ALL BLOG POSTS AND COMMENTS COPYRIGHT (C) 2003-2014 VOX DAY. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. REPRODUCTION WITHOUT WRITTEN PERMISSION IS EXPRESSLY PROHIBITED.

Thursday, December 20, 2012

Preach it, brother Karl

Karl thunders from the metaphorical pulpit about the shameless hypocrisy of the anti-gun elite:
If you believe that you have a right to life because your creator endowed you with that right, and that this right is unalienable and thus cannot be taken from you (although it can certainly be disrespected!) then it follows that you have not only the right but the responsibility to defend your life.  That is, you have the right and the responsibility to deter to the best of your ability any other person who would take your life from you.

You may choose to delegate this responsibility to others, as Mayor Bloomberg and President Obama have, but your right to life is not inferior to theirs.  It is equal.  President Obama has no more right to live than you do.  You are his equal from the standpoint of what your creator, and his creator, endowed both of you with. So we have established that you have the right to live, as does the President.  And if the President has the right to defend his life with deadly force, and indeed the responsibility to do so, then, should it be necessary, so do you.

This debate should end right there.  Up until all of these people in political office disband their police forces, their Secret Service details, throw down their own arms, armored cars, body armor and other defensive means of interdicting assault they have nothing -- not even a moral argument -- behind them in their demand that you disarm and become an intentional victim -- no matter who you are.
That is true.  That is truth.  As I said in my column last week, if you do not stand up for the right of the American to keep and bear arms, you are not an American.  You are not an adult.  If it weren't for the genetics involved, you cannot even be considered Homo sapiens sapiens, because you are admittedly and consciously rejecting your God-given and unalienable rights as a human being.

Labels:

223 Comments:

1 – 200 of 223 Newer› Newest»
Anonymous jack December 20, 2012 9:09 AM  

Brother Karl often shines. This is one of the best arguments I've ever heard for the right to bear arms. I believe that every citizen, of sound mind and no criminal record, should have the right to a federal firearms permit [as I understand that term... to bear open carry or other] just about everywhere at anytime.

You can bet the farm those of the ruling class and monied enough to live in closed enclaves with gate guards WILL Never give up their guards.

Anonymous DonReynolds December 20, 2012 9:11 AM  

I own (undisclosed) firearm(s) and will use them to defend my person and my family against any and all who would do harm OR TRY TO TAKE AWAY MY ABILITY TO DEFEND MYSELF. It is not something we need to negotiate or compromise. To get my weapons, you will have to achieve me and sell my joints, which will yeild you little. I care not what others choose to do or what they agree to give up or what draconian measures they intend to compel my cooperation. They can have my guns when they pull it from my cold dead fingers.

Anonymous Mike43 December 20, 2012 9:16 AM  

When Valerie Jarret, presidential adviser, has more protection than the Ambassador to Libya, you have no place speaking and demanding any type of gun control.

Anonymous DonReynolds December 20, 2012 9:18 AM  

As God lets me breathe, I will never surrender my weapons, regardless of what law a foolish and faithless majority care to adopt. This is my country, even if I am the last person who thinks so.

Anonymous Susan December 20, 2012 9:25 AM  

The same people who are screaming for new target rich environments via gun control have absolutely no problems with the reality that they have offered multi-millions of unborn babies to moloch.

They don't value life anymore. That is why they don't like it or understand it when folks like the ilk here want to protect it. Life has no value or interest to them unless they can control it for the rest of us.

Jack is right. The elites will never ever give up their right of self protection.Thanks for posting this. Hard to find commonsense writing right now.

Anonymous Tad December 20, 2012 9:32 AM  

This has to be the stupidest argument against societal control of deadly arms I've ever seen. it assumes the debate is over banning all weapons or not. That of course is not the debate.

The debate is whether certain extraordinarily powerful killing implements ought to be easily accessible. I presume that the sane among us would not object to banning the personal possession of nuclear arms. That being the case, the question is merely where to draw the line, not if a line should be drawn.

Karl is an idiot.

Anonymous Noah B. December 20, 2012 9:33 AM  

People who have been rushing out to buy semi-automatic rifles aren't buying them so they can turn around and register/surrender them.

Meanwhile, some of those across the pond who pretend to be outraged by the deaths of 20 children in Connecticut make light of their own policy of systematic infanticide. Just as a reminder of who we're dealing with...

Anonymous Josh December 20, 2012 9:36 AM  

Excellent

Anonymous Noah B. December 20, 2012 9:38 AM  

"This has to be the stupidest argument against societal control of deadly arms I've ever seen. it assumes the debate is over banning all weapons or not. That of course is not the debate."

You're a pathetic liar, Tad. The proposals being floated are intended to be incremental first steps. This is embedded in your own rhetoric -- "deadly weapons." This applies equally to revolvers, pump shotguns, and bolt action rifles. And the fact that they're deadly is precisely the point where self-defense is concerned.

Anonymous Josh December 20, 2012 9:39 AM  

The debate is whether certain extraordinarily powerful killing implements ought to be easily accessible.

Did you not read the linked piece? The AR 15 is underpowered compared to most hunting rifles, and is illegal in some states for deer hunting because it's not guaranteed to kill the animal humanely.

And the "Extraordinarily powerful killing machines" that are machine guns are regulated to the point of a defacto ban.

Blogger LP 999/Eliza December 20, 2012 9:43 AM  

Yep, along with personal responsibility should also be the self motivation to pay or provide for yourself/care for your family (preserving your wealth). Part of caring means self defense...

The lack of personal responsibility is unlivable.

Anonymous Josh December 20, 2012 9:43 AM  

I presume that the sane among us would not object to banning the personal possession of nuclear arms.

I would object. The constitution does not specify which arms can be infringed. Thus, it is my constitutional right to keep and bear arms, whether those be handguns, rifles, machine guns, rpgs, flame throwers, drones, tanks, or a freaking nuke.

Blogger Kyle In Japan December 20, 2012 9:43 AM  

This is a good argument, on a constitutional/civil basis. I'm not against people owning guns, and I broadly agree with the general sentiment of the article. But as a Christian, I can't agree with the underlying assumption. I don't have a "right" to my life. It's a gift from God, and he can take it (or allow it to be taken) whenever he pleases.

Where in the Bible does it say that God has given anyone the "right" to life? Perhaps more creative scriptural exegetes will find a way to explain this, but it seems like this is an American/enlightenment ideal, not a Biblical one.

Anonymous Josh December 20, 2012 9:44 AM  

Tad, why do you want more women to be raped and more schoolchildren to be murdered?

Anonymous DaveD December 20, 2012 9:44 AM  

Tad, you're hyperventilating again. "Extraordinarily powerful killing implements"? You do realize that a man with a sword could have killed as many 1st graders locked in a room with him just as easily? They're small & can't really fight back well. Do we ban swords as "extraordinarily powerful killing implements"?

DD

Anonymous Tad December 20, 2012 9:45 AM  

@Noah
You're a pathetic liar, Tad. The proposals being floated are intended to be incremental first steps. This is embedded in your own rhetoric -- "deadly weapons." This applies equally to revolvers, pump shotguns, and bolt action rifles. And the fact that they're deadly is precisely the point where self-defense is concerned.

