As with Gabby Giffords, the left immediately jumped out and pointed their twisted fingers at the Tea Party. This charge was led by ABC News who decided the shooter had to belong to the Tea Party because they found a Tea Party member with a similar name. Naturally, they never bothered to investigate before smearing the Tea Party. Eventually, they were forced to retract this, but not before every other new outlet repeated the slander. Those outlets never withdrew their reports.
Meanwhile, the usual pack of leftist celebrities took to the airwaves to whine that this proves we need gun control. Roger Ebert even whined that this proved that concealed carry laws don’t work because no one in the crowd had a gun. Think about that. In Roger’s mind concealed carry means that someone in every crowd must be carrying a gun even when the theater and law forbid it. What a twisted turd he has become.
In any event, none of this is working. Almost no one on Capitol Hill has called for gun control laws. To the contrary they are running like scared rabbits. Why? Because polls show the public’s support for gun rights at an all-time high. Indeed, an October 2011 Gallup poll found that 73% of Americans would not support gun bans. This was the highest level in 50 years. Incidentally, the same poll showed 68% approval for the evil NRA.
So why doesn’t the public fall for the blathering of the moronic celebrities and professional tragedy exploiters? Easy, it’s common sense.
As I’ve pointed out many times before, gun tragedies are incredibly rare. The United States has 2.5 million deaths annually, but only 12,000 of those are related to guns (0.4% of all deaths) – many of these are shootings by police. This places gun deaths 43rd on the list of causes of death in the United States, well behind diseases, cancers, suicides, diarrhea related deaths, unintentional injuries, measles, falls, drownings, poisonings, fires, asthma and road accidents.
And mass shootings of the type in Aurora are even more rare. For example, in the last 10 years, there have been only seven shooting sprees at schools in the US that resulted in three or more deaths. Moreover, Europe has a comparable mass murder rate, despite its strict gun control laws. Europe saw six such mass murders in the same period, and the European ones had a higher body count. China too has seen a spree of stabbings at schools that have resulted in a vastly higher number of deaths than American shootings. So this problem the celebrity left is whining about simply about doesn’t exist, and people realize that.
Secondly, guns don’t kill people. There are 250 million guns in the United States. If guns “caused” crimes as the left claims, then there would 250 million murders a year. Even if only one in ten people fell under the evil spell of these guns, we would still be dealing with 25 million murders a year. Heck, even one percent means 2.5 million murders. Yet only 12,000 people are killed annually in the United States by guns. That works out to less than 0.004% of guns being used to kill someone. . . 40 out of every million guns in the country. Guns do not cause crime.
We know this from Switzerland too. Everyone in Switzerland is required to own a gun, yet gun crime is virtually nonexistent. It’s so low they don’t even bother keeping official statistics on gun crime. It is, in fact, lower than the gun crime rate in Japan, which absolutely bans guns. Switzerland ranks as the fourth safest country in the world and its violent crime rate is 1/100th that of Britain, where guns are banned.
Moreover, there is strong evidence that guns actually prevent crime. When Britain banned private gun ownership in 1996, crime rates skyrocketed. According to American Enterprise Institute economist John Lott, an examination of information released by the British Home Office showed that the violent crime rate rose 69% following the gun ban (with murders increasing 54%). Interestingly, in the five years prior to the ban, such crimes had been falling consistently.
A county by county examination by Lott of crime rates in the United States, found that right-to-carry states experienced (on average) lower rates of violent crime (27% lower), murder (32% lower), robbery (45% lower) and aggravated assault (20% lower) than states with more restrictive gun laws. Other studies conducted at Vanderbilt University, SUNY Binghamton, Claremont-McKenna College, George Mason University, and the College of William and Mary, have supported Lott’s findings.
So Ebert’s attempt to prove that concealed laws don’t worry through a bad analogy is proven ludicrous by comparison to these statistics.
The truth is the world is full of nuts. And if they want to find a way to kill people, they will find a way. It is better to let decent people arm themselves so they can defend themselves than it is to disarm the very people who would help, leaving everyone at the mercy of the crazies. It’s interesting that our left thinks this way. Why do you supposed they don’t want you being able to defend yourself?
106 comments:
I thought Hickenlooper was great on CNN (I think) when the "reporter" asked if there was a law on the books that would have prevented the shooting. He said there's nothing there now, and she said "So what I'm hearing is that you would support future laws that would prevent this sort of thing." Uh, nice stretch there lady. He said, "This is a human problem, not a gun problem. He was a very smart individual, if it wasn't guns it would have been something else."
And as to why leftists don't want us to have guns, that's easy. Criminals prefer unarmed victims and dictators prefer unarmed citizens.
I'm surprised Obama didn't call for gun control when he went to Aurora. I think that indicates the issue is dead politically.
Tam, Great points! And that's the truth. If I decided to start killing people off, I wouldn't need a gun. In fact, using a gun is probably one of the least effective ways to kill lots of people.
Also, like the stabbings in China show us, you can actually do worse with a single knife if you pick your target's carefully enough.
This issue should not be about guns. This is a human problem (as Hickenlooper put it). It's about the fact that some small percentage of us are just insane and want to kill people. And there's nothing we can do to prevent that. It just is. It's a tragedy, but it's beyond our control.
