.
3) The correlation is between gun homicides and gun ownership. The correlation is not between non-gun homicides and gun ownership. And the correlation is certainly not between crime rates and gun ownership - the myth that you, good hyperventilated tea bagger that you are, would like to spin.
"The association between firearm prevalence and homicide victimization... was driven by gun-related homicide victimization rates; non-gun-related victimization rates were not significantly associated with rates of firearm ownership."
Conclusion: your stab in the dark myth-making is wrong. The gun has to be there for a gun-homicide to occur. And the more guns, the more deaths.
http://www.deepdyve.com/lp/elsevier/state-level-homicide-victimization-rates-in-the-us-in-relation-to-TNMKd0qUVn
Finally, if your armchair theory were true, then where is the increased safety and decrease in violence that you predict would come when criminals know that other people are more likely to be carrying?
If you were to be right, then why didn't more guns mean more safety, less crime?
So, either way, with data or with myth, you're thinking is shot to hell.
This is what you and I are responsible for:
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/02/07/opinion/coates-hip-hop-speaks-to-the-guns.html?hp&_r=0
And real men address their responsibilities. Not whine about guilt or that we shouldn't feel guilty. Enforced poverty is the result of our political power. Taking responsibility simply means wielding political power to change the situation.
"I didn't address your "clear" implication because it is wholly smoke and mirror conjecture on your part."
Not at all. The smoke you see is the fog of your own thought process. You obviously didn't even understand what my clear implication was. (Either it wasn't as clear as I thought, or you require more simple language for your simple mind to recognize the implication---I'm betting on the latter.) That implication was that the stats of the Mother Jones piece does not indicate which came first. It certainly isn't that one first needed a gun to commit a gun-related homicide. Only intellectuals are aroused by such obvious points. The stats do not show that with additional purchases of weapons, more homicides occurred over the other possibility, that the rise in murder/crime led to the increase in gun purchases for protection against the crime. So I'm not stabbing at anything but the fact that the stats aren't supporting what you now say. I don't even see where the source research makes the claim. It only ties the two together. So what? It also doesn't say anything about the character of the people doing the shooting, AND it says very little about separating murder with self-defense homicides. It does make a lot of speculations that please the shallow thinkers like yourself.
That really handles your first two points. As to the third, there are two responses:
First, I am breathing normally. The hyperventilating is on your part as you and others of your ilk panic with every report of tragedies where guns are used. Rational people look at the situation calmly and honestly and know that the guns cannot discharge by themselves.
"The gun has to be there for a gun-homicide to occur." DUH! Only a highly educated intellectual finds this to be a newsflash. The question is whether or not the same murder would be committed had not a gun been available. And how can that be measured without raising the dead and putting them back in the situation they were in previous to their murder?
Also not answered is whether a "heat of the moment" murder would occur and whether the fact that some are so inclined is a legitimate reason to deny any form of weaponry from those who are not.
"So, either way, with data or with myth, you're thinking is shot to hell."
With an AK47? The statement is untrue because the proof is in the facts regarding the very massacre that ignited this current debate. It was a gun-free zone. Except for the Giffords situation, you would be hard pressed to find another example of a mass shooting not in a gun free zone. In the case of the Aurora theater shooting, it was the only theater in the area with a "no guns" posting. It wasn't the closest theater to the shooter, just the theater with the least possibility of resistance.
Thousands of crimes have been prevented with only the mere brandishing of a weapon by one with a permit to carry without shots being fired. They just don't get the attention and cannot be added to the studies that come up with the stats provided by the Mother Jones article. And again, as proven, those potential mass shootings aborted by the presence of civilians with weapons aren't even acknowledged by Mo J.
YOU'RE thinking is simply simple-minded and worthless.
"It also doesn't say anything about the character of the people doing the shooting..."
No, it doesn't say anything about the character of the people doing the shooting. Idiot. That's because when you consider all states, you're considering all possible characters. So, why do the same kinds of characters commit more gun homicides in states with more guns than they do in states with less guns?
Because there are more guns.
"... AND it says very little about separating murder with self-defense homicides."
God, but you're dense.
That's because all the states are pegged. Differences between criminal murder and justifiable murder mean nothing to the question or the answer.
Does increased rates of gun ownership correlate to increase rates of gun-homicides?
Yes.
Except for the statistically illiterate such has yourself.
And here's the study that tracks change. Is an increase in gun ownership followed by an increase in rates of homicide?
Yes.
Except, predictably, for the statistically illiterate such as yourself.
"... changes in gun ownership are significantly POSITIVELY related to changes in the homicide rate."
http://www.kellogg.northwestern.edu/faculty/dranove/htm/Dranove/coursepages/Mgmt%20469/guns.pdf
Arizona and Colorado have high percentages of gun ownership.
It's the presence of guns, imbecile, not the signage asking for no guns that results in high rates of homicide.
And the shock in Connecticut speaks precisely to the need for strong gun control. Connecticut has very low rates of gun homicides because it has low ownership of guns. Newtown does indeed tell us that zero deaths cannot be accomplished. But Connecticut tells us that fewer guns and stronger regulation means fewer deaths.