Your imagination is running away with you. It's no incremental step. And you know this. No one is talking about banning all arms. Put our tin hat back on the hat rack.

Anonymous Josh December 20, 2012 9:45 AM  

Only flaming swords, Dave D

Anonymous Josh December 20, 2012 9:47 AM  

. I don't have a "right" to my life. It's a gift from God, and he can take it (or allow it to be taken) whenever he pleases.

God can, others cannot. Note that mass shooters are not God.

Anonymous Noah B. December 20, 2012 9:50 AM  

"I presume that the sane among us would not object to banning the personal possession of nuclear arms. That being the case, the question is merely where to draw the line, not if a line should be drawn."

In other words, after the line has been drawn to ban semi-automatics, it can always be re-drawn at a later date to ban other pistols, shotguns, and rifles, once it's clear that the last measure of gun control did not work as intended.

Anonymous Buckeyecopperhead December 20, 2012 9:50 AM  

Tad, don't worry. If someday I happen upon you being gang-raped by a group of baggy-pantsed Africans, I won't use my awful, awful firearms to end your sodomy party. Instead, I will call 911 and let law enforcement come save you.

Anonymous Noah B. December 20, 2012 9:51 AM  

"No one is talking about banning all arms."

You are. You've stated that you want to ban deadly weapons, which includes all guns.

Anonymous Stilicho December 20, 2012 9:54 AM  

Happiness is a belt-fed weapon.

Anonymous MPC December 20, 2012 9:57 AM  

Buckeyecopperhead, he'd probably be more upset with you for stopping the gang-rape than anything, if ya know what I mean. Besides, Tad doesn't need a gun. No doubt he's used to dropping his pants and bending over at the first sign of trouble.

Anonymous DrTorch December 20, 2012 9:58 AM  

This was brilliant.

Kudos to Karl.

Anonymous The Stranger December 20, 2012 9:58 AM  

The right to life can be extrapolated from the injuncture against murder, in addition to God's occasionally promising his own vengeance upon any who shed human blood.

Taking the commandments as a set, humans are endowed by their creator with a right to life (do not murder), property (do not steal), just jugement (do not bear false witness) and fidelity (do not commit adultery).

The rest are either not humanly enforceable (e.g. Do not envy) or else specifically religious (do not commit idolatry). Which doesn't mean they won't come into play on an ultimate scale; only that they don't make for good civil law for an avowedly secular state.

As for gun control on a constitutional basis, I sincerely doubt a group of rebels who had just overthrown a government meant for a right to bear arms to be limited to arms useful for self-defense and not for overthrowing governments. This has nothing to do with my desire for an F14.

Blogger njartist December 20, 2012 9:58 AM  

"Where in the Bible does it say that God has given anyone the "right" to life? Perhaps more creative scriptural exegetes will find a way to explain this, but it seems like this is an American/enlightenment ideal, not a Biblical one."
(Exo 20:13 LITV) "You shall not murder."

This is sufficient and all that is necessary to to justify the right to life and its defense.

Anonymous DT December 20, 2012 10:04 AM  

The debate is whether certain extraordinarily powerful killing implements ought to be easily accessible.

It is absolutely pointless to discuss whether or not they should be easily accessible before discussing whether or not government has any control over their accessibility. The history of prohibition of various items, especially in the United States, proves that there is nothing the government can do to significantly alter accessibility to firearms. The government can't stop grown adults from crossing the border at will, or alter the street price of narcotics enough to put them out of reach of jobless high school kids. What the hell makes you or anyone else on Earth believe they can "control deadly firearms"? They cannot. Their best efforts will hardly even affect the street price.

Therefore we should not consider any proposal...any proposal at all...which attempts to control "extraordinarily powerful killing implements". Such laws only drain the treasury to entrap and torment law abiding citizens while having no real impact on criminals. We have enough worthless, failed laws and wars on the books as is. We don't need any more.

Anonymous Susan December 20, 2012 10:06 AM  

Ya know, watching you guys playing volleyball with the Tadster, my cats aren't as hard on their toys, both live and pretend, as you guys are on the Tadster.

Keep it up!!(drinking coffee)

Blogger John Cunningham December 20, 2012 10:06 AM  

Tad is an idiot. the ludicrous lies put out by the banners that they only want to ban the "deadliest weapons" can only lead to total ban and confiscation. with 10-round magazines, I could maintain sustained fire only marginally slower than I could with 30-round mags. similarly, two or three .357 pistols would have wreaked equal mayhem in a classroom.
Tad is a typically Leftist Loon, ever ready to goose-step to the commands of Comrade Urkel.

Anonymous The other skeptic December 20, 2012 10:11 AM  

So, have I got this correct? The sum total of Obama's action on guns is to talk about banning private sales of used guns?

Anonymous DT December 20, 2012 10:16 AM  

Tad is an idiot. the ludicrous lies put out by the banners that they only want to ban the "deadliest weapons" can only lead to total ban and confiscation. with 10-round magazines, I could maintain sustained fire only marginally slower than I could with 30-round mags. similarly, two or three .357 pistols would have wreaked equal mayhem in a classroom.

And that's just considering guns. Imagine what one could do with some improvised explosives. Even just gasoline.

Liberals are too stupid to realize how many ways the criminally insane can commit murder, or to realize that the government cannot hope to control the materials involved in any of the scenarios.

Want to stop school massacres? Arm the adults in the schools. It's as simple as that.

Anonymous DT December 20, 2012 10:17 AM  

So, have I got this correct? The sum total of Obama's action on guns is to talk about banning private sales of used guns?

The sum total of Obama's action on anything is to talk about a plan that wouldn't solve the problem even if it was implemented. He's an idiot.

Anonymous jay c December 20, 2012 10:17 AM  

Your imagination is running away with you. It's no incremental step. And you know this. No one is talking about banning all arms. Put our tin hat back on the hat rack.

Skreeech! Full stop. Possible interpretations:
1) Tad is delusional in the extreme.
2) Tad is a liar in the extreme.

Anonymous Mr Green Man December 20, 2012 10:18 AM  

It's always amazing how the notion of leading by example does not exist in American politics, and definitely not in the minds of American lefties.

What was it that ol' Meth Mouth talked about while living off her boyfriend's AC during her Texas Retreat? She believed in global warming, thought things like air conditioning should be banned, but wasn't going to give up hers until big daddy government took it away from all those evil people who vote Republican.

How about Mr. Obama buy a regular Cadillac XTS, or, even better, the ELR when it comes out, and retire The Beast, too?

Anonymous Mr Green Man December 20, 2012 10:21 AM  

You know, that collapsing stock and military-looking plastic cladding on the Bushmaster really does make it a world-shaking killing machine. Time for a nice, safe hunting rifle like a Mini 14 with a wood stock.

Anonymous Roundtine December 20, 2012 10:25 AM  

The debate is whether certain extraordinarily powerful killing implements ought to be easily accessible.