And I find it despicable that so many on the left keep exploiting people's deaths to make these points.
DUQ, There has been a lot of hand-wringing on the left over this issue. They are shocked that none of their politicians have been willing to start pushing for more gun control. They see that as evidence that their side has lost its way.
But what do they expect, the public knows better and they have reacted very negatively to anyone who has tried to push gun control.
Most of my liberal friends on Facebook have been all over this the past couple days, not necessarily for exploitative reasons but because that's just how they think. I've been trying to avoid this just because the whole thing is so sad, but I may feel compelled to start mixing it up with them.
Andrew: Very comprehensive post. The left can't come up with figures that prove their point, even when they fudge. They have consistently included all gun deaths in their studies and hysterical anti-gun screeds, including the criminals killed while attempting to commit a dangerous felony shot by a citizen who had the good sense to own and use a gun.
I've also noticed a tendency among “conservative” pro-gun people lately to join the chorus on “assault weapons” (aka, ugly guns). They pretend to understand the Second Amendment, but then go all “subtle” about even basic rights having some restrictions (which is at least partially true). But they neglect the very purpose of the Second Amendment. It wasn't about squirrel-hunting or self-defense. Those were such givens that the Founders didn't even address them. The purpose was to maintain a militia to protect the citizens from invasion, including any government which had turned tyrannical.
That necessarily means (as the Supreme Court tangentially held) that every male (today, everyone) over the age of 21 (now 18) is expected to own a weapon which can be used to prevent outside oppression. The Founders wanted as small a standing army as possible, knowing what British and European standing armies had supported. The individuals who formed the militias were the force that would obviate the need for standing armies under the direction of one single authority. Even a purist like me can believe that nobody needs to own an M1-A1 Abrams tank or a nuclear bomb, and that there is a compelling state interest preventing such ownership. But assault weapons? Those are the very sort of military grade weapons the Founders intended citizens to have to fend off tyranny. Not squirrels. Not burglars. Tyranny.
My only weapon is a .357 magnum revolver. But if my neighbor wants to own an M-16, good for him.
T-Rav, I no longer worry about the sensibilities of liberals, so I go into offensive mode whenever they start with their crap. They are usually quite shocked too and quickly say "don't politicize this," at which point I get rather nasty with them about their hypocrisy.
Lawhawk, Thanks. Yep, the left is very poor on statistics because they have none on their side. Instead, they rely on politicized fake "statistics" like gun owners are more like to die from guns than other people. Yeah, it's called suicide.
The whole assault weapon thing drives me crazy. Just because a gun looks tough doesn't make a dangerous gun. In fact, true assault weapons NEVER get used in crimes because they are too hard to get, too expensive to maintain, and too hard to hide as you're walking into the building. This whole fixation on guns that aren't used in crimes is idiocy and it comes from Hollywood's unrealistic portrayals.
I agree about tanks and nuclear bombs, there's a quantitative difference there. I also agree completely that the idea behind gun ownership is to have the right to protect yourself from whoever may try to harm you. It's not to have the right to hunt or go sport shooting or just to defend yourself against certain types of criminals. Guns are the bedrock of freedom from oppression and victimization. And I'm glad the American public overwhelmingly agrees with that.
Excellent article. I think the politicization of this was disgusting, especially Roger Ebert. Why is he talking politics?
Doc, I agree. Ebert needs to learn to shut the hell up. But at least this (and his other recent forays) have exposed him for the leftist hack he is. And hopefully people will stop treating his reviews like they aren't political, because they are.
Tam, By the way, Happy July Birthday! You are not alone! LOL! (July 8th)
but those "semi-automatic" guns are scary too - don't they just spit out bullets and spray a room randomly??? that's what the TV said!
pshaw.
This is a line from a comment on NRO:
"Semi-automatics enable a rate of firing well above what's needed for hunting but ideal for mass murder and, if there is a justification for them to be legal at all, they should be much more difficult to obtain."
My response: "so, all hunting rifles should be bolt action? being able to pull the trigger and fire without any intermediate action results in "a rate of firing well above what's needed for hunting"?"
Thanks Andrew! Happy belated.
rlaWTX, I get sick of that too. The news loves to use the term "automatic weapon" when no such thing has been used in a crime since the 1930s. Just like revolver or a rifle, a semi-automatic weapon fires only one bullet per squeeze of the trigger. It's media negligence to suggest otherwise.
Whoever left the comment you are responding to is an idiot or a liar. But that's what I've come to expect from the anti-gun side. They simply want to ban guns and they will come up with any lie or myth they can to support the argument.
I wonder how this idiot would have felt if instead of an evil one-shot at a time semi-automatic (which gave people time to hide and shoot back if anyone was armed), the jerk in Aurora had used a single shot, fire and forget U-haul filled with explosive fertilizer? He could have killed a thousand people with one squeeze of the trigger. Heck, you can derail a passenger train with a large hammer.
