Dear Leftists; stop being ghey for my guns
It took moments yesterday for the Leftist gun grabbers to start politicizing the gun issue, you know, so they could get ahead of the revelations that the incident was actually Islamic extremist terrorism. Marty O’Malley beat everyone with his tweet blaming the National Rifle Association for the attack. I’d ask the presidential hopeful how many NRA members are convicted murderers.
Many other Leftists mocked folks who called for prayers for the victims. Many peaceful people seek solace from the tragedies that happen here on Earth in their faith, but you know, the Left has problem with the concept of faith, because it requires a bit of self-examination, and many of them don’t measure up to being judged, so it’s the fault of faith, not the fault of their personal failures.
The shooting happened in California – the haven for grabbers of guns. If the media reports are accurate of the types of guns that were gathered by the police in the aftermath of the tragedy, those weapons have been deemed illegal if they aren’t registered with the state since the California Supreme Court upheld the Roberti-Roos Assault Weapons Control Act of 1989 in August, 2000.
One of my weapons that has the features that would make it illegal in California, I bought in 1984. It has never been pointed at another person. It has never caused an injury to me or another person. A couple of coyotes paid the ultimate sacrifice once when they started stalking my campsite one night, but other than that, only targets. By the way, that incident happened in New York State – that gun would be illegal there now, too.
So, why would the President and some presidential hopefuls want to take my gun from me? Apparently, they’re ghey for my guns. Just knowing that the gun exists make them warm for my personal business. I’ve never been convicted of a crime nor do I have any intention to commit a crime – but I’m the kind of guy that the gun grabbers want to disarm. Their laundry lists of new laws will have no effect on criminals – like the pair yesterday who got around the laws to own their instruments of death and injury. Bombs are illegal, too, but they made several of those, didn’t they?
So, look, if the gun grabbers think that I have sex-related issues which cause me to own large and powerful firearms, their fixation with disarming me must make them ghey for my guns – so just stop.
Category: Gun Grabbing Fascists
Yeah, predictably the anti gunners have lost their collective shit once again.
This isn’t Britain and it isn’t Australia. The draconian gun laws that were passed in England and Australia following massacres were imposed by the gun-apathetic majority onto a tiny minority of gun owners.
But that math simply doesn’t work in the US.
Gun owners are a significant voting bloc – big enough to stop any kind of serious change in gun laws, at least at the national level.
Which means that all the name-calling, the posturing and and the self-righteous “demands” from anti-gunners are not only NOT going to have any effect, they’re actually going to work against any kind of change.
After all, you can’t call someone a sonofabitch, a murder and an asshole and then turn around and say “let’s make a deal.”
There will be no significant changes to gun laws without the aid and consent of gun owners. And as long as the anti-gunners continue to vilify, name call and insult gun owners, that simply isn’t going to happen.
Just remember this: it is possible to circumvent the laws to get guns. It’s also possible to circumvent the laws to impose governmental will on us without our knowledge or consent. My grandfather used to say that locks are made for honest people. Stay vigilant.
Pinto, fully in agreement. Keep your vigilance up and your powder dry. And support both through donations and your vote, organizations and politicians that won’t attack/repeal/otherwise mess with our RIGHT to bear arms.
Speaking of Britain, I hopped over to the BBC website to see if it had any different information than US news outlets. It didn’t, but in the main story, I found this gem:
“For this city, it has been a day of panic and chaos, as people struggle to cope with America’s worst mass shooting in three years. By one measure though, there has been more than one mass shooting on average every day this year.
In that respect this was just another day in the United States of America.”
Wow! One mass shooting per day in the US? Who knew? I’d like to know what “measure” they used to come up with that.
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-34991855
Here’s an article about this statistic – note that they’re using a different statistic than the FBI, and it’s certainly fair to question the validity of that since ‘mass shooting’ means something different to different people. Specifically, it refers to any shooting in which at least four people, including the gunman, are injured. (The FBI, per the article, requires at least three people to be killed, for it to be considered a mass shooting.)
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2015/08/26/were-now-averaging-more-than-one-mass-shooting-per-day-in-2015/
I clicked through to the article, and then on through to the sources the article referenced. It seems the definition the WAPO cites was developed by some anti-gunners on a reddit website. The article’s link to the FBI definition took me to a report about “active shooters” with no detailed definition of “mass shooting.”
From what I can see, neither definition takes into account who does the shooting, so can include “bad guys” being shot (or killed, depending on the definition) by law enforcement or other “good guys.” Both definitions also include gang violence, murder-suicide, etc. Lastly, I didn’t see any mention of distinctions based on more than one scene or discrete time period.
So, while the numbers cited might meet one technical definition of “mass shooting,” the greater portion of incidents included in these numbers are not what most people think of when they hear the term “mass shooting.” Using those numbers as these authors did, while not technically lying, sure is obscuring the truth.
No disagreement there – it’s a murky statistic. Both sides in this complicated debate like to massage the numbers to get something that fits their narrative.
Me personally, I do think using people shot is better than people killed for the simple reason being that we’re a lot better at treating life-threatening gun shots than we used to be. So more people survive being shot. Much like how we have fewer people (relative to population) dying from certain cancers, but that doesn’t mean cancer is less prevalent, it’s just we’re better at treating it in many cases.
Here’s a link to the FBI’s definition of mass murder, from which mass shooter is derived.
https://www.fbi.gov/stats-services/publications/serial-murder/serial-murder-1
It used to be that when you were talking about a mass shooter, it was someone who shot and killed four people, not including themselves. THAT is what the FBI uses.
The new number has been generated by an offshoot of the losers at ‘Everytown USA’, and basically says ‘four people shot’. They do this because they want to pick up the gang shootings that happen where criminals shoot criminals and plenty of people are injured but not as many are killed.
It is entirely disingenuous, and they did it in order to inflate the number and make it seem like it’s an ongoing problem that is getting worse, rather than the changing of a definition (that only they are using, while the scientific community continues to use the FBI’s definition).
You have a very good point that things like gang violence, while ‘gun violence’, are considerably different from these sorts of ‘mass shootings’ of random people, and thus probably shouldn’t be included in the statistics when things like this happen.
But, for the reasons I listed above, I also don’t think it entirely disingenuous to count people shot vs. people killed by a random assailant. It gets to the intent of the action – I’d wager most of these shooters aren’t looking to hurt people, they’re looking to kill.