This is the stupidity of the gun control argument. All of these weapons are already banned or severely restricted. You need a federal license to own "extraordinarily powerful killing implements.“ That you think these weapons are available shows you are completely ignorant about these weapons, as are almost all people discussing more gun control (including Senators and the President).

The left talks about science, but the obviously failed physics class.

Anonymous Regent December 20, 2012 10:25 AM  

Kyle: "But as a Christian, I can't agree with the underlying assumption. I don't have a "right" to my life. It's a gift from God, and he can take it (or allow it to be taken) whenever he pleases."

That is why you must watch your wife and children be raped, murdered, beaten... because nowhere, does G-d say that they have a right to life. After all, it is G-d who decides that your wife and children are raped, murdered, or beaten. Or not.

Occupy.

to engage the attention or energies of

to take up

to take or fill

to take or hold possession or control of

to fill or perform the functions of

to reside in as an owner or tenant

And how does one do this without the right to life?

Anonymous Shutup, Tad December 20, 2012 10:34 AM  

Shutup, Tad.

Anonymous stg58/Animal Mother December 20, 2012 10:34 AM  

If Piers Morgan is so outraged about little children being slaughtered, maybe he would like to talk to us about the NHS' Liverpool Care Pathway? I wish Larry had mentioned that in the interview. My only desire that was not fulfilled by that glorious segment of CNN programming.

Anonymous stg58/Animal Mother December 20, 2012 10:35 AM  

If Piers Morgan is so outraged about little children being slaughtered, maybe he would like to talk to us about the NHS' Liverpool Care Pathway? I wish Larry had mentioned that in the interview. My only desire that was not fulfilled by that glorious segment of CNN programming.

Anonymous RINO December 20, 2012 10:38 AM  

Has anyone directly asked Obama yet how he can simultaneously support gun control while exporting hundreds of weapons to Mexican drug lords?

Anonymous Noah B. December 20, 2012 10:47 AM  

He's actually being consistent, RINO. The weapons exported to the cartels were intended to ramp up the mayhem south of the border, supporting the case for gun control. That's why the ATF "investigation" never included any serious attempt to track the guns once they crossed the border. They're conducting insurgency against Constitutional government.

Anonymous JW December 20, 2012 10:50 AM  

According to the UN and Agenda 21, which papa Bush signed us up for, there is no 'right' to self defense, so we don't need weapons of any kind. Just stand there quietly and die. The government will eventually find and punish those wrong-doers.

Anonymous jay c December 20, 2012 10:51 AM  

Where in the Bible does it say that God has given anyone the "right" to life? Perhaps more creative scriptural exegetes will find a way to explain this, but it seems like this is an American/enlightenment ideal, not a Biblical one. -Kyle in Japan

"I call heaven and earth to witness against you this day, that I have set before thee life and death, the blessing and the curse: therefore choose life, that thou mayest live, thou and thy seed." (Deu 30:19) The context is obedience to God's Law vs disobedience, but if we are to choose life over death then it follows that we should choose life over death whenever it is both possible and moral to do so. It has been taught for millennia that this passage shows that one may violate lesser statutes of God's Law in order to preserve life. E.g. eating unclean animals to avoid starving to death.

"If the thief be found breaking in, and be smitten so that he dieth, there shall be no bloodguiltiness for him." (Exo 22:2) This shows that, at the very least, God is ok with killing in self defense.

Blogger Catherine Moore-Barry December 20, 2012 10:58 AM  

I find the subject of gun bans to be typical of the liberal leftist elites. I see the root cause of so much violence occuring in our society being the "entitlement society" that has been in play for decades. Parents have been given permission not to parent, but rather let the government take care of the kiddies. Most young people these days are more interested in what government "gives" than in understanding what their role and contribution to society is supposed to be.

Personally, I think we'd do better to outlaw stupidity than to ban weapons. You never will keep weapons out of the hands of those who intend to do harm. Just look at Chicago... banning guns hasn't worked that well for them. And the recent school shooting in CT... the shooter's mother chose to bond with her mentally ill son by taking him to the shooting range??? Really??? We have created a lot of this since LBJ launched the Great Society. We drug kids that don't fit the social criteria of the elites and then expect them to not erupt? I think Karl's argument Rocks!

Anonymous zen0 December 20, 2012 11:03 AM  

Something I didn't know (and haven't had time to check)

Despite its much stricter gun control, Europe has been the scene of more mass school killings than the United States. -- Spengler, at Asia Times


Anonymous fred December 20, 2012 11:07 AM  

FWIW the chicoms agree with tad. They have demanded that USG disarm all citizens. Just image the utopia. Why, we could then have our own Tiananmen. Perhaps tad would like to sputter about how more kids could have been killed last week in a China primary school than what occurred here when they have no access to guns. Or perhaps he doesn't.

Blogger Baloo December 20, 2012 11:08 AM  

An excellent argument, indeed. Linked to and commented on here:
http://ex-army.blogspot.com/2012/12/your-right-to-stay-alive.html

Anonymous Dictator America! December 20, 2012 11:14 AM  

But governments were instituted among men to protect us!

Anonymous Anonymous December 20, 2012 11:16 AM  

http://market-ticker.org/akcs-www?post=215107

great read

Anonymous Azimus December 20, 2012 11:23 AM  

December 20, 2012 9:32 AM This has to be the stupidest argument against societal control of deadly arms I've ever seen....[t]he debate is whether certain extraordinarily powerful killing implements ought to be easily accessible.

You have missed the point entirely, Tad. What sort of weapons do you suppose protect Valerie Jarrett, et al? Do you think they use hunting rifles?

Blogger hadley December 20, 2012 11:32 AM  

Tad: "the question is merely where to draw the line, not if a line should be drawn."

Oh, absolutely, Tad. I don't want nukes, I just want the machine guns that the presidents protectors use to protect him. Or Shelia Jackson Lee's personal bodyguards carry. Or the freaking courthouse guards carry to protect all those liberal judges. That's all.

I am glad we have that little misunderstanding cleared up. Furthermore, rather than ban guns (which will never work), what we need is gun education in our schools. You know, like the mandatory sex education we already are required to take. How many ghetto rats die of herpes compared to the number that die of bullets, Tad? You are a liberal, right? Nothing is better than "education", right? Mandatory gun education classes for everyone, like they do in wonderful, Jewish Israel and wonderful, peaceful, European Switzerland. Won't that be wonderful, Tad? And none of that nasty old gun "abstinence" education, right? Teaching abstinence when you know kids will not be abstinent is just frigid, oppressive, paranoid acting out, isn't it, Tad?

Anonymous Azimus December 20, 2012 11:36 AM  

Kyle In Japan December 20, 2012 9:43 AM
Where in the Bible does it say that God has given anyone the "right" to life? Perhaps more creative scriptural exegetes will find a way to explain this, but it seems like this is an American/enlightenment ideal, not a Biblical one.


You're right it is not explicitly found (at least from my memory).

However does the Bible say explicitly life is a gift from God, as you say?

The Right to Life, as Jefferson put it in the Declaration, is an inferential conclusion. Inferential conclusions are not automatically bogus conclusions.