These people are idiots to fixate on guns. But then, their real goal isn't to stop the killers, it's to take away the self-reliance of everyone else.
rlaWTX: Excellent response and question. And it's exactly what I was pointing to. NRO is supposedly staffed by conservatives. But in fact it's staffed today (unlike the old days of National Review) by neo-conservatives with little sense of history. Just like the liberals, if they don't like something, they want to ban it or restrict it. They have completely missed the historical reason for the Second Amendment.
Thanks Tam!
I won't argue about NRO-ites, but this was a commenter on a story - not a contributor...
Lawhawk, This must be "raise Andrew's blood pressure day" because you bring up another great point. I'm getting so sick of NRO. They seem to have become the voice of neo-liberalims masked at conservatism. It find that I disagree with more that I read there than I agree with.
And you're right that the comment rlaWTX mentions has completely missed the point to the Second Amendment. IT'S NOT ABOUT HUNTING!!! It's about having the right to defend yourself from all enemies, foreign and domestic.
rlaWTX, That's how I understood you, but Lawhawk's point stands. I find myself disagreeing WAY too much with NRO these days. They really need to look at their people and get their bearings again.
Andrew - that was one of my reactions after hearing about the explosives at the apartment - if he hadn't gotten a gun and ammo (rounds and rounds, right, tryanmax?), what would he have blown up instead?????????
the anti-gun pundits drive me a little nutty - and I don't even own a gun!!
rlaWTX, They drive me batty too because nothing they say makes sense. It's all totally illogical and only ever looks at one side of the equation. And they keep repeating lies and distortions and completely missing the point to everything.
Yet, they won't stop. What's more, they're smug about it.
Grrrrrr.
Great response rla!! That commenter is an ass!
Andrew, I love your statistics. I think the most telling one is how there are 250 million guns in the county but so few murders. If guns really were so dangerous there would be a lot more. I wonder how that compares to things like cribs, cars, and containers of poison?
Doc, I think it's very telling. Liberals always make the point that guns make people crazy and make them want to commit crimes. Well, if that's true, then were are all these crimes? Why aren't there two million murders a year? Shouldn't at least one in a hundred people fall under this mysterious spell?
I really have noticed a real difference this time from the Giffords shooting. Last time, the media went into full smear mode from the first word of the shooting. This time, only ABC tried it, and they've since abandoned the whole thing. And while celebrities have been out there whining, no one seems interested in joining them.
Personally, I don't see the point of having assault weapons and all, but I also don't see where in the Second Amendment it says we "have the right to bear arms, but not high-powered or fast-firing ones." I understand some people's aversion to them, but I don't think it flies constitutionally.
I am not sure of the actual numbers but here I believe we had 11 deaths and 50 wounded. I know it is morbid but that is actually a pretty low kill rate for the circumstances.
As I understand it this guy got up in fromt of the theater and lobbed tear gas grenades and then opned fire on a public gagging and blinded making for the exists.
So I was wondering why so many non fatal injuries especially if this guy had an "assault" weapon.
I remember reading that the military weapons of today are specifically made to wound and not kill outright. The article I read stated that thuis was because a wounded soldier hampered an army much more than a dead one.
So let us think, if this guy could not get the AK 47 and instead got a Desert Eagle or a Rifle with large caliber and or more grains of powder per shot how would that ratio look.
I am not sure if I am right on this but a gun is a gun and they have different purposes. A trained gun man with a 44 magnum pistol could do more damage than an untrained person witha 9mm UZI.
Something to think about....
PS... aren't tear gas grenades controlled. I don;t beleive I can legally buy one. If this guy could get these grenades how is a law going to stop him from getting the AK-47.?
Ellen, I've noticed that too. When Giffords was shot, there was a whole a full court press from the media, celebrities, the Democrats, and all their allies to push the idea this was a crazed Tea Party guy who was acting on the orders of Sarah Palin and the rest.
This time, only the celebrities are pushing that kind of garbage. The media seems scared to politicize the story (except ABC), the Democrats have run for the hills, and the public seems in no mood to see this as political.
I would guess that part of that is because the election is coming up, but I also think maybe this is "cry wolf" syndrome coming back to haunt the left.
T-Rav, when the zombie apocalypse comes, you will see the point. And you will want to be my neighbor.
T-Rav, I think the point to having "assault" weapons is because people enjoy shooting them and because they are pretty much the ultimate in self defense on an individual scale.
But like you, I don't think it matters if there is a purpose or not because the Constitution doesn't make those kinds of distinctions. To conclude otherwise would be like saying, "you have the right to free speech unless you say something I don't see the need to say." It's not the government's place to decide what your need is.
Tam, LOL! So true. That will be the key moment when assault weapons come into their own! :)
all incredibly predictable and with so little respect. I've always thought that gun control would work about as well preventing this kind of thing as our drug laws do in preventing heroin addicts.
Indi, That's actually true, military weapons are meant to wound rather than kill because it demoralizes the enemy and it clogs up their logistics when they need to shuttle lots of wounded soldiers back to their hospitals. That's not to say the weapons aren't dangerous, but they're not as lethal as people think.
The reason the body count was so low is because it's hard to kill a lot of people with a gun. For one things, moving targets are hard to hit, and even harder to hit accurately. Plus, people escape quickly once things start happening. For another, guns just aren't an efficient way to kill a lot of people -- they're a good way to kill specific people. If this guy really wanted to kill a lot of people, he would have used the laws of physics to help him and brought down the building or a bridge or derailed a train. Even a fire would have been worse if he'd found a way to lock the doors.