If Asshole A walks into a building, shoots four people, and kills all four, I don’t think that should be counted differently than if Asshole B walks into a building, shoots four people, and a heroic EMT saves two of them. The incident is still a mass shooting, in my opinion, it’s just that in the latter case we had a hero counteracting the asshole’s intent.
The shooting last month of a report on live TV in Virginia was considered a “mass shooting” because 4 people were ‘shot’
The reporter
Her cameraman
A bystander
And the shooter who later killed himself.
4 people shot=mass shooting
A “mass shooting” is whatever number the grabbers can manipulate to get their meme out there so that their media allies can push it to convince the gullible.
P.S. I turned in to BBC world news this morning and heard the same stat, but they somehow could not bring themselves to use the shooter’s names (they did later, but not in the piece where they were pushing their talking point-don’t want to confuse the message after all).
“This isn’t Britain and it isn’t Australia. The draconian gun laws that were passed in England and Australia following massacres were imposed by the gun-apathetic majority onto a tiny minority of gun owners.”
In Australia after the Port Arthur killings guess who the ONLY people who handed their firearms in were! Here’s a hint: criminals aren’t going to obey the law. Making new ones isn’t going to help!
All these laws do is remove firearms from law-abiding Australians and force the weapons owned by criminals further underground. The pillocks…
This also points out another fatal difference between CHL “shall” issue and “may” (read won’t) issue states.
I’ve said it before , and I still believe it — One good man (or woman )with a handgun could have shut down their rampage . Two triple taps and game over .
I am 100% 2A, but I am going to have to disagree with you on this particular incident. An individual with a couple hours of range time and a handgun is not going to stop multiple attackers with rifles and body armor.
Just like the police were completely outmatched in North Hollywood, your typical CCW would have been completely outmatched in most of the scenarios that have played out.
Just so we are clear though, this is not an indictment against CCW, as I carry myself(when I can, since I am not allowed to bring my handgun on base, which is whole different issue), and believe that every individual has the right to self defense. Instead maybe we need to realize that Bob from accounting is not going to stop multiple attackers with his Glock 42.
Lets be honest, most CCW’s do not have the training, experience, or mindset to effectively counter an active shooter effectively or safely.
Lets be honest, most CCW’s do not have the training, experience, or mindset to effectively counter an active shooter effectively or safely.
Who cares? Larry Correia has spoken to this-be a speed bump. No plan survives first contact with the enemy, be that first contact. Disrupt their plan and make them improvise, this will give other victims the chance to escape and authorities the chance to get on the scene.
http://monsterhunternation.com/2015/11/16/thoughts-on-paris/
Yep. Deterrence begins with the bad guy knowing or suspecting that his would-be targets are armed. He doesn’t need to know how well or poorly trained they are.
I would go further with the ‘mindset’. Most people do not have the mindset to improvise a way to stop someone like that. They don’t expect to ever be subjected to bad things, and therefore have no mental preparation for it.
Tornadoes are a good example: it will never happen here, or hasn’t happened in 20 years, and the next week, it happens, and they still aren’t prepared to deal with it.
Covering fire. Hard to be accurate when someone is shooting back. Might not have killed the bad guys, but it might have saved some other lives.
Someone who shoots back is a big monkey wrench in the active shooter’s plan. They’re looking to spray bullets into soft targets, not trade bullets with somebody who came prepared. You don’t have to be John McClane to give other people (and possibly yourself) a better chance of getting away safely.
That’s what I keep saying to those who keep saying, “Yeah, but. . . “.
I don’t care if they’re wearing armor and a helmet. You hit them with any caliber starting with a “4”, it will make the shooter at least stop and say “OUCH”.
I don’t recall reading anything about body armor . All they said was that these idiots were dressed in all black . If you carry a CHL , you have accepted that responsibility . Throw some lead –maybe you might connect . If not , you may just slow their killing down a bit . If 10 ring hits don’t get results , transition to the head or my favorite , the pelvis/legs . Once they are on the ground and their draw works are taken out , you will then hold the high ground . I refuse to let folks die around me while I have the means to fight back . I’ve been a Cop / Sheepdog since 1981 .
This was a act of terrorism but the leftwing media is calling it a mass shooting a few victims have said as much… The Obummer administration and for that case every one on the left is refusing to see what is going on here. And as usual the lack of leadership is showing. On both sides we have lost our way in more ways then you can count
Oh, but you see, if he continues to refer to these acts as gun violence instead of what they really are, terrorist acts, he can say ‘never happened on my watch’ and point to the media stories to prove it.
If you think about it from that angle, he is leaving the word terrorist to his successor. If that’s shrillary (kick me for saying that, OK?), she gets the dope-on-a-rope label and it will be her legacy, not his.
I have said this before, and I will say it again, by 2020 we are going to be awash in the kinds of things that are now being termed gun violence, with no preparation to stop or resist it other than hiding in a broom closet. There are two entire generations that are being taught cowardice.
This is not some “left wing media” agenda.
Huffington post, probably as left as it gets for a major media source, says that “Terrorism has not been ruled out” in their headline.
Fox news has not called it terrorism either. At least not their website, a commenter on their stream may have.
The reason they have yet to call it terrorism is because the local authorities and the FBI have not called it terrorism.
I think it is bullshit when the FBI does not label something that clearly is terrorism to be “terrorism” but that has been an issue for decades. Not just under Obama.
Generally if the perpetrators are American citizens and there is no explicit terrorist claim the FBI tends to not rule it terrorism.
The Charleston shooting was not called terrorism. And that sure as shit was not because the left wing media did not call it that. The left was up in arms when it was not labeled terrorism. That was the FBI being whatever the fuck they were being when they made that call.
And the lead story at the Daily Kos is about guns and gun violence. It sits right atop some other story out of California. Yeah, I think it was San Bernadino.
I’m pretty sure Dylan Roof is going to face the consequences of hate crime/murder. He’ll probably get the needle.
IMO, what he did can’t be defined as terrorism because it doesn’t fit the criteria.
And as usual, the carp missed the entire point of MY comment, which was that the word used to describe this act of terror will not be officially used until AFTER the next election.
I would label the Charleston shooting the rampage of someone with a deranged mind.
In contrast, that freak show at Ft. Hood (may his name be stricken from the Book of Life for eternity) engaged in terrorism but it was labeled ‘work place violence’.