Anonymous Stilicho December 20, 2012 11:37 AM  

When discussing the left's argument that banning guns will save lives, keep in mind that the context they are coming from is one of a worldwide police state where no one but lefty statists and their minions have access to firearms. So, in the mind of the typical leftist, gun bans work quite effectively when carried to the intended finish line.

At the end of the day, leftists want gun control so that no one will be able to effectively resist the state. They want an eternal monopoly on the use of force.

Anonymous Van December 20, 2012 11:44 AM  

Most leftists I've known will mock the "paranoid" notion that they wish to outlaw private gun ownership immediately before they admit that they would like to remove all guns from society. Even for those who truly wish to outlaw only "assault weapons," if that happens, the goal posts are moved, and we move on to the next issue. Semi-autos, then hollow points, then higher calibers, etc.

Liberals never stop, and they rarely tell the truth.

Anonymous Kickass December 20, 2012 11:44 AM  

Tad shut up.

Thanks for posting this Vox, this was well done.

Funny, after Sandy the "rhetoric" running around here isn't taking as fast as normal. It was not so long ago that Guns were the only thing keeping the Golden Horde from rampaging on many here.

We shall see.

Anonymous Kickass December 20, 2012 11:46 AM  

@ Regent, agreed.

God didn't make protectors and providers of families so that they could hand over the family to evil. What a horrible thing to teach your child. "Sorry kid, if someone wants to do something to you, well, I love the Lord so I am just gonna get out of the way and pray for you. If I resist, that is evil."

Never send an Angel to do a Man's job.

Anonymous DonReynolds December 20, 2012 11:50 AM  

I am so sorry to tell you, that there are no guns that are not deadly, regardless of calibre. Any firearm is a deadly weapon, unless you include paintball or pellet/bb. There is no arbitrary line that can be drawn to separate the "most deadly" from the "least deadly". They are all potentially lethal.

In fact, the least regulated firearms are shotguns, which are by far the most powerful, pose the greatest threat to multiple individuals, and easiest to operate of all the firearms. Heck, one need not be a proficient shooter to do well with a shotgun. (I normally recommend shotgun to women wanting a home defense weapon.) No one has suggested that shotguns are a problem.....even though the Aurora Colorado theater shooting was mostly shotgun.

Blogger James Dixon December 20, 2012 11:50 AM  

> That of course is not the debate.

Of course it is, Tad. We know it is. You know it is. Everyone knows it is. Your pretensions otherwise fool no one.

It's a never ending process that won't stop until the right to self defense is completely destroyed. First, it was sub-machine guns. Then any automatic weapon. Then "assault" weapons (never mind that an assault weapon has always been defined as a fully automatic weapon). As Vox said, we know the drill.

> The debate is whether certain extraordinarily powerful killing implements ought to be easily accessible.

There is no reasonable debate on the matter. The answer is yes.

> I presume that the sane among us would not object to banning the personal possession of nuclear arms.

The sane among us realize that such a ban would be both pointless and futile. Do you really think Bill Gates or Warren Buffet couldn't get a nuke if they wanted one?

> ...the question is merely where to draw the line, not if a line should be drawn.

The line was cleanly drawn over 200 years ago. You might want to try reading the relevant section some time.

> Your imagination is running away with you. It's no incremental step. And you know this.

The only thing we know is that you're lying about the intent of those proposing these laws. Whether knowingly or not, well, I'll be gracious and not assume.

Blogger Log December 20, 2012 12:08 PM  

Poor Vox. He believes that his ways are God's ways after all, and such arrogance is indeed an insuperable barrier to repentance and coming to know Christ.

"Put away your sword, Peter." - Christ

Anonymous Edjamacator December 20, 2012 12:09 PM  

No one is talking about banning all arms.

Tad, you are quite gullible. I hear leftists screaming about taking all guns away all the time. They are scared of those who are armed, whether law-abiding, peaceful citizens who mean no harm to anybody or not. Guns are scary to them, so must be eliminated.

The local "gun drive" here wasn't just for what you want to label SOOPER-KILLIFYING guns, but for every gun people wanted to turn in. No questions asked, meaning criminals could get rid of guns used in crimes, steal guns and turn them in, or whatever. The cops don't care if they are handguns or not. Turn 'em all in and hopefully reduce the populace's gun total.

But, on a personal note, how are you coming along with that sign for your front yard? You know, the one that says "There are no guns in this house because I believe in gun control." Get any nightly visitors yet?

Anonymous patrick kelly December 20, 2012 12:12 PM  

T: "The debate is whether certain extraordinarily powerful killing implements ought to be easily accessible."

You are an ignorant twit. There is nothing extraordinarily powerful about firearms, and they aren't easily accessible.

Connecticut has some of the strictest gun laws in the country. He tried to purchase one, and they turned him away. This young demon didn't buy his guns, he killed someone and stole them to gain his "easy" access. (Easy: I don't think that word means what you think it means). His actions have nothing to do with my legal and lawful acquisition and use of any firearms.

For the last 30 years of my adult life I have lawfully and legally acquired and used many firearms. I have been painfully careful at times to make sure I am in compliance with all Federal, State, and local laws, filling out all the required forms, waiting the required times, attended classes or training and paying required fees if any.

I have often lawfully used these firearms and accessories, including many of the ones now being included in discussions of banning and outlawing, for competition shooting, hunting, or casual plinking. In all this times, my use of firearms have injured, killed, or endangered exactly as many people as the use of my knives or power tools, zero, nada nilch. (come to think of it there have been some touchy situations with the power tools, fortunately no one was hurt).

So now hoplophobic morons are calling to set loose the jack booted thugs to save the from the evil boogey-men with guns by making me a criminal should I choose to continue to do what has been legal and lawful for me to do so for the last 30 years because some evil, disturbed, lunatic committed mas murder with the same type of firearm I have legally and lawfully owned and used for years !?!?!?!?

Let me spell it out. I currently legally possess many of these firearms and accessories. If they are banned, then yes, someone is coming for my guns. And yes, I am hearing the professional fear pandering pussies calling for such bans and confiscation. Anyone who supports that is an enemy of my personal freedom and liberty.

May anyone who wants to further infringe upon and diminish my personal freedom, liberty, and pursuit of happiness eat s**t and die a horrible death at the hands multiple armed assailants while they wait for the police to show up, may their last thought as they fade off into oblivion be "damn I wish I had one of those evil scary looking guns (banned assault weapon)".

Blogger Nate December 20, 2012 12:19 PM  

its good to see that everything Karl says isn't stupid.

Blogger Nate December 20, 2012 12:20 PM  

"Tad: "the question is merely where to draw the line, not if a line should be drawn."

No.

The question absolutely is "should there be a line?" The answer is no. It is quite clear that the government would fear its people a great deal of some of those people had nukes.

Thus... The People should indeed have nukes.

Blogger SNOWPAPA December 20, 2012 12:24 PM  

The real reason the Oregon shooter stopped:

http://www.kgw.com/news/Clackamas-man-armed-confronts-mall-shooter-183593571.html

Well trained police force:

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2012/08/25/nypd-shooting-bystander-victims-hit-by-police-gunfire/

Notice the difference in reasoning between the New York Police Commissioner's "well trained" (second article) finest and the private citizen in the first article.