It's plain to see for the rational. Bewildering to the idiotic who point to signage.
Please, feo. You're not in a position to identify who might be an idiot or imbecile, considering your idiotic comments. For example:
"It's the presence of guns, imbecile, not the signage asking for no guns that results in high rates of homicide."
This is rank stupidity on two levels. First, I was not suggesting that signage is the key. But one who does not expend so much energy in pushing bullshit as common sense would understand that it was an example of what is at play with murder, mass or otherwise. The perpetrator does not expect resistance and where resistance is expected, alternative targets are chosen. The wicked do not prey upon the strong, but upon the weak and defenseless. Try to use what is laughingly referred to as your brain. The amount of guns owned is not the problem. It is the character of the owners that is the problem. Remove the guns and you still have people of low character looking for other means of perpetrating their evil. It's that simple, you simp. Connecticut's low homicide rate was rather meaningless to the victims of the Sandy Hook affair and less so to the Lanza. That their strict gun-control laws were impotent in stopping this dude shows that laws don't address anything that will change the problem of criminal violence.
Only highly educated idiots like yourself believe that the presence of guns is the factor that needs to be controlled. It is not the amount of guns, but who wields them that matters. If you believe you are unable to resist the urge to kill people by the mere presence of a gun in your hand, then by all means, you are too stupid to own one and shouldn't have one. But I don't make such judgements about my fellow man. That it neither Christian or American.
BTW, I'm not about to risk a charge to my credit card to read a study that you claim supports the very unlikely notion that increased gun ownership leads to increased homicides. Your suggestion that there is no worthy difference between murder and justifiable homicide also reduces the possibility that the study is worth anything more than just a list of stats that your side would use improperly to push for legislation detrimental to the law-abiding of this nation.
For example, you write:
"And here's the study that tracks change. Is an increase in gun ownership followed by an increase in rates of homicide?
Yes."
But you support it with the following:
"... changes in gun ownership are significantly POSITIVELY related to changes in the homicide rate."
This last bit does not say which came first, but only that they are related. One would think that a highly educated intellectual would find some statement that expresses a causal effect in favor of his position. This isn't one doesn't. In fact, it leaves the question unanswered. I would imagine, considering other gun-control study offerings I've seen during this debate, that this study also doesn't dare make the suggestion that the increase in ownership came first.
But let's assume it did. We're still faced with the problem of who is able to get their hands on guns. If more people of low or questionable character are owning, then yes, there will be more problems. That still does not justify denying possession by those of good character, the very people laws are meant to defend and protect. No law will prevent YOUR murder if one is intent on murdering you. It will be as if no such law existed, either by man or God.
"This is what you and I are responsible for:"
Being a half-wit, you're only half right. YOU are responsible since you are the one supporting the types of policies that leads to the situation rappers use as excuses for the criminal activity in their neighborhoods. I am not one of those idiots like yourself that believes poverty leads to crime. Low character and compromised ideas of what constitutes character and virtue leads to crime. Leftist ideologies have led to the breakdown of the families that have resulted in the conditions you and rappers lament. It's good you claim responsibility since it is yours to begin with.
But even with idiots like yourself supporting candidates that implement the very policies that create poverty, poverty is still not "enforced". Some people rise above it and succeed, even with the added hardship of being surrounded by the criminal element. Others use it as an excuse. They are then further inundated with more policies by idiots like yourself that enable the behavior YOU have fostered by your stupidity.
I await your next stupid comment.
I guess idiots are made to pay to read data driven articles because they are unlikely to grasp the information?
I don't have to pay anything. The whole article is right there.
Including the conclusion (which clarifies why I capped POSITIVELY):
"This paper uses a unique data set to demonstrate that increases in gun ownership lead to substantial increases in the overall homicide rate. This is driven entirely by a relationship between firearms and homicides in which a gun is used, implying that the results are not driven by reverse causation or by omitted variables. The relationship between changes in gun ownership and changes in all other crime categories is weaker and typically insignificant, suggesting that guns influence crime primarily by increasing the homicide rate."
In other words, the data contraindicates that crime drives gun ownership. And neither does gun ownership drive crime.
The more guns, the more gun deaths. Anything else is ruled out as a factor due to across the nation studies - which makes irrelevant your myth about character (what, do gun using criminals only live the the southern, right to carry states?) - and correlation.
The more guns, the more gun deaths. Further, the less guns, the less gun deaths.
And you're a stupid imbecile for arguing any which way you can (predominantly myth-making) to ignore that fewer guns means fewer deaths.
And you're un-American for impeding efforts to be a more perfect Union while you lie about anyone asking us to be a perfect Union.
So, in other words, you're not going to be a real man and fix the situation.
Typical of a false man.
Look, dickhead. If you're not going to deal honestly in this discussion, I see no point in continuing. Where, in anything I've written, do I even hint that I wouldn't contribute to "fixing" the situation? All that has been going on here, dickhead, is whether or not that solution is found in depriving law-abiding citizens the RIGHT to the self-defense weapon of their choice, simply because some abuse the RIGHT to possess such weapons for self-defense. Can you at least muster the courage and honesty required to deal with simple debate? (Rhetorical question. I know you don't possess the will or honesty to do so.)