The constant stream of shootings on Chicago’s south side are not just gun violence. They are rites of passage for anyone who wants to be part of a gang, and that includes murdering a 9-year-old boy because of his father’s gang affiliation.
Violence is violence, can be committed with any kind of instrument including a flashlight, and has nothing to do with the tool used. It has everything to do with the people who commit acts of violence. The tool is simply the means of getting it done.
COB on my boat used to carry around one of those F-1 assault flashlights during field day.
I have one that will blind you and cook steak, too.
Terrorism is often committed by people with deranged minds. What Roof did was no less an act of terror than what Hassan did.
Roof attacked people because of of their race in an effort to spark a race war that would lead to the genocide of Black Americans. Terrorism is politically motivated violence and Roof’s action had a political goal.
Right and Left-wing domestic terrorism are both very real. They may not pose the same threat that Islamic terror does, but we do ourselves a tremendous disservice when we mistake them for the deranged actions of a few lone nuts.
All I heard was “I love Obama so don’t talk about him.”
The Charleston shooting may not have been called terrorism by the FBI, but Roof is being tried for a hate crime by the Feds. Whereas we still can’t get the President to call the Ft. Hood shooting terrorism nor the Feds to bring charges against him, funny that.
Fox News IS now referring to this incident as Terrorist-related in their headline.
http://www.foxnews.com/us/2015/12/03/2-suspects-killed-shootout-san-bernardino-massacre-14-killed/?intcmp=hpbt1
Lars it was terrorism the neighbors have spoken up and they have stated that went they reported the activities that we’re going on the feeling that they were made to feel like they were being racist because they were Muslim… Lars until the left pulls there head out of there ASS this is never going to STOP….B
you seem to be well educated… Wake Up !!!!!! The sooner we deal with what’s going on the sooner we can manage the issue. At heart here is our government is like a junkie it’s in denial.. We as a whole if we work together can beat this if we all pull our heads out of our Ass’s
Yes I believe that there are thing we can do to enforce our laws on guns but after the BS with the health care law nobody seems able or willing to trust anybody on the LEFT !!!!! People are feed up with having stuff cramed down our throats…. Nuff Said
But they were quick to call the PP shooter a Christian terrorist before the shooting was even complete.
Not to mention the media made a point to say that there was a PP location close to the shooting site in San Bernardino (which had absolutely nothing with the story), so there’s that too.
I’m betting yesterdays incident won’t be considered an act of terrorism because it’s not politically correct. A certain protected religious class needs to be shielded.
You said “religious” and “shield”… THOSE ARE CODE WORDS FOR CRUSADERS!!!!
PUT THIS MAN IN JAIL NOW… HE OFFENDED MY AND MY THOUGHT SPEAK!!!!
If the gun grabbers get smart (don’t hold your breath waiting for that to happen) they’ll try to make “assault weapons” NFA weapons like automatic weapons, suppressors, AOW, etc. and close the registry as soon as the law passes
Most current plans can be tossed in court as violations of 2nd, 4th, 5th and 14th Amendments.
At the Federal level there’s really nothing they can do because with Congress in the hands of the republicans, there is zero chance of any gun control measure passing.
In fact, even if congress wasn’t in Republican control, any major change would have a very slim chance of passing just because so many democrats remember what happened in 1994, and there are more than a few democrats from pro-gun states and regions who would be voting themselves out of a job if they supported such a law.
No, the best case scenario for anti-gunners is to continue to nibble away at gun rights in regions where they are strong like the Northeast, NW and California.
Democrat presidential candidates can push for gun control because they know that people who support gun ownership aren’t voting for them anyway. Calling for more gun control like Hillary and Omalley did yesterday doesn’t hurt them a bit.
But for down-ticket Democrats it’s a different story. Many Democratic senators and reprsentatives won their seats with a razor-slim majority and it would only take a few pro-gun voters to change sides to cost them their seats.
In fact, IIRC one of the key strategies of the big “democratic takeover” of 2006 was to quietly take the gun control issue off the table so that Republicans wouldn’t have that plank to beat their Democrat rivals over the head with, and it worked (along with concerns about the economy, dissatisfaction with the Iraq war and the Bush presidency, etc.)
Democrats are well aware that guns are the one issue that prevents a lot of voters in rural areas from supporting them, and so you can imagine that they will be the ones who take it on the chin if the Democratic party embraces major gun control as a plank in the 2016 election cycle.
Didn’t two Colorado state senators with a “D” after their name get recalled after they passed some sort of firearms restriction in that state?
Hit report button by mistake. Sorry.
Any guesses on the SB shooters having “registered” weapons? Bet they had a few “friends” that were more than happy to “help” them out.
You mean like some of the ex-felons I used to work with that said they’d have NO PROBLEM acquiring a gun anytime they wanted from a back alley dealer?
Yep… they know how to get a hold of anything.
Had a cousin do some time in the California Penal system for GTA in the 80’s, told me he could get me anything I wanted from some “friends” (gang bangers) that he associated with. I passed on his offer…
He also realized while he was in the hole that he was gay… I guess that spending five years away from women can do that to some people. His Dad (my uncle) and his mom weren’t real happy about that…
From what I have read; they were legally purchased and then passed on to the shooters (so there’s your straw purchase, which is illegal to begin with).
I’m not surprised… hopefully the “straw men” are all having nice, LONG conversations with the POPO now.
WHEN WAS the last damn mudda-fuxxin’ time we saw criminals and terrorists lining up to register or turn in THEIR guns as soon as a new law was passed? Yeah, I thought so too! As I see it, we DO need to reform our gun laws in the USA, we need to emulate Kennessaw GA’s famous local Gun Ordinance and make it a Federal Law, what are the odds they would have committed that attack if there was even a slight risk of even one person in that building being able to shoot back?
My take on this is that the Muslim terrorists in California were able to obtain the weapons they needed for their well-planned attack despite strict gun control, just like the Muslim terrorists in France were able to obtain the weapons they needed for their well-planned attack despite even stricter gun control. You’d think by now people would figure out that gun control doesn’t stop terrorists and criminals from carrying out well-planned attacks.