And in terms of shooting, guns are guns, but what matters are bullets. Bullets come in different shapes, sizes, and with different charged which make them faster, slower, hit with greater or lesser impact, penetrate or shatter on impact.
I'm not sure if gas grenades are controlled or not. I'd have to look that up. But they aren't an effective weapon in any event.
Jed, That's the thing. Laws only stop the law abiding. They don't stop people who don't care about the law.
What's more, they often make people who want to get around the law more creative.
I am picky about who I read at NRO - they tend to seem more reactionary than conservative on some things. And the commenters are tops in the "You're a RINO because I disagree with you" category...
as for guns... there are a lot of things with some wiggle room in the American culture today (def of marriage, tax policy, etc), but gun rights are IN THE CONSTITUTION! period.
And a lot of what I know about many subjects is based on TV (forensics, law, etc), but I know that TV isn't reality, so I try not to base my argument on what happened on NCIS! Many people need to realize that prosecutors on Law & Order are not good sources for real life facts on guns or cops or religion or fracking or anything else!!!!
Andrew, I noticed that too, that the celebrities seem to be on their own. I've liked how BH has called them out too. They haven't been subtle about accusing them of exploiting the tragedy. It's about time too. More conservatives need to stop giving leftists a free ride.
Tam, obviously I'm thinking way ahead of you. If the zombie apocalypse comes, ammunition will become scarce, and most people will use theirs up fast because they'll be blazing from the hip like idiots. And then they'll be left wide open to attack from third- or fourth-wave zombies, not to mention marauders and would-be warlords. Hand-to-hand combat (blades, arrows, etc.) for the zombies when possible; save ammo for the dangerous humans who come a-prowling. Yeah.
rla, I recommend just not reading the comments at NRO. I go there for the articles, not what any yahoo has to say about them.
rlaWTX, That's the best way to be in terms of being picky. I agree with you about the comments to, though you find that at a LOT of conservative sites these days. You either agree 100% or you're a RINO. I'm sick of that really. I see those people as trolls and they are making it harder for actual conservatives to speak with each other intelligently.
On guns, you are right that TV is not reality, but liberals seem to think it is. I'm amazed how little liberals actually know about guns and how wrong they usually are.
So T-Rav, you DO see the point for assault weapons after all.
Ellen, That's one thing I think we really need to be thankful to Andrew Brietbart for, he changed the culture and made it easier for conservatives to fight back. We are no longer prisoner to an intellectual elite who are all cowards.
T-Rav, A simple solution... avoid the comments. I do that at most places these days, especially places like HotAir.
T-Rav, Good point about the zombie apocalypse and the waste of ammo. BUT that's why they teach you to fire in short bursts -- three rounds at a time. Anything else is too inaccurate.
And you should always be prepared for hand to hand combat, just in case you can't kill them with bullets, which is always possible... vampire zombies.
RE Zombies - I'm hoping that by the time they have eaten all of the unarmed lefties, the zombies'll have food poisoning and croak on their own, and those folks remaining can get the Constitution out of storage and start over...
Roger Ebert is a sh*t. So are all the other celebs who've been pimping gun control. I had to laugh though that Obama himself didn't call for gun control. That tells you all you need to know, doesn't it!
Tam, You will survive the Zombie Apocalypse. :D
I'm not so sure about T-Rav though. :(
A couple of points. There ain't no such thing as an "ASSAULT" weapon. There are only two types of guns. Guns and automatic guns. Guns sold to the public are just guns. One pull of the trigger causes one bullet to fly out. Automatic guns are not sold to the public unless there is a special license. One pull of the trigger means multiple bullets fly out.
The word assault comes from a salesman trying to sell his guns.
Second, I actually blame minimum wage for this attack. Up until the last part of the 80s, Ushers were ubiquitous and would stay in the theaters to prevent "cheaters" from opening the exit doors. With minimum wage being increased, Ushers became too expensive so the Ushers went the way of the dodo.
rlaWTX, LOL! I would imagine lefties leave a bad taste in anyone's mouth, especially as most are basted in bile, smoked in pot, and full of sh....
And I see you're into happy endings! :)
Terry, Ebert has become a real parody of a leftist hack.
I agree about Obama. I think it's very telling that he didn't try to turn this into another attack on guns.
Interestingly, the left is whining that they made a big mistake with Giffords by talking about civility last time because they think it detracted from the gun argument. So they wanted to jump straight into the gun issue this time, but clearly their allies didn't.
Terry, I like to think that all Commentarama readers will survive the Zombie Apocalypse. After all, it's not like we don't have experience dealing with them already.... yes we can... yes we can...
"yes we can... yes we can... " - I knew that sounded familiar...
"happy ever after" - and since we'll know what caused the apocalypse, we'll head it off at the pass that time around, right!!!???
Joel, That's true, "assault" weapons are a made up categories. Guns are tools and they all basically do the same thing -- send a bullet in a particular direction. The idea that there are "assault" guns and just plain old guns is really nothing more than a sales pitch, reinforced by Hollywood trying to create the image of something "cool."