Sorry for the double post; I think this is my first time to do this.

Blogger hadley December 20, 2012 12:24 PM  

The President is a psychotic paranoid. The only threat has been single shooters--Sirhan, Oswald, Hinckley, Squeaky types-- yet he goes around with 5-10 machine gunners like some Oriental Potentate. His crew is so psychotic and dangerous they could kill 200-300 people in a minute or two. What the fsck is he so afraid of? And why should we let him disarm us because his paranoid fantasies have reached Black Hiphopper Magnitude?

Blogger Longstreet December 20, 2012 12:37 PM  

I think we need to modify the most commonly seen corollary to Godwin's Law, to wit:

The first person to use the words "tin foil hat" has ceded the debate. Speaking of which...

"It's no incremental step."
You're either incredibly naive and unobservant, incredibly stupid, or an atrocious liar.

Anonymous Edjamacator December 20, 2012 12:41 PM  

You're either incredibly naive and unobservant, incredibly stupid, or an atrocious liar.

Why limit him to one?

Blogger Patrick Kelly December 20, 2012 12:46 PM  

The line should be removed and re-drawn where it was in 1933 as far as Federal laws go.

Anonymous DT December 20, 2012 12:50 PM  

It is quite clear that the government would fear its people a great deal of some of those people had nukes.

Thus... The People should indeed have nukes.


Government: "You will enforce Obamacare and pay more in taxes."

Nuclear Armed Citizen: "No, I won't."

Government: "Oh, OK. Never mind."

:-)

Anonymous Mina December 20, 2012 1:00 PM  

I actually did a little thought experiment with numbers this morning and made some calculations. The argument for banning "assault type" weapons seems to be that you can then "minimize damage" thereby improving public safety (service "the greater good".) All that is needed is for citizens to "sacrifice" their right to purchase, own and use these types of weapons by agreeing to an "assault type weapons ban".

If you scratch out the numbers projected over the course of a year using a theoretical # of mass murders, potential average # of victims per each, the % of mass murders committed by "assault type" weapons per year, as well as incorporating a "minimizing of damage factor" (how many people on the premise ~by %~ would be killed using assault weapon vs standard weapon vs the perpetrator facing an armed citizen) you find that banning assault type weapons makes Zero impact to public safety and so by executing any "sacrifice" of your right to own them, society gains exactly Nothing.

... Except maybe all of the additional new crime caused by the unintended consequences of banning "things" (illegal supply lines, support structures, etc.)

However if you go the other way and suppose that more citizens were trained and armed on premise when "a situation" occurred there is a huge improvement to public safety in that many more people are saved and far fewer are killed.

If I can scratch this out using simple math (no trig, very little algebra, and no calculus) before lunch, I would expect any one of our illustrious leaders in Congress to be able to do the same thing??

Blogger Giraffe December 20, 2012 1:05 PM  

I think it is important to point out, that the AR-15 at the scene (at this point I'm not even sure he used it?) would not have been banned under the Clinton assault weapons ban.

Anonymous Dan in Texas December 20, 2012 1:05 PM  

Great post. I was commenting the other day that I believe one of the biggest mistakes "pro gun" people make in dealing with the leftists is allowing them to frame the debate. Case in point: had a discussion the other day with a co-worker on this very gun ban topic:

Co worker: I'm not necessarily for banning all guns but let's face it, people don't need to own an AK-47. You're not going to go hunting with an AK-47.

Me: I don't want an AK-47 for hunting. I want an AK-47 so that if the government decides to squash all dissent and sends the ATF to kick my door in, I can shoot them.

The discussion ended there.

Anonymous Gen. Kong December 20, 2012 1:07 PM  

Auster, who lives in Bloomberg's little fiefdom of hyper-hypocrisy, has posted several superb remarks about the issue recently. Here's a sample:

We protect our mayors with men with guns; we protect our governors with men with guns; we protect the House and the Senate and the President, with men with guns; we protect our courts, our banks, our jewelry stores, our sports arenas, and our pawn shops, all with men with guns.

However, our most precious possessions, our children, we protect with a piece of paper and a sign (the Gun Free Zone law).

Now, in response to the slaughter of 20 innocents, we propose to punish those (gun owners) who are innocent, and protect our most cherished possession, our children, with a another piece of paper (a new gun law).


Later on Auster, who normally hasn't talked much about the 2nd amendment, posted a reader response to the pompous pharisee Elie Wiesel:

If massacre of 20 children in Newtown doesn’t bring gun control, what will?
By Elie Wiesel

To which I would respond: if surviving the Holocaust doesn’t make a Jew understand the need for the Second Amendment, what will?

LA replies:
I saw that column in the print Daily News two days ago, in the issue that was totally devoted to the absolute need to do SOMETHING about guns, NOW. It’s utter blather. It’s an empty brain making noises. In fact I would recommend that readers read it, to see how empty Wiesel is.



Anonymous Mina December 20, 2012 1:20 PM  

Dan in Texas: "Me: I don't want an AK-47 for hunting. I want an AK-47 so that if the government decides to squash all dissent and sends the ATF to kick my door in, I can shoot them."

Dr. Susan Gratia, testifying before Congress
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M1u0Byq5Qis
Jump to 4:10 for her take on assault weapons and keep listening one-two minutes for her statement about what the 2nd amendment really means. Great stuff, esp the completely impassive faces of the Senators in the hearing.

This lady later became a Government official in TX and helped pass the Guardian Law which allows teachers and administrators in TX who are trained and have proper licensing to CCW in schools.

(if you're so inclined to watch the entire thing: she and her parents were victims in a mass shooting wherein her parents were both killed - she feels there deaths resulted because TX laws at the time required her to keep her pistol in her car, not in her purse which was with her at the time.)

Anonymous Mina December 20, 2012 1:23 PM  

*their* deaths, sorry.

Anonymous WinstonWebb December 20, 2012 1:26 PM  

Tad December 20, 2012 9:45 AM

Your imagination is running away with you. It's no incremental step. And you know this. No one is talking about banning all arms.


An excellent starting point, Tad! Instead of using the vague "extraordinarily powerful killing implements" to describe what should be banned, let's simplify things here a bit.

Tad, according to YOU:
1) Exactly what types of firearms should Americans be allowed to own?
2) Exactly what types of firearms should Americans be allowed to carry on their persons?
3) Should these rules apply to V.I.P. security details? If not, why not?

I would sincerely appreciate answers to the above.
I'm open to quid pro quo and will be happy to respond to any direct question you has as well.
Thank you,

Anonymous VD December 20, 2012 1:28 PM  

"Put away your sword, Peter." - Christ

My name isn't Peter.

Anonymous FrankBrady December 20, 2012 1:31 PM  

Second Amendment advocates who attempt to “educate” the opposition by citing Constitutional authorities or providing facts about the difference between a semi-automatic and select-fire assault rifle are guaranteed to come away angry and frustrated by the experience. That’s because the “anti-gun” position isn’t really about guns at all. It is about preventing any exercise of personal responsibility for one’s condition, extending even to survival.