And please don’t try to feed me any BS about this just being a “workplace violence” incident. When is the last time you heard about a “disgruntled employee” bringing his wife along in a workplace shooting? This was jihadist terrorism straight up. Self-radicalized “lone wolves” inspired by ISIS or AQ would be my guess, but we’ll probably know the facts soon enough.
I support individual gun ownership and I am convinced the constitution protects it (despite the fact that the words “individual” or “personal” are not used). And, the SCOTUS has ruled that it protects individual ownership. I think individual ownership is fundamental to the checks and balances between government and the individual in our social contract (just as I think the separation of church and state if fundamental to it). However, we do need some sort of rational provisions to reduce the number of fuckwads with guns intent on killing people. There will always be legal gun owners who bought guns legally and used the criminally. And there will always be criminals who get guns illegally and use the criminally. 3/4ths of mass shooting are committed with legal owned weapons. But we can make it far less likely that someone who should not have a gun gets one. For instance; stiffer penalties and greater culpability if you have a child in the home and your weapons are not secured or laws with stiff penalties preventing the non-licensed transfer or “lending” of firearms. Or greater personal liability if one of your unsecured weapons was used in the commission of a crime. I also think certain crimes should put you on a restricted from ownership list. Any hate crime – even a misdemeanor, any domestic battery conviction, sexual assault convictions, kidnapping, any conviction of torture or maiming of a human, animal torture/cruelty conviction. While some of these already do prevent ownership in some states there is not real cohesive means to deal with people that have a history of sadistic and violent behavior from owning guns. Attempts to get exceptions to the list to allow for ownership to deal with outlier convictions would require a court hearing and a mental health assessment. This would be to allow for a person who was convicted due to the way the law was applied but the circumstances do not meet a reasonable standard for denying a weapon. While they would not stop all mass shooting, and it may cause those intent on killing others to shift… Read more »
3/4 of the guns used in mass shootings were legal?
I don’t have the time to research that right now, but I think that is wrong. Off the top of my head, I remember 4 or 5.
I may be wrong,
Could be. That was just the number I read. It could be different definitions of mass shootings.
Either way the majority of mass shooting are with legally purchased firearms.
they may have been legally purchased at a point, but in MOST of the mass shooting cases, the perps were not the legal owners.
One example is the shooting in Newtown Conn. Weapons legally purchased but then stolen by the son in the basement.
Every weapon used in every shooting was legally purchased. The first time it was sold.
Lars, you mean “legally purchased firearms” like those involved in Operation Fast & Furious where there were FFL Dealers calling the BATF hotline trying to report an obvious Straw Purchase that were told to go ahead with the transaction?
People in my part of the southwest are still pretty pissed off about Fast & Furious. Don’t even think about trying the “Bush did it first” line, Lars.
You are to be commended for attempting to think rationally and concisely about this issue, instead of having knee jerk reaction. Reacting with frustration and sorrow ends with very bad laws being on the books.
But we have to realize that what we’re dealing with lies outside of any rational effort we can make. Now yes, enforcement is a big part of making any law work. I have to arguments with any of the measures you indicated above, but the fact is: not one thing you suggested above will stop the kinds of shootings we’ve seen in the last two weeks, nor will it stop the inner-city gang violence. Laws, by themselves, won’t effect these types of shootings.
That should read, “I have NO arguments…” Sorry.
Where did you get this info?
“IF you define mass shooting as 4 or more victims we have had more than 300 this year.”
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/12/03/us/how-often-do-mass-shootings-occur-on-average-every-day-records-show.html
I appreciate you providing your source.
As I posted in the “Dear Leftists” thread, and for the same reasons, those numbers in no way reflect the number of incidents that most persons consider a “mass shooting.”
“stiffer penalties and greater culpability”
will those laws be enforced as stringently as the current laws already are?
If not, then it’s just for ‘feels’ and ‘doing something’
There are already multiple mandatory minimum federal penalties for felony use of firearms. How many people are currently locked up for that mandatory minimum?
Making a false statement on a Form 4473 is a federal crime. How many were prosecuted last year?
I agree that the prosecution of these crimes is a major failure. It is one of the domestic policy issues I have with Obama (I think counter marijuana enforcement needs to be de-prioritized/ended and these kinds of felony gun applications need to be prosecuted).
I read the stats on this and the data is not accurately represented. Most of these crimes that are investigated and prosecuted are prosecuted by state and local officials but those prosecutions were not included.
However, even if you include state and local officials the rate of investigation is too low much less the rate of prosecution.
“I read the stats on this and the data is not…” Uh-oh. Damn disability, eh Lars? The word data is plural. You’re presumed to know that, what with your being so highly educated in the social sciences and all.
I am sure there were multiple points of datum that were collected and compiled, which is what he read, which is why it was referred to as data. Don’t try and be smarter than you are.
Subject-verb agreement, DrKnow. If “data” is plural, technically the correct tense of the verb in the second clause of the sentence in question is “are” – not “is”.
Don’t try to be smarter than you are.
Criminals illegally get access and use firearms no matter if they are convicted of an offense that would make them prohibited from having one.
If you’re suggesting NICS will solve the issue, it won’t. Generally, it only works for people who purchase firearms legally. The reporting mechanisms to that database are broken and there are too many inconsistencies in how states share information.
There’s a lot of ‘slippery slope’ language in your suggestions, Lars… any domestic violence? I’ve seen judges slap misdemeanors on people for merely pushing past their spouse to leave. Any sexual assault? In many states, an 18 year old boy and an underaged girl equals statutory rape even if its consensual. The biggie now is banning anyone on the “domestic terrorism watch list” aka the NoFly list. Anyone whose name is even similar can wind up on the list – no due process, no cause – Teddy Kennedy was famously on the list for years. (we won’t mention drunken driving, that’s just too easy.) And having to go through court hearings and mental health evaluations – who pays for all that? And how does a guy who got picked up for sneaking a peek through his well-built neighbor’s window when he was 17 deserve a lifetime ban after having learned his lesson in his teens – and now he is in his ’50s?
I see you are throwing around two of the medias favorite buzzwords… more than one mass shooting DAILY!!! How many of them are criminal or gang related? You think another law which they will ignore anyway – and cannot be forced to follow (Supreme Court says felons can violate their rights regarding self incrimination answering background checks.) Crip A shoots up a sidewalk group of Bloods B – how is a law like you propose going to help? And then there is the biggest question – who is going to prosecute? Gun charges are routinely the first to be plea-bargained. ATFE and DoJ don’t prosecute more than a handful annually because the ATFE director even admitted it isn’t worth their time.