It wouldn't surprise me if this could have been partially averted with more staff. I don't think it could have been stopped, but the guy might have been stopped earlier or more people saved. But in any event, the real point here is that these things just can't be prevented.
rlaWTX, That's what zombies really say! Not "brains!"
Happily ever after indeed! :)
T-Rav, I like the way you think. If I've said it once, I've said it a thousand times: when the $#!+ hits the fan, the world's ammo supply will be cut by 90% in the first 72 hours, if not more and faster. I don't know about a zombie apocalypse (unless you count Obamaites), but I have no provision for the Revolution when it comes; I intend to up against the wall.
As to how much and how powerful of stuff people should be allowed to own, I must be a nut because I have no problem with regular folk owning an Abrams tank. Hmm, I wonder who that man in the suit knocking at my door is? Is that a black SUV out front...?
tryanmax, toss one of T-Rav's kittens at 'em - it seems to work for him against the black helicopters!
tryanmax, That's why you need to buy your ammo in advance.
As for the revolution, I doubt you'll be up against the wall since my guess is the revolution will come from our side, not the left. ;)
As for tank ownership, I have a bit of a problem with giving people something with such destructive power and no practical defensive value. And something like a nuke would simply be too dangerous. You know that ever nutjob in the world would happily start setting them off.
rlaWTX, Do kittens ward off black helicopters?
well, T-Rav keeps talking about using kittens as his defense system and about the helicopters buzzing his place, so, since he still has internet privileges, I assumed the kittens were working for him... ;)
Andrew,
Of course they can't be prevented unless everyone stays home. Anyone who thinks so has not read the homicide bombers reports from the MidEast. There they use vests loaded with explosives. Despite Israel's gun policy, the bombers still manage to blow things up.
The M-16 round is specially designed to "tumble" down range. It is so that if it hits a person in the hip, it will tumble through the body and come out a shoulder and hit someone else. It is designed for one thing only. To kill what it hits. This is called military ammo. It is NOT available to the general public. If this shooter had military grade ammo, there would be far more dead.
And the military do not shoot to wound. They shoot to kill. Wounding someone is an added bonus that is NOT relied upon. With Islamic forces, they might just go ahead and kill their wounded or set them up with booby traps to kill medics from our side.
From what I read about this attack, it was preceded with tear gas grenades. Tear gas grenades are not available to the general public, but can be manufactured by any one who can combine freon gas can and pepper and set it to keep on emitting. You know the can of air you use to blow out your computer? That can be modified with an small atomizer and you have a tear gas grenade.
rlaWTX, A kitten based defense system! LOL! The Kitten-nator 3000!!
Nice logic too that they must be working. :)
rla, completely wrong! I talk about shooting kittens in the face, not using them as a defense system, and it's Bev who talks about the black helicopters! Stay focused!
tryanmax, not to mention that you just know governments in some places would use the apocalypse as an excuse to confiscate ammo from private citizens. If you comply, you die later; if you resist, you stand a chance of dying sooner. Probably best to find that guy with the Abrams tank now, before it's too late.
I agree with guns don't kill...people do, and I don't read any of the other sites unless a link is posted here. Even then, I might not read it. So, call me biased since I basically only read Commentarama.
I got into a disagreement with a friend I used to work with when the '04 election was a short time away. We were at work at the time (he was in management training), and one of our mutual friends had informed him of my political preferences. He chose to verbally assault me right on the sales floor which wasn't appropriate. He must have been going through the lefty playbook, because he hit me with self defense, and told me that I should just call the police. I asked him if he had any idea how long it would take someone to respond because I was at the Northern edges of the county. He said it didn't matter, and that I should let the police do their job. I said that with me being by myself, I was not going to be a sitting duck. Prior to this, I had no idea he was a liberal Democrat, and didn't care. We had worked together (was also my former boss), and had been friends for eight years. I refused to speak to him after this incidence, and quit that job six months later.
I was in that store a couple of years after I quit, and when I spotted him, I made every effort to dodge him, but wasn't that lucky because he eventually found me. He never once brought up what happened, and later on, he even tried to convince me to come back part-time.
Terry, I find your lack of faith disturbing.
Jen, I've known people like that before, though most are usually restrained enough not to bring it up in a public place the way your "acquaintance" did. Some people are just really unaware, especially where expressing opinions is concerned. I wouldn't be surprised if he doesn't even remember it.
Joel, The military shoots to incapacitate, be it kill or wound so you can't shoot back. I don't think they have a preference for killing necessarily and they certainly don't kill people who have been incapacitated, but they definitely train people to shoot for the chest, where you are likely to kill someone.
In terms of available to the public, I think the closest you get are hollow points. Those are meant to break apart and spread throughout the body. But they don't leave the body because they use up all their momentum breaking up.
I haven't looked it up to see if tear gas is available to the public, but I doubt that it is. That said, as you say, it's very easy to manufacture.
T-Rav, And here I thought you had some cool cat-based defense system! LOL!
T-Rav, That's actually a good question. If some sort of apocalypse began would governments try to ban the sale of ammo? I could see a lot of liberals arguing that would be necessary.