Too many American men have been so thoroughly emasculated by decades of conditioning that the very thought of self-defense is alien, repugnant, and perhaps impossible. How could it be otherwise? Generations of boys have learned that to physically resist an attack by a school yard bully is to earn a suspension. “No tolerance” policies make no distinction between aggressor and victim. Self-defense requires the use of force and that is not to be allowed. Toy guns—even pictures of guns—are forbidden by imbecilic administrators and school boards across the country. “Dodge ball” is banned because it encourages aggressive behavior. The Welfare State’s government schools have done their job well.

For their part, liberals genuinely do not understand that their calls for public disarmament are seen by the millions of Americans who own firearms and are proficient in their use as deliberate efforts to place their families in harm’s way. I do not believe that this divergence of views can be peacefully bridged.

Anonymous Claymore December 20, 2012 1:37 PM  

Karl is man of the West.

Our government is actively compromising civilization, and it will become increasingly despotic. There is hope though, because it is demonstrable throughout history that the type of government that rejects ordered liberty and absolute truth, does not work - and will fail. It is up to men of the West to understand the times, stand up for what’s right, and capitalize at the moment of weakness. Either we go down in honor, or civilization is preserved.

Anonymous Clay December 20, 2012 1:41 PM  

Tad's probably driving all around the Irving, Texas area, throwing cigarette butts out the window of his Miata, hoping to get some of the complimentary body cavity searches the Texas Highway Patrol are offering this holiday season.

Anonymous Mina December 20, 2012 1:41 PM  

"I do not believe that this divergence of views can be peacefully bridged."

Add to the fact that most of them (at least the ones I have occasion to interact with) are illogical women (and to your point, emasculated men) who truly believe "if we could all just be nice to each other" there would be no reason for guns. Or maybe "being nice" will stop bullets? In any case they don't seem to live with the reality that the world is not safe and sanitary and made up fresh every morning with hospital corners.

I am sure none of them ever consider the logistics of banning "things" at any level - a truly monumental task fraught with fraud, bias and subjectivity (not to mention the civil rights violations which usually go along with them.) Bans result in only law-abiding citizens, not criminals, losing access to those things - giving criminals the monopoly with the citizens sitting ducks ripe for the plucking.

Anonymous Cinco December 20, 2012 2:00 PM  

@DonReynolds

"I am so sorry to tell you, that there are no guns that are not deadly, regardless of calibre. Any firearm is a deadly weapon, unless you include paintball or pellet/bb. There is no arbitrary line that can be drawn to separate the "most deadly" from the "least deadly". They are all potentially lethal.

This has got to be the most nonsensical arguments I have read here in a long time... Where to begin. Guns are not deadly weapons, either there is no such thing as a deadly weapon, or all inanimate objects should be considered deadly weapons, depending on the way one looks at it. What is a gun without bullets? What is a gun without a firing pin? Ridiculous. Guns are tools, no different than a knife.

Also, if you are recommending shotguns to women for home defense you need to have your head examined. Shotguns require fine motor skills, and gross motor skills to operate effectively. Pumping, safeties, aiming, no light, poor sights, screaming kids, holy shit that is a recipe for disaster... In stressful situations such as a home invasions you want the least amount of variables involved, not more. I have seen Green Berets with years of experience get bogged down in a doorway after one shot because of a half-rack.

A .40 Glock with hollow points, a high capacity mag, and a flashlight would be much better. No safety to get in the way either, for when they panic. Which they will, because they are nature's panickers.

Anonymous Jimbo December 20, 2012 2:05 PM  

Guns are tools, no different than a knife

As are tactical nuclear warheads. Can you spot the missing step in your argument?

Anonymous Cinco December 20, 2012 2:07 PM  

"The question absolutely is "should there be a line?" The answer is no. It is quite clear that the government would fear its people a great deal of some of those people had nukes"

Nate wins.

Quit playing defense people. Defense doesn't win football games, it doesn't win arguments, and it doesn't win in politics (ask the GOP). Conceding that guns are deadly weapons, conceding that there should be restrictions on purchasing, conceding that crazy people shouldn't have the right to defend themselves is playing D-E-F-E-N-S-E.

We have got to start playing offense, quit letting them frame the argument. Bring out Hitler, bring out what happened in Australia, bring out racial statistics involving crime. The gloves need to come off.

Anonymous Mr. Pea December 20, 2012 2:10 PM  

Log says: Poor Vox. He believes that his ways are God's ways after all, and such arrogance is indeed an insuperable barrier to repentance and coming to know Christ.

"Put away your sword, Peter." - Christ


He didn't say take a hammer to it and turn it into a plow. He said, "Put it away."

Put it back into its sheath.

Nor did He say, "Take your sword and turn it in to the Roman authorities." Or pharisees. Or sadducees. Or scribes...

Blogger ajw308 December 20, 2012 2:10 PM  

Want to stop school massacres? Arm the adults in the schools. It's as simple as that.

The Israeli's showed that that works too.

Anonymous Van December 20, 2012 2:11 PM  

"Put away your sword, Peter."

Yes, because when Christ commanded one man to do something in a given situation, it had to be a commandment for all over all time. Context, and other orders become irrelevant. The obvious question (why did he permit them to carry swords) should not be asked. God wants the righteous to disarm and put themselves at the mercy of the wicked. Gotta be it.

If that's your belief, you should be demanding the immediate disarming of all police forces, government agencies, and military.

Anonymous Noah B. December 20, 2012 2:13 PM  

And we need to repeat that gun control zealots would rather see children murdered than see them protected and lose the debate.

Anonymous Cinco December 20, 2012 2:14 PM  

"As are tactical nuclear warheads. Can you spot the missing step in your argument?"

No. A tool is a tool. Some tools serve different purposes; nonetheless, they are still tools. Are not a screwdriver and a hammer tools? Is not one blunt and one pointed? Could you not be murdered with both?

Anonymous Edjamacator December 20, 2012 2:25 PM  

Could you not be murdered with both?

The human body is so fragile you can be murdered by practically anything if it's used right. So obviously the only logical, rational response is to ban everything but cotton balls and birdsong. And the cotton balls are debatable.

Blogger ajw308 December 20, 2012 2:33 PM  

And we need to repeat that gun control zealots would rather see children murdered than see them protected and lose the debate.

Great Britain's school slaughters at Hungerford, Dunblane and Cumbria show that very tight control and outright banning don't stop school slaughters.

That leaves the left with an unrelated, though highly charged emotional argument that they use to further their agenda.

Anonymous From Ace of Spades December 20, 2012 2:38 PM  

Common Sense Gun Control In Response To Mass Shootings
—Andy

That's what the left always says they want. Because who could be against "common sense", right?

They say they want an "assault weapons ban" yet Connecticut already has one (and good luck getting them to define "assault weapon"). They say they want "waiting periods" yet Connecticut already has those, too. They say they want to ban high-capacity magazines, even though the low-capacity ones take only seconds to change.

Background checks? We already have those nationwide. But we must "close the gun show loophole", by which I think they mean requiring background checks for all private sales between individuals because just applying them to private sales that take place at gun shows would be stupid.