God, I hate being longwinded like this… but just one more question: How would anything you propose have stopped any of the recent high-profile shootings?
That is why I added the provision for people to challenge the weapon restriction on a case by case basis.
It’s case-by-case basis, Lars, not case by case. Is that your disability acting up again?
You suggest “…greater personal liability if one of your unsecured weapons was used in the commission of a crime”.
So you mean folks who have a firearm stolen from their home should be held accountable for the actions of a criminal?
Yeah, okay.
That is not what I said and that is not what it means.
I am primarily referring to parents whose children take their weapons and kill. This is the case in several of the mass shootings over the years.
Yes, the weapon was “stolen” but their was clear negligence in most of these cases.
Basically, the greater liability refers to putting some additional expectation that people make sure their weapons are reasonably secure at all time.
If a soldiers weapon is stolen the soldier is held accountable for the theft event though technically he is the “victim” of a crime. I am not saying people should have anywhere near the expectation of keeping constant control over their weapons as a soldier is required to do but I think it is reasonable to expect some of these dimwits to have more control and accountability.
I see your point about kids who steal their parents firearms. That opens a whole other discussion though and isn’t relevant to Jonn’s article.
I won’t get into a parenting spiel, but I’ll go out on a limb and say I believe a majority of RESPONSIBLE gun owners know how to secure weapons properly and exercise the right amount of caution in allowing or granting access of firearms to youngsters in the home.
In the state I live in, it’s illegal for a minor to possess a firearm unless accompanied by an adult.
Actually I meant to delete the “that is not what I said and not what I mean” because it is kinda what I said and kinda what I mean. Just not the way you said it.
In answer to your final question; the AR-15s that were used apparently did not belong to the assailants. So if that is true these provisions might have made that acquisition less likely.
Adam Lanza’s mother may have made sure her weapons were better secured if the penalties were stiff.
The parents of the Columbine shooters may have made their weapons less accessible.
These are a few off the top of my head. If I were to go through the hundreds of shooting I could probably find many that would been made less likely or possibly prevented.
The point of these kinds of laws/policies is not to make any individual act impossible, just to make them less likely and thus over time reduce the total number of incidents just through the law of large numbers and the reduced probability.
I simple analogy is a voting ID law; it does not make it impossible to vote, just slightly more difficult, and the consequence is that it impacts the number of voters.
Some time ago I read that some of the firearms used at Columbine was purchased by a girlfriend of one of the shooters. Still, they were used illegally and the transfer to either of the boys was illegal too. I don’t know if the parents knew about the firearms, but you can bet they didn’t know about their pipe-bomb making hobby or what they were doing on the internet.
They were. She admitted to buying them for him in court- and got a slap on the wrist.
One thing I do remember about the Columbine vermin is that one of their fathers discovered a sawed off shotgun barrel in his boy’s bedroom and shrugged it off not wanting to interfere too heavily in his son’s life or some limp-peckered liberal bullshit like that. HELL, one of the SB shooters’ neighbors now admits to not reporting them out of fear of being labeled a “racist”, DEATH TO POLITICAL CORRECTNESS!!!
http://breaking911.com/neighbors-of-san-bernardino-shooters-didnt-report-strange-activity-for-fear-of-profiling/
I should probably mention I support adding a provision that prevents a non-US citizen, even resident alien, from owning a firearm.
I think that would pass the current and likely next SCOTUS.
And I should probably mention that you have an apparent fondness for the misused semicolon and an apparent disdain for the lowly comma, genius.
I overuse the comma as well. I guess it depends on my mood.
The semicolon? Yeah, I misuse it. But you would have to give me an example you take issue with. Because sometimes the person winning about its use is apply a false rule on concerning its limited use.
whining.
“I overuse the comma as well. I guess it depends on my mood.”
Now, that’s a perfectly good explanation. Whether you observe rules is dependent upon your mood. Feelings and mood are closely related and libs are famous for feeling this and feeling that, rather than thinking. So, this all fits.
So what the carp is saying is that he gets PMS?
(chuckling) Well, either that or he needs Depends when he’s in the mood. I’m not really sure which he meant.
It’s just mind-boggling at times to try to interpret his convolutions.
You know, we all make mistakes, but most of us are not in denial about it.
“The semicolon? Yeah, I misuse it. But you would have to give me an example you take issue with.”
That is unnecessary inasmuch as you acknowledge misusing it.
Abusing the colon is a personal choice and a civil right! The semicolon; not so much.
OCCUPY TAH CHANT
“What do we want?”
“Justice for the semicolon!”
“When do want it?”
“Now!”
“What do we want?”
…
Isn’t abusing the colon a personal choice?
Some people do that to excess. I’ve been told that there’s an entire population demographic that uses rodents for that purpose. Can’t imagine how, but my ER friend had stories….
Oh, and just to be up-front, generally punctuation is not effected by whatever the hell is happening. At least not that I have noticed so far.
Generally, when I have a punctuation issue it is because of a typo, laziness, oversight, carelessness, a lack of clear understanding of its use; or, in some cases, just to be, particularly, annoying.
“Oh, and just to be up-front, generally punctuation is not effected by whatever the hell is happening. At least not that I have noticed so far.”
Holy shit, Lars! I can rest my case with that statement of utter idiocy.
How about you send a copy of your GED or high school diploma to Jonn? I’m not buying that post-graduate crud claim of yours any longer. You have moments of clarity, where you clearly lifted stuff from a paper or journal but, by and large, when you freelance, you sound like a blooming idiot.
Try using the correct word, occasionally.
Affected not effect. The EFFECT is AFFECTED by your incredibly lame excuses.
Lars,
We don’t give a rats ass about your punksuwation and or speling, it is self-indulging and singularly narcissist ideologies that you spew … is what we focus on!
No, there is a lot of focus on my spelling, grammar, and punctuation as well.
Read the Gun Control Act of 1968. That provision is in place. Non-naturalized citizens and resident aliens can not own or purchase firearms. That takes us to knowing who is here legally or illegally and to having a robust databse of citizens. As Marysville found out just a few months ago, even when someone is supposed to be put in the banned database because of a violation of federal law. The law enforcement agencies don’t do it.
http://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/crime/father-of-marysville-school-shooter-convicted-of-gun-charges/
With as often as the computer records are being hacked at the federal and state levels. Do you really trust that an “accurate” database of anyone that the government generates?