"In other words, the data contraindicates that crime drives gun ownership. And neither does gun ownership drive crime."
Then what good is it? To say that more guns is tied to more murders/deaths by guns is meaningless. What is the freaking point, then? Sandy Hook began a new round of debate on how to reduce or eliminate such tragedies. If you're going to bring up studies that POSITIVELY state no more than that there are more gun related deaths where there is more guns, the first question is why such a study is even necessary? Do highly educated intellectuals lack the ability to surmise such a stat without a study? That info alone is worthless. There are many ways to murder, and there are many ways to murder large amounts of people. Ask Mohamed Atta. Ask Timothy McVeigh and Terry Nichols. Ask Andrew Kehoe. The tool used to perpetrate what we are trying to end is NOT the issue and never will be. Try taking your head out of your ass and using it for something other than attacking your betters.
Fewer guns means ONLY fewer gun murders. Remove all guns completely and all you've done is remove one tool used to murder.
As to your NYT offering, I offer this far more compelling and intelligent perspective.
Wow. I never thought you'd say it. But you did. Shows what I know when it comes to human potential. You of all people just joined the right side of history in arguing for strong gun control where manufacture is cut down.
I am so glad you said it, Marshall: "there are more gun related deaths where there is more guns..."
Congratulations.
Now, if we can campaign together and eliminate assault rifles and the proliferation of handguns (not useful for sport), why then we could save 10,000 livs a year, 100,000 people every decade. Not only that, but 80% fewer gun homicides would free up all institutions of police to address all other crime.
What do you know?! Miracles do happen. And together, Marshall, we all can show that - although gun ownership has little effect on all other crimes - if we do away with gun homicides - then police have more time to reduce all other crimes. While not a correlated direct effect, reducing guns would have a very powerful indirect effect on crime.
Thank you, Marshall. Really. Thank you for coming over to our side and admitting that the tool should be the focus if we want to dramatically reduce deaths by gun violence.
Lying comes so easily to you, doesn't it, false priest?
Only a lying idiot would believe that reducing gun homicides would reduce homicides. I prefer to focus on reducing murder by any means, regardless of the tool used. You think taking away a tool will reduce the act the tool was used to perpetrate. All that education...all those books...still a complete moron.
"there are more gun related deaths where there is more guns..."
Well, I did cover up that you said in incorrect grammatical form.
I'm sorry, feo, but the incorrect grammatical form of your last comment left me confused as to your meaning.
Your confusion lies in the fact that, despite yourself, you've admitted that more gun deaths occur where there are more guns.
Since this it true, so is it's corollary: where there are less guns, there are less gun deaths.
Which all the data proves.
So, the reasonable response of a moral society is to take action and - as far as possible; which is pretty far in a nation built and governed on laws - limit guns to those who stand for licensing for sporting and rational home defense.
Which is exactly where Ronald Reagan stood in his presidency.
Knife deaths occur where there are more knives.
We can also easily assume that where there are more baseball bats, there are more deaths by use of baseball bats. But only a feo would think that the prevalence of guns, knives or baseball bats has anything to do with criminal violence in our society. Such data only proves what can be surmised so easily without it.
So the reasonable response of an honest, intelligent and truly moral society would deal with the mental issues that compel the violent to perpetrate violent action. And as you are not the poster boy for "rational" anything, you have no standing to determine for others what constitutes "rational" home defense. This is not to mention that the 2nd goes beyond home defense.
Car deaths are decreasing but there are more cars.
Why?
Regulatory and safety laws and enforcement.
In fact, road deaths are approaching (going downward) gun deaths in this country. Almost the same.
But Marshall, if you want to continue being stupid and cruel, tell the victims of gun violence that eyes are put out where there slingshots. They'll come to know your compassion and reason just as well as those of us reading here.
The real reason Feodor and his ilk want gun control.
http://townhall.com/columnists/nealboortz/2013/02/13/why-the-liberal-hatred-of-citizens-with-guns-n1511221/page/full/
"The murderer was still far enough away that you could stop him with one shot through your window."
The writer says, in his hypothetical situation.
So if you see him coming, why don't you wait, Glenn, and use your seven round pistol when he gets to the door. If one will stop him at range, seven will do it close in.
Feodor
So, you know someone kills everyone he comes into contact with, and he is coming to your house and you just figure you may as well wait until he steps in the door?
If I know the man is a murderer, and I have a rifle, I'm going to take him out before he gets close.
THAT is proper self-defense. Of course. Why give him a chance to get closer? I'd hate to have you next to me in a foxhole.
THe whole point of the article is that you have no right to tell me I can't have a rifle that you think is scary.
"Car deaths are decreasing but there are more cars."
If you would take a moment to read the US Constitution, feo, you will find not protected right to own or drive a car. However, when that privilege is abused, one's license and/or vehicle can be taken away.
Stupid and cruel is leaving people defenseless and then, after they die from being shot by people who don't follow the law, pretending our side is at fault, or that restricting firearms ownership even more will make a difference. So you tell the victims who died in "gun free" zones that you had their best interests at heart.
Post a Comment