Jen, It sounds like your friend/boss is a typical leftist jerk. Not only is it inappropriate to bring this up at work, but to suggest that you should let yourself get killed or worse rather than defend yourself is the kind of insanely assh*lish advice only a leftist could give. That's ideology over common sense and I have no doubt it's not advice he would follow in his own case.
On guns killing people, I think the arguments of the left have worn out by the point. People have seen through their claims that guns kills people and are more dangerous to the owners, etc. etc. All their arguments are nonsense and that's why 70% of Americans oppose gun bans.
T-Rav, In my experience, leftists are like that. They have no compunction about assaulting you with their views because they think that anyone who disagrees with them is being dishonest. I almost never meet liberals who won't beat people over the head with their views.
I have it on good authority that kittens do NOT ward off black helicopters, unless they are really, really cute kittens. That's T-Rav's problem, he likes to shoot them in the face and, as anyone knoww, that is the cutest part of any kitten. That's why it is imperative as part of your emergency preparedness kit that you load up "cute kitten" photos and videos on your smart phone, so they can be accessed anytime...
Check out this exchange between Ice-T (a rapper) and a news anchor in London:
“It’s legal in the United States,” the rapper said. “The right to bear arms is because that’s the last form of defense against tyranny. Not to hunt. It’s to protect yourself from the police.”
“And do you see any link between that and this sort of instance?” Guru-Murthy challenged.
“No. Not really,” Ice-T responded. “If somebody wants to kill people, they don’t need a gun to do it.”
“Makes it easier though, doesn’t it?” the host pushed back.
“Not really. You can strap explosives on your body. They do that all the time.”
Bev, A smart phone full of kitten pictures is my worst nightmare.
Andrew, I bet they would try. It probably wouldn't work--touch people's guns and all bets are off, especially if they become more afraid of flesh-eating ghouls than the government--but it would probably create enough dissension and distraction to make the zombie crisis worse.
Quite frankly, you know what the zombie genre really needs? A good origins story. Not just where the virus or whatever comes from, but how it reaches epidemic proportions and causes the disintegration of society. All the stories we have, good as they are, skip over that crucial step and jump right into Wasteland City.
Bev, I disagree. The cutest part is their still unfluffed-out little tails. :-) Oh, and their paws. I don't shoot those.
T-Rav, I would bet that a lot of governments would want to confiscate guns at that moment out of the supposed fear that people would be shooting each other and interfering with the zombie stopping efforts. Personally, I'd want as many of my neighbors armed as possible at that point.
On the origin story, I agree. I think that's the hard part though, and that's why you don't really see it. Instead, you see one person getting infecting, biting a couple more and then the city in flames. The middle part is the hard part to write and direct. And when you do see the middle part, it's usually a cliche anti-military thing.
True story 1.
Had a black friend who was an engineer who had worked against crime in the black community. Her thoughts on gun control was that all guns should be banned and she shared those thoughts quite often.
One day she came to work and mentioned that she wanted a gun because of some episode she had been involved with. She was worried because of the waiting period that she wouldn't be able to defend herself. She mentioned that she had gotten one immediately by simply buying it from the local drug dealer. I didn't mention how this undermined her entire argument against guns, it would have been like shooting puppies in a barrel. Also she was larger than I was.
True story 2.
An artist friend who wanted all guns banned. He was also the manager of a seedy apartment building. One day one of the tenants, who was giving him trouble and was a former professional prize fighter mentioned that he was going to beat the *(*** out of my friend. He went to the police who were no help at all.
Subsequently, my friend asked for advise on what to buy for a gun and sweated out the next two weeks until he could pick it up.
K, It's amazing how quickly liberals give up their liberalism when reality comes knocking personally. Those are two classic examples, "guns should be banned, unless I need one." I've seen liberals go through this as well.
They also do the same with issues like taxes, environmental laws, affirmative action, etc. -- the other guy should have no rights, but they should.
Although it should be pointed out, they often then change their argument to "people who don't really need it, like they do, shouldn't be allowed to have them."
Andrew,
I misspoke. The M16 NATO round is available for purchase and can be fired in a AR-15, however not all AR-15s are created equal. I have fired one rifle that claimed to be an AR-15, but really was a 22 that used rim fire bullets. Also, there is only one manufacturer that can claim to be an AR-15; Colt. Remington does manufacture one, but it is dangerous to use the NATO round and can cause a jam because of over-pressure. All AR-15s are single shot weapons, they have no automatic settings.
Mace and pepper spray are considered tear gas. Most states actually allow ownership of tear gas grenades. California is one of them. It usually isn't bought at the local gun shop.
The M16 NATO rounds and tear gas grenades can be bought through the internet.
So, I was partially wrong. Sorry.
Joel, I had no idea you could buy tear gas. I can't think of a use for it though? Maybe to keep the neighbor's kids away?
I thought all AR-15s (military version) were automatic with single shot and three round burst capability? But I am not an expert so I could be wrong on that.
Whew, the black SUV guy let me off with a warning if I promised to stop printing pocket Constitutions on the Gutenberg press in my basement.