So let me get this straight…
the people here on H-1B visas can’t buy or possess a firearm for their own protection no matter who they are or what they are doing but… You want every illegal alien to have the right to vote as well as convicted felons and people so mentally ill that they have no clue who they are or what the hell they are doing?
Well, that makes one hell of a lot of sense.
Chicago has rarely if ever prosecuted anyone on charges for illegal gun ownership, same with Milwaukee, but you want yet more laws that make it harder for us regular citizens to buy guns?
WTF is it with you libs?
You are either just stoned or just plain stupid.
The people that are doing most of the killing are living in demonrat controlled cities across this country.
You can’t possibly ignore the fact that most blacks murder victims are victims of their own race.
To continue to support that is the same as supporting Hitler as a Nazi simply because you like the fucking flag.
Go away larsy boi.
Go back to your shithole in momma’s basement and leave us adults alone.
You bring the definition of stubborn to the point of stupidity to an astronomical level…
Okay, is there anyone who read the latest Lars’ tome? Anyone? And I mean all of it. If so, please tell me why. And Lars, just STFU.
Maybe he should go post his latest manifesto at the student commons on campus… probably get a few “hive minded” individuals like him to read and comment on it there.
Funny that, if I am such a “hive mind” why do I spend so much time reading so much of what people who completely disagree with me post and the sources they cite?
Perhaps if you stepped out of your echo chamber you might see who the hive minds are.
Oooh… I struck a nerve.
You really don’t like people that disagree with you, do you little boy…
Seems to me that you didn’t strike a nerve, he actually just explained to you that he is not hive minded at all and that maybe you need to look at your own actions first? Judge not lest ye be judged, or something like that?
Holy shit you are soft skinned as hell. I made one comment about you being a troll several days ago and you have had you panties in a wad ever since.
STFU, Lars. You know, for a guy who claims to be so well educated, your writing truly sucks. I’m not referring to typos or errant punctuation. No, I am talking about basic writing, from logic and cohesion to subject/verb agreement and the like. I used to read your missives and wince. Now, I read the first few words and stop. You tell us what a learned fellow you are but the evidence simply isn’t there. Oh, and try to STFU and stay, or just leave and write all of the comments you want–but elsewhere.
The subject verb agreement is also part of the disability. I substitute words with the same or similar function.
I write quite well when I take the time and proofread thoroughly.
As for the logic? The logic and cognitive dissonance on this board, and you also display is appalling. If anything the lack of agreeing with my “logic” is based on your unwillingness to accept my premises and assumptions. So the conclusions are “irrational.”
Like the complete mouth drooling idiots that think there is no “separation of church and state” in the constitution because the words are not explicitly used.
There is no logic or reason that idiots like that will ever accept.
So, “the cats and dogs is fighting” is just dandy, courtesy of your claimed disability? What do you call that disability? Stupedia? You say, “I substitute words with the same or similar function.” So do I. You are Lars but I sometimes refer to you as asshole.
Yeah, as, is, to, of, the, a.., I constantly accidentally substitute one for the other.
I also frequently substitute singular for plural.
And two of the most aggravating of all; “you” instead of “your”, and “not” instead of “no”.
These are the most common because they were the first two that started happening.
And the increase the the number and how increasingly different the words are becoming is why we suspect it may be progressive. For instance; a few years ago I would not have typed “apple” instead of “paladin”, “crossbow” instead of “coffee”, or “house” instead of “noise”
These are recent ones that have me quite alarmed because it makes the suspicious I have CTE more likely.
You can keep being a petty fucking asshole about it if you like, but just know; you truly are being a petty fucking asshole about it.
But whatever, you be you.
See; “the” instead of “in” and “the” instead of “me.”
Above.
Yes, that is caused by whatever the fuck is going.
What a perfectly invalid explanation, Lars, for lousy writing. Why don’t you stop taxing yourself and take a five or six-year break from here?
Good lord will you please stop. Your relentless, incredibly annoying, harping on Lars’ grammatical proficiency has gone on long enough. Just shut up. At least make a point, or a coherent rebuttal. Or at least be remotely amusing. Quit ruining the comment section with your drivel 2/17. I believe “STFU” is what I’m looking for.
Um, no, whoever you are. But thanks for your input. Now, feel free to output.
I like it when you write about neo-feudalism and shit.
LOL!
Cute.
It is a legitimate thing. Afghanistan essentially has a form of neo-feudalism.
You know I only like it when you talk like that while you are wearing a grey hoodie and a pair of Ray Bans.
I want all of your guns…ALL OF THEM! YOU PEOPLE ARE BAD!!! AND EVIL!!! You don’t think like me and the others at Bezerkley, therefore you are EVIL!!!
I will win this argument, and all arguments here at TAH!!!! Because of my SUPERIOR INTELLECT and regurgitation of PROGRESSIVE AND SOCIALIST talking points, I WILL CONVINCE ALL OF YOU THAT MY WAY IS THE RIGHT WAY!!!!
THE CONSTITUTION IS DEAD!!!! THE BILL OF RIGHTS IS DEAD!!!! MY WAY IS THE WAY OF THE RIGHTEOUS!!!! YOU WILL FOLLOW IT OR BE PUT INTO MY REEDUCATION CAMPS!!!
I have to go study for “Leftist Literature for Transgender Persons (March 1827 to June 1835)” Class…
LFM, please go stuff it up your butt.
Most excellent!
The Atlantic is a predictably “progressive” mag but I thought this was a very perceptive analysis of the gun issue:
http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2015/10/conservatives-gun-control-and-distrust/408643/?utm_source=SFFB
For those who don’t want to click on it, the article is actually addressed to anti gunners and it tells them that the nonstop vilifying of the “gun lobby” misses the point: People have very sensible and understandable reasons for opposing gun control, especially when it’s the Obama administration that’s pushing it.
Here’s a sample:
It’s an article worth reading.
I suppose that had their bombs worked and they didn’t use pistols and rifles, the Bomb Grabbers would be all over this instead.
There oughta be a law against pipe bombs….