Oh, wait, it's gun laws we're talking about here.

The crime that provoked all this babbling occurred in a state that's ranked by the Brady Campaign as having the 5th-strongest gun laws in the US. Most of the "common sense" proposals you're hearing in the media amount to a call to apply Connecticut's gun laws to the entire nation so the crime that happened there can never happen again.

Wait. What?

In reality, the left just wants what it has always wanted: a complete ban on guns. Deep down, they know their "common sense" gun laws are ineffectual, but they also know there's no way the public will eat the whole meal in one sitting. So they're doing what they always have ... proposing to incrementally strip away gun rights and use each failure of their own proposals as a call for even tighter restrictions on people's fundamental right to self-defense.

And even if they were to reach their promised land of a complete ban, they'd soon learn that they can't de-invent the technology that it takes to make a relatively simple machine. Next on the list would be waiting periods and permits to buy lathes and CNC milling machines, I guess.

After 9/11/01, there were two responses that actually made sense and would prevent a repeat of the incident: strengthening airliner cockpit doors and requiring the door to remain locked during flight. However, all the changes in the security line, from federalizing screeners to making you surrender your nail clippers and take off your shoes are just security theatre designed to make you feel safer at the high price of stripping away some of your liberties.

Gun control laws are no different, and the policies that proved ineffective in Connecticut are security theatre too. If we're truly interested in preventing these types of incidents in the future, here's where we should focus our efforts:

With just one single exception, the attack on congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords in Tucson in 2011, every public shooting since at least 1950 in the U.S. in which more than three people have been killed has taken place where citizens are not allowed to carry guns.

You want common sense gun control? Eliminate gun-free zones and allow people to freely exercise their fundamental right to defend themselves, their families and their communities.

Anonymous Noah B. December 20, 2012 2:40 PM  

But here's the thing, ajw... you're right, but you're making a rational argument. The left mostly deals with emotion and rhetoric. Thus, we have to hit them with something that will resonate, which is: the left would rather see children killed than protected by armed teachers.

Anonymous Mina December 20, 2012 2:45 PM  

"the left would rather see children killed than protected by armed teachers." - yes on the misplaced belief that if we'd all just be nice to each other, the problem would miraculously go away.

I agree with ajw whole-heartedly. I made the same suggestion "the morning after" on my facebook page and was surprised at the irrational, illogical responses that piled up.

ok - maybe I was not surprised ... people don't seem to like logic much any more. It seems to be some sort of cancer. Or more social programming.

Anonymous Noah B. December 20, 2012 2:48 PM  

Correction: you have to be careful how you phrase this when talking to someone so that it does not come across as an attack against them personally. So it's probably best to avoid blaming the entire left, as the left is mostly made up of those who have no malicious agenda but unwittingly empower tyrants. Something like, "The gun control movement would rather see children killed than protected by their teachers."

Anonymous Mina December 20, 2012 2:49 PM  

From Ace of Spades: Insightful.

You must have been involved with the erosion of freedoms for a long time - another topic perhaps? or just this one?

Blogger IM2L844 December 20, 2012 2:50 PM  

Every weapon, from knuckles to nukes, can and has been used as "assault weapons". It's just the popular meme du jour . Right now "scary looking" military "style" weapons are the focus. In truth, it is more a matter of aesthetics than anything else. If the exact same weapons had pleasant smooth lines and pretty wooden stocks, only the meme would slightly change. The goal would remain the same.

You can bet your ass ALL handguns are on deck and will be forced up to the plate the minute they smell blood in the water from any perceived "assault weapons" victory.

It's more than a little ironic that all of the proposed bans and regulations can only be enforced via threats of financial rape, violence and/or imprisonment from people in control of assault weapons.

Yes, Cinco, the gloves need to come off.

Anonymous Lysander Spooner December 20, 2012 2:56 PM  

Anti-gunners and their ilk, should be given a one way ticket to some hell hole without means of self defense, then they might just effn wake up.

Anonymous Mina December 20, 2012 2:56 PM  

Noah B: I'm sorry I wasn't attributing properly. My FB post stated that all schools should provide weapons training and allow any teachers or staff who were willing to carry to do so.

I agree: There are way too many hysterical sensitive types on FB to post anything about the left wanting to kill children. That could get me a death threat (irony intended.)

Anonymous Lysander Spooner December 20, 2012 3:00 PM  

Regarding public school shootings, bulldozing and burning the schools might just break the teachers unions, and save some children's lives too. Most schools seem to be leaning toward internet learning so who needs the brick and mortar dinosaurs anyway?

Anonymous Jimbo December 20, 2012 3:05 PM  

"As are tactical nuclear warheads. Can you spot the missing step in your argument?"

No. A tool is a tool. Some tools serve different purposes; nonetheless, they are still tools. Are not a screwdriver and a hammer tools? Is not one blunt and one pointed? Could you not be murdered with both?


And a child pornography image is the same as an image of Yosemite National Park. Both are just collections of pixels.

When you can spot the fallacy in that statement, you'll see the problem with "guns and hammers are both tools" idea.

Anonymous Mina December 20, 2012 3:09 PM  

Intent is what changes the content.

A tool + the intent of murdering = weapon.

A picture + the intent of exploiting a child = child pornography

A tool is still a tool and a picture is still a picture.

By your logic pictures (including those of Yosemite) should be banned because they can be used to exploit children and create child pornography.

Anonymous Azimus December 20, 2012 3:12 PM  

I presume that the sane among us would not object to banning the personal possession of nuclear arms.

Personal liberty was easier to maintain when the weapons of the king and commoner were at parity (say the 1500's - 1800's, artillery notwithstanding). Today the weapons of the king far, far outstrip the weapons of the common man - that is, nuclear weapons. However, a nuclear weapon as either an instrument of tyrrany or personal liberty is a category error. The better solution, in terms of freedom from tyrannical governments, is prevent the government from owning them in the first place.

Anonymous Jimbo December 20, 2012 3:17 PM  

Intent is what changes the content.

A tool + the intent of murdering = weapon.

A picture + the intent of exploiting a child = child pornography

A tool is still a tool and a picture is still a picture.

By your logic pictures (including those of Yosemite) should be banned because they can be used to exploit children and create child pornography.


So close but yet so far. You've missed purpose. A hammer was not designed to whack people over the head with. Yes, it can be used that way, but it's a misuse. A gun was created as a weapon. I find it ironic that lunatic atheists such as Dawkins want to drop purpose/design as an epistemological category — and Christian libertarian gun fanatics are using the same argument.

Blogger IM2L844 December 20, 2012 3:19 PM  

And a child pornography image is the same as an image of Yosemite National Park. Both are just collections of pixels.

When you can spot the fallacy in that statement, you'll see the problem with "guns and hammers are both tools" idea.


The fallacy (false dichotomy) lies in the fact that an image of Yosemite National Park doesn't have the same inherent potential as a pornographic image of a child while guns and hammers and screwdrivers and my fists do have the same inherent potential.