Jen, I have to tell you, you are wrong. Guns don't kill people, Abrams tanks do. By squashing them.
Bev, If I'm understanding you correctly, I could save a lot of money and effort on my kitten-based defense system if I just use the heads. Good tip!
Andrew, I'm pretty sure I'd end up on the wrong side of any revolution. Living in the blue spot of a red state has taught me that. Both sides figure you're either with them or against them, and I think both sides are bat-$#!+ crazy.
I do draw a line at nukes. Actually, well before nukes. But there's a certain impracticality to owning a tank that makes me not worry so much if a private citizen were to do so.
T-Rav, I really don't worry about zombies so much as I do about our eventual robot overlords.
tryanmax, I'm not worried about the zombies either, especially if they are slow. I'm not worried about the robots either... the blue screen of death will save us within a week. I am worried about the hampocalypse.
My copious SPAM consumption really puts me on the wrong side of that one.
Yeah, that's a bad thing. Sorry. Maybe you should buy a tank?
A Hambrams, perhaps?
Ok, I admit I laughed at that. LOL!
Tyranmax, do the tanks drive themselves? It's like hearing the stories of a runaway SUV hitting someone, then driving away...all on its own.
Jen, We had a guy who stole one from Fort Carson here and took it up I-25 a few years back. The only way they finally stopped him was that he ran out of gas. Nothing the police had could stop him. He did a lot of damage to cars, but fortunately no one was hurt.
Jen, exactly! Remember what I said about our eventual robot overlords. Now we just have to wait for Windows to crash.
tryanmax, Don't worry. They'll crash. The blue screen of death is nature's defense mechanism against machinery.
This is (inaudible), and if you can (garbled) you (garbled) the Resistance. Skynet (inaudible) (unclear) against the machines.
LOL! And whenever Christian Bale comes up, we would be remiss to not mention this little gem: NSFW Link.
The UK Telegraph reports that the Aurora shooter was addicted to vicodin and high on it when he committed the rampage. LINK
I heard about this on an evening radio show, which I wouldn't mention except that the host is driving me nuts. Now, I don't disagree with the point he is making, that drugs destroy the mind and cause paranoia, which is a much more relevant factor leading to the shooting than the type of gun used.
However, the man is completely overstating his case, which annoys me to no end. For one, the man seems to have known more drug addicts in his life than regular people based on the number of anecdotes he has at the ready. Second, despite the fact that the shooter was high on vicodin, he insists on blaming marijuana. (??? I'm not defending marijuana, I just don't get it.) Finally, he's accusing anyone who calls in to disagree of being a pot-head and disconnecting them. Way to defend a stance, dude. :-\
tryanmax, I'd heard that earlier and I'm not sure I buy it that a vicodin addiction would drive anyone nuts. I don't think it's a drug with that kind of property. I could be wrong, but the people I've known with vicodin addictions have generally just been the type to beg for money to get more pills. They never lost touch with reality or became paranoid or violent.
I also don't see pot as causing anything similar. I'm no fan of pot, but generally it just makes you stupid and lethargic.
As for the radio host, he sounds like a lot of talk radio guys who play the "I'm right and everyone else is a liar" game. That's why I've stopped listening to so many of them.
I don't know what vicodin does, either. Like I said, I agree with the broader point that drugs rot the brain, but I don't know what drugs do what. Apparently this guy doesn't either, as he in all seriousness proclaimed Vicodin, hydrocodone, and oxycodone to all be the very same thing. His rhetoric comes straight from an early c.20 prohibitionist playbook, so I think you can guess what his aim is.
I should restate, overuse of drugs rot the brain.
BTW, I think the worst that can come of pot itself is about on par with alcohol. I've known some guys that were pretty heavy into it--I don't think "addicted" is the right word--and while they were mellow when they were high, they could be pretty grouchy and (this is a guess) potentially abusive when they were down. Of course, all the usual stuff: couldn't hold a job, couldn't maintain a relationship, eventually they just seem to disappear.
I've known my share of alcoholics, too, and I would say "addicted" is absolutely the right word. Just to say that there is some kind of difference. But I'm no neurobiologist or whatever.
Like I said, I'm not an expert on vicodin addiction, but I think it's one of those drugs which just works you over with the standard withdrawal problems when you get addicted, i.e. it doesn't cause mental problems or make you lose touch with reality. I'm not sure, but that's been what I've seen personally.
My guess is that they are grasping for explanations to avoid the obvious -- this guy is just a sick human being. They always do this. They always look for some reason why someone does something crazy because for some reason people can't accept the fact that some people are just rotten or just messed up.
My guess is that this guy was just an f-ed up human being who has been this way his whole life. Any drugs he took or anything he did like watch violent films or join a cult or who knows what was him just looking to feed the monster already inside him. None of this created the monster.
On pot v. alcohol, I have always understood that alcohol is actually worse because it can trigger violence, whereas pot supposedly just winds you down. But again, I'm not expert. And the people I've met who smoke pot are pretty much just worthless, they aren't violent. But I've met some really bad alcoholics.
And yes, when you hit that point, alcohol becomes an addiction with all the same symptoms as any other addiction. Essentially, it reworks your body to become a need.