More laws ARE NOT what we need, WTF about the buckets full of existing laws that were broken in this and every other shooting like it? They obviously didn’t do JACK SHIT to prevent them and more wont help, may every pol grandstanding on the people killed forever be chained to Helen Thomas, “Hanoi Jane” Fonda and my ex-wife in a special corner of hell!
It’s about feelings, nothing more than feelings…[insert music here.] There is another aspect of this more-laws business: conditioning. The day will come when all of the laws that can be passed will be passed and folks will look around and say, “There are still far too many shootings, despite our best efforts. So, there is only one thing to do…[insert Supreme Court action here.]”
Exactly. Meanwhile, back in the real world, heroin (the illegal kind) kills more people than guns. What is the solution from the left? It rhymes with legalize.
You REALLY need to provide numbers to back up a statement like that, because that isn’t remotely true. 2013 deaths from heroin is around 8,000 people. Firearm deaths, 33,636 people. So….
Okay. I’ll provide a number. Um… 33,637. Happy now?
Alcohol and drug addiction together kill well over 500,000 people per year. Many people die from secondary diseases that make no real mention of the alcoholism/addiction that got them to that state of health.
The numbers are really quite staggering and no matter how many laws you pass those people that are addicted will continue to seek their addiction.
Same as in the Islamic countries, many people there are alcoholic and still practice it along with gay sex.
I only bring that up because of the effect those urges bring are more than strong enough to allow them to continue to do it and not care about the being tossed off a building or being hung just because they are gay.
Drunk drivers kill more people each year that firearm homicides do.
Don’t forget that most firearm murders are criminal on criminal whereas DUI drivers are usually innocent bystanders or just drivers driving down the road.
http://www.capemaycountyherald.com/opinion/letters_to_the_editor/article_306deca1-1c97-5f12-8959-64ef556bbb0c.html
Not exactly. That’s the number from heroin overdoses only. It does not include deaths from accidents induced by heroin intoxication; other diseases acquired through heroin addiction, such as Hep-C and AIDS; deaths due to the aggravation of existing health conditions by heroin abuse, such as premature cardiac deaths; or those killed in violence associated with heroin trafficking.
If you’re going to cite a number, please indicate accurately what it is that you’re citing. Don’t attempt to mislead by citing only part of the total as the “whole enchilada”.
Further, if one broadens the scope a bit to include deaths attributable to all illicit drug use (including the abuse of prescription drugs), the total is substantially higher than the number of persons killed via firearms – around 1/3 higher, according to the CDC. I’ll go out on a limb here and assert that very few of those killed by drug poisoning included in the CDC statistics died due to medical error.
http://www.drugwarfacts.org/cms/Causes_of_Death#sthash.pdbilsbS.dpbs
And don’t trot out the “many of those were suicides” argument. Approximately 2/3 of firearms deaths are suicides, but you included them nonetheless. Remove suicides from the argument, and heroin abuse almost certainly does kill more people than firearms.
Stop trying to be smarter than you are.
Thanks Hondo for the assist. I was phoning it in yesterday, literally.
From Table 18 of the 2013 data regarding death by firearm:
number of homicides = 11,208
unintentional deaths = 505
http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nvsr/nvsr64/nvsr64_02.pdf
If Dr. Know wants to use phony numbers, in the interests of expediency, I figured I could too.
Opiate deaths increased at the rate of 4X between the years 2000 and 2013. In some states, they have recently eclipsed traffic deaths, per the leftist rag “Mother Jones” http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2015/10/heroin-kills-more-people-car-crashes-most-america.
Back to table 18, in 2013 the number of deaths by motor vehicle traffic = 33,804
I’ll admit, I did not substantiate my first claim because I was on my phone and otherwise busy. And I will admit my assertion may not be valid. I do, however, find the hypocrisy quite rich in that opiates are illegal and they kill a lot of people, yet the effort seems to be to legalize them.
Treat progressivism as a religion and you’ll start to see the point of writing more laws: obviously they haven’t found that perfect combination of words and phrases that will serve as a magic incantation that will miraculously rid the world of all of the bad things and bring about all of the good things. You just have to let the high priests (profs and proggie pols0 keep trying.
If you’re a lib, there is always a panacea.
If we just do this, then everything will be wonderful…
And if you disagree you’re a homophobic, islamophobic dirty lowlife racist, sexist THEOCRAT!! 😀
Or you can go here and have a good laugh.
http://valorguardians.com/blog/?p=63060&cpage=2#comment-2744107
I’ve had people tell me that my weapons are “murder tools”–exact words of one individual. My response to that is that I can guarantee that most of them have never even been pointed in the vicinity of a human being, much less discharged at one. A couple are WWI-WWII-Korea-vintage surplus which certainly could have been used in combat, or they could have been beat up by recruits and never fired a shot in anger. The only weapon I’ve ever had that’s confirmed to have been utilized to successfully end human life is a Lee-Enfield No.4 sniper mod, formerly carried by a British Army sharpshooter who used it to good effect against some rather unpleasant Red Chinese somewhere in the Korean Peninsula region of East Asia in 1950-53. How did I get it? The British soldier who carried wanted a souvenir rifle to take home, so he it traded it for a GI’s M1 Garand at Pusan in the fall of 1953. That GI later married my grandmother, and left the Enfield to me in his will. Does it really matter that the rifle was used to take life? Not particularly. I’m not like the creepy nazi shopkeeper in that shitty old Michael Douglas movie who thought his zyklon-B canister was the coolest thing ever. Neither am I a bleeding heart who considers the rifle “tainted by violence” or blames the inanimate object for its user’s actions or some shit. The rifle never did anything except function reliably and send .303 caliber bullets downrange to its point of aim. It didn’t select its target, it didn’t aim itself, it didn’t cycle its own bolt, it didn’t trigger itself. It’s a good rifle. It’s fun to shoot. I have a casual interest in the history of all my weapons, including that one, regardless of how they were or weren’t used, because I’m a nerd that way. The scoped Enfield formerly used to put down aggressive armed commies is no more or less “cool” than the Winchester 94 that’s only ever been a coyote gun. I do place great sentimental value on that… Read more »
Oh, and I’m also looking at a couple of Christmas gun purchases here in California. The prognazis can blow me.
“Nobody blames arson on the lighter.” That’s a keeper, suitable for framing.
My spoons made me fat. They jumpd out of the drawer, filled themselves up with sugar and came running over to me and stuffed themselves in my mouth.