Anonymous Jimbo December 20, 2012 3:20 PM  

The better solution, in terms of freedom from tyrannical governments, is prevent the government from owning them in the first place

Agreed. The consistent position is to remove all government powers and disband the state. The moment the state has *any* power, you're going to hit this problem. So disband the government, devolve all powers to individuals, and let the strongest survive. I believe that Nietzsche gentleman may have said something about this ...

Anonymous Mina December 20, 2012 3:21 PM  

"You've missed purpose. A hammer was not designed to whack people over the head with. Yes, it can be used that way, but it's a misuse."

So what?

Necessity is the mother of invention. How do you know a hammer wasn't invented for whacking people over the head and driving nails is a mis-use?

Your argument is moot. No one cares about the purpose. "Purpose" is irrelevant. Only the result is relevant.

Anonymous jay c December 20, 2012 3:24 PM  

Psst... Jimbo!

Purpose = Intent

Anonymous Jimbo December 20, 2012 3:24 PM  

my fists do have the same inherent potential

Unless you happen to be some kind of B-movie superhero ("Beware my fists of my doom!") during the hours of darkness, I suggest that an Uzi has a lot more potential for slaughtering a room full of children than your fists. "Purpose" is the category you are looking for.

Anonymous Mina December 20, 2012 3:25 PM  

What's important here? Purpose or result?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gCQIGiXf0JA

I submit that the folks depicted in the movie didn't care a whit about the purpose but they loved the results.

Anonymous Jimbo December 20, 2012 3:28 PM  

"Purpose" is irrelevant. Only the result is relevant.

(a) So provided my next door neighbour is only using pictures of naked children to cover up damp marks on his walls, the Feds can't touch him?

(b) Provided you're only intent on shooting pigeons, you can wander around a schoolyard and shoot off hundreds of rounds of ammunition and the police should let you be?

This is fun :-)

Anonymous Stilicho December 20, 2012 3:28 PM  

Any weapon I own had damned well better have been designed to kill. Moron.

Anonymous Noah B. December 20, 2012 3:28 PM  

@Jimbo

So you're advocating anarchy and gun control simultaneously?

Anonymous Mina December 20, 2012 3:30 PM  

... in any case the argument is pointless. the tool in this case was designed for self-protection. and yes it performs quite well and the results are excellent.

there is no reason not to use a tool as per its intended purpose, especially if it performs it intended purpose well.

but it's still just a tool. it needs an operator in order to function.

Anonymous Mina December 20, 2012 3:31 PM  

Jimbo: You're the one who went off on that stupid tangent. I already stated your argument was moot. Pointless. DUMB.

Conversation over.

Anonymous Jimbo December 20, 2012 3:32 PM  

Any weapon I own had damned well better have been designed to kill. Moron.

Who was it who wrote "Argument weak, shout louder!" in the margin of his lecture notes? Can't recall if it was Christopher Hitchens or Mr. Magoo ...

Anonymous Jimbo December 20, 2012 3:33 PM  

Jimbo: You're the one who went off on that stupid tangent. I already stated your argument was moot. Pointless. DUMB.

Sorry to have driven you into a philosophical dead end and I appreciate your graciousness in defeat.

Anonymous Mina December 20, 2012 3:37 PM  

"Sorry to have driven you into a philosophical dead end and I appreciate your graciousness in defeat."

Declaring victory is a tad different than actually winning a victory. There had to have been a tussle in order for someone to win and unfortunately you didn't show up.

Try to bring a coherent argument that has an actual point next time.

Anonymous Cinco December 20, 2012 3:42 PM  

@Jimbo

"And a child pornography image is the same as an image of Yosemite National Park. Both are just collections of pixels.

When you can spot the fallacy in that statement, you'll see the problem with "guns and hammers are both tools" idea."

Both are still pictures! Just like a hammer and a screw driver both tools with different forms!

Also, guns are not used to kill. They are used to fire a small projectile at a high velocity. The intent of the operator is what determines their purpose at the time! I could just as easily use a gun as a bludgeoning tool...

You are not tall enough for this ride bro.

Anonymous Noah B. December 20, 2012 3:45 PM  

"And a child pornography image is the same as an image of Yosemite National Park. Both are just collections of pixels."

But notice how no one is calling for digital cameras to be banned, even though some people use them in horrible ways.

Anonymous Cinco December 20, 2012 3:46 PM  

My last post should read, "...Also, guns are not designed to kill...They are designed to..."

Anonymous Stilicho December 20, 2012 3:49 PM  

Jimbo, does the fact that a weapon is designed to kill make the banning of weapons a desirable goal?

Anonymous Mudz December 20, 2012 3:57 PM  

I agree that Peter putting away his sword was an obvious admonishment from Christ to do no violence (Jesus likes to set these things up, it seems). He said that right before being led away to be killed, which you think would be the appropriate time for self-defense. It seemed to be basically the ultimate culmination of all the Jesus was teaching, to love thy enemies, to not resist them, turn the other cheek etc, because we are to love God, not the world. If Jesus did not appeal for rescue from death for serving his Father, I think that is meant to serve as an example to us as well. Being thrown to the lions, no less, if it comes to it. (So glad that's not common practise today.)

That being said, there's no reason for a secular government to be taking people's choice to defend themselves away from them, but Christianity isn't secular. Deciding not to bear arms is a Christian sacrifice, in a sense. Though to be honest, I don't think I'd really hold it against anyone for trying to defend their family, and I'd agree that if this world or system of things was all that we were concerned about, it would be the sensible dissuasion.

Whoever takes up the sword will die by the sword. Christians I think, are supposed to trying to live as citizens of the Kingdom of Heaven during this application period, which means not like the world. If the world throws things like psychos, killers and douchebag Caesars at Christians, you're supposed to treat them like what they are, not part of your private little Christian world, but a violation of it, to be endured until God does away with craziness (or demons and bad morals, whatever's at fault).

If you defend yourself but shooting a criminal, then effectively you've just done what any worldly fellow would do. I think that the Christian edict requires a different sort of thinking and action.

I think that's the sacrifice you make in trusting in God, and acquitting yourself as a Christian in this world. And there's no way you can truly guarantee your own safety and security, so you might as well live up to ideals, for the day when your ideals will well suit you to the world you will eventually end up in, no matter what.

That's my belief (provisional, but firm), and I realise that people disagree, and I'm saying this from the safety of having no children and living in a pretty much gun-free area. But this has always been my position and I don't expect it to change, even if I am constantly worrying about what the moral course of action is when someone I love or am with, is threatened (guess I'll have to do a Wayne and body-shield, and/or run). Which is why I don't totally discount the notion of self-defense off-hand, even though I disagree with it, or at least application with guns. Jesus just ran away from mobs.



What's that scripture? Something like: "Don't fear him that can destroy the body, but fear the one in heaven that can destroy the soul"? Something to that effect.

My 2 cents. I doubt this is an easy issue to reconcile in real life when the lives of your children depend on you, so it's not something that should be treated high-handedly or easily. Christians have to make their own decisions in biblically guided conscience, or else it means very little in the long run, I think.

Blogger IM2L844 December 20, 2012 3:59 PM  