Another factor that is commonly overlooked is the sort of person with the propensity toward drug and alcohol abuse. In most cases, you could probably take the substances away and still be left with a pretty messed-up person. And I'm not talking about withdrawal or other after-effects.
I look to myself as an example. For reasons completely unrelated to drugs or homicide, I went through a lot of counseling as a teen. While he didn't make much of it, my counselor did advise me that I have a clinical definition of an addictive personality. I can see it come out in the little obsessions I develop with various pop-culture items and whatnot, but I'm not a habitual drinker or gambler or anything destructive like that. And it isn't because I abstain, either. I chalk it completely up to the fact that I have the desire to be a decent person. And like Captain Kirk famously pointed out, it is a daily decision. (Not that I wake each morning with a desire to kill, mind.)
There's definitely something to that. Some addiction is simply bad luck, but I would guess that most of it is related to personality traits which lead a person to take the wrong steps which get them hooked in the first place. And those same personality traits probably lead people into very destructive behaviors. Translation: yeah, some people are messed up long before they become addicted and they would remains messed up whether or not they are addicted.
That Kirk quote is fantastic! It's my all time favorite statement about human beings. :)
Great post, Andrew and thanks for the statistics!
The term "assault weapon or rifle" is only used by the left and anti-second ammendment types to scare people, as if these weapons are more inherently dangerous than others.
Any functional gun can be used by a deranged or evil (or both) dirtbag to assault people.
In fact, full automatics are far less accurate than semi-auto's, revolvers, lever actions, bolt actions and pump action guns.
All types of guns can be lethal if the user knows how to use them.
But those who use the term assault weapons in the context of furthering their agenda of banning guns want their listeners to picture a .50 cal machine gun or something similar you might see in a film.
It makes me angrier to hear some conservatives repeat the misnomer, assault weapon, and call for banning them.
I will say that higher caliber weapons can be used, generally speaking, to inflict more casualties than an AK-47 or M16 if used by a well trained gunman (or someone who can get close enough to make up for their lack of training and accuracy).
Also, ammo like hollow points, magnums, and high powered ammo can be more lethal.
However, none of these should ever be banned.
I only mention it because if push came to shove I would rather get shot by an AK-47 than a 12 gauge shotgun, 30-30 Winchester or a .357 magnum.
I also mention this to show how little those on the left know about weapons or ammo.
In effect, any gun or knife or barstool can become an "assault weapon." We should call anyone who uses this misnomer on it, at every opportunity.
Remember, the goal of the smart anti-second ammendmentals is to first ban "assault weapons" and then go after large caliber, high powered weapons next, and finally, all guns, knives, and whatever they can dream up.
Your car? That's an assault weapon. I just read that a truck crash in Texas killed 13 people.
We must ban cars now! For the children!
This is how ridiculous the anti-gun crowd's argument really is.
They think all the bannings they wanna do will give them 100% security.
Nope. Never happen. So might as well let folks do everything they can to defend and protect themselves.
Unfortunately, the left prefers hellholes like Chicago so excuse me lefties if I don't buy all of your faux concern for our safety.
"My guess is that they are grasping for explanations to avoid the obvious -- this guy is just a sick human being. They always do this. They always look for some reason why someone does something crazy because for some reason people can't accept the fact that some people are just rotten or just messed up."
Precisely! The only way to "understand" evil (or insane) is to become evil or insane.
Personally, I don't wanna understand the why's and motivations of murderers to that extent.
Only insecure sheeple seem to have that need to have simple, clear and solvable knowledge of evil.
So they can put a stop to it.
They can't seem to wrap their minds around the fact that evil exists, some people become evil, and those people wanna murder, torture, or any violent crime because it makes them feel powerful and godlike.
Lefties wanna fix people like that. I wanna put them down like the rabid animals they are (no offense to rabid animals) or lock them up and throw away the key, at least.
Sadly, lots of preventable rapes, assaults and murders have occured because of the desire in some fools to rehabilitate or fix these evil or deranged monsters.
Also, notice how a lot of these reporters seem more concerned about the why the murder murdered and what "made" him that way than they are about the real victims?
And they wonder why more folks than ever have only disgust and disdain for their profession.
I sit corrected about T-Rav's security system.
Thank you, Bev, for the idea bout smartphone kitten overload! And for the black helicopter update...
tryanmax, the heads do not stay cute without the rest of the bodies attached, generally.
as for the bad guy, I think figuring out "what made him" is a valid study - AFTER throwing a very large, very heavy book at him... Then study away and figure out how to recognize bad guys before they kill and how to catch them after they kill...
Ben, I think they use the term "assault weapon" to try to give people an image of a SWAT team. Rather than a whacko shooting randomly and with bad aim, they want that word to imply that whoever uses the weapon uses it with high precision and military efficiency. The idea to paint a picture that is much more lethal than it really was.
And I agree with you, any weapon can be an "assault weapon" when it is used correctly.
Ben, I absolutely think this is about trying to find some reason why this guy did this other than the obvious -- it's who he is. I think a lot of people (especially liberals) draw comfort from the idea that evil is the result of some external factor which can be eliminated. But that's not true. Evil comes from within and it can't be stomped out forever.
Post a Comment