That’s how I got fat !!!
Lars has hijacked and dominated the thread again!
Quick! Tell the Eff Bee Eyes!
Yeah, all by my lonesome. Just me. Nobody ever also posts in the threads I start. Or changes the subject.
In every thread that you join, YOU become the topic. You are so very special that way. So, STFU.
Oh, stop trying to hijack this thread into a thread about how I hijack threads.
Then stop hijacking threads.
I didn’t hijack the thread, I posted on topic.
You are a nuisance, an annoyance, a silly sideshow. Is that your aim, to be disruptive, to cause long-time visitors to shy away, to be the center of attention with your inanities? Okay, you won. Congratulations. Now, will you go away?
Yeah, well, the scrapple king can’t write in a literate manner, either. I just love this one:
‘The logic and cognitive dissonance on this board, and you also display is appalling.’
Ummm… WHAT???
I know that we all get distracted. The phone rings. The smartphone buzzes and gives us cheap thrills. The cat becomes a pest for attention. But if that piece of functionally illiterate balderdash is a sample of graduate-level prose, the school should send the dweeb who wrote it back to freshman-level remedial English.
I’m out of corn. Will succotash do instead?
I really don’t care whether one uses punctuation correctly, especially when it comes to fast and loose comments here. Moreover, this isn’t an English Writing blog and the value of contributors’ comments is not diminished by poor word choice or lousy punctuation. However, when it comes to Lars, the expert in all things, I toss that view. Whatever it takes, within reason, to discourage him from visiting here, I’m happy to do.
Know your opponent. Then you will succeed.
I’m out of corn. Will succotash do instead?
Probably. Based on Taylor’s comments here, it looks like he’ll swallow most anything.
🙂 Ta!
Of course you did, Taylor. Your 2 comments immediately above addressed nothing other than the issues Jonn raised in his article.
They ain’t getting the guns in upstate NY:
http://newyork.cbslocal.com/2015/12/03/ulster-county-sheriff-carry-guns/
Just found a few videos of Lars crafting his words while in front of a computer:
And here in Lars speaking in German:
Because of that trifecta, and many other reasons, you are without a doubt my favorite rock star!
I see from my Yahoo feed that Obama is running his suck again about how “this doesn’t happen in other civilized countries.”
Umm…I haven’t done the math, but weren’t there more people killed and wounded in the Paris attacks than in every so-called “mass shooting” in the US for the past year?
I also seem to recall that the Paris attacks lasted for a couple of hours. Mass shootings in the US tend to last a matter of minutes simply because our first responders almost always get to the scene very quickly.
Actually, since 2003 more people in the EU have been killed in mass shootings than the US and over twice as many wounded. But don’t let facts get in the way of Obama’s agenda, he is fresh off the stunning success at the Climate Summit in Paris
Remember how he really told those damn terrorists that his climate plan stopped all of their attacks !!! And… He did it for the children !!!
Damn that worked good !!!
Almost as good as the ISIS being contained thingy did !!!
The incredible stupidity of these morons is just amazing.
The Dems have already introduced 3 Amendments into the Senate. The Second one is the one that you should pay attention to.
In a nutshell it says that anyone on the no-fly terrorist list should be prohibited from buying a gun. Good idea you say? How do you get on the no-fly list? What evidence do they use to put you there? Can you see it? Can you contest it? Who put’s you there? How do you get off of it if it’s wrong? Remember the NSA total info vacuum haul of your cellphone, internet etc. you know like how you looked at ammo on a website, how you got some gunpowder through FedEx delivered to your door, bought some ammo at the local gunstore with a credit card etc?
That, my friends, is how an un-elected bureaucrat somewhere with an agenda stops millions of Americans from buying guns with a click of the mouse.
Ah, wrong.
If you are a law abiding citizen, with no connection to triggers that land you on list, you don’t go on list.
If you are the list, you need a lawyer. Two reasons to be on list: 1. Bad error and or 2. You are a danger and or known risk.
Call Dan, he worked for the TSA, he may know more than I.
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/14/nyregion/14watchlist.html?_r=0
An 8yr old is on the no fly list, or more accurately the full screening list and been there since day one on this earth. The article is from 2010, so that means at least 2002 when he was born. It is unAmerican to strip children not yet born of their rights as citizens of this nation. The harder part is trying to get off these lists, in the case of the article from the NYT, it appears that his name jives with the intelligence whisper of a suspected sympathizer. Who knows if he is off now some five year since it was published.
The tyranical Libtards can’t even restrain their desires any longer to completely throw out due process in a very vocal attempt to shit all over civil rights these days. No wonder these unhinged power hungry controls freaks want everyone disarmed. They are almost foaming at the mouth already in anticipation for a monopoly on violence and civil rights.
These people are the real domestic enemies. Their contempt for the constitution is scary.
I used to live in California for 4 years, loved it, but sold my NFA items before I was stationed there. I now live in a place where 99% of my rifles (SBR) (MG)are NFA items and are registered with the ATF. I have no issue with registering anything with the govt, I have no issue with nics checks or even the NFA process, but this bs that you can order a gun off the internet and its FedEX’d to your house with nothing, no FFL, no 4473 bs, 100% bs. I personally do not support the NRA, and never will, because they were willing to throw the minority under the bus in 1986. Some might ask why do you need these things, why, because America, that’s why. If the 2nd amendment only applies to 1791, then I’m out of quill pen ink and parchment and I’m violating the 1st amendment.
When have you ever bought a firearm off the internet and had it FedEx’d to your house? That’s illegal.
GDContractor: I believe he said the idea you could order one with no background check and have it shipped to your house was BS.
¿Más café, amigo? (sonrisa)
Correct, sorry I didn’t clarify. The false notion pushed by the media that Internet ordered firearms have no FFL process.
I’m far more concerned that over 300 police ossifers from various districts went flying to the one spot where this shooting occurred. And then dozens more went after the two people in the SUV and got into a shootout with them.
It’s like watching a flock of vultures going after a carcass or something. They all show up in 30 seconds for something like that, but if you call them over something like a break-in next door or a fistfight in the street in front of your apartment, they saunter in 20 minutes later.
But what better way to distract law enforcement than to start a distraction like this in one spot, which almost guarantees a large number of cops in one spot and leaves other areas wide open to destruction? Does this look like a ferguson to anyone besides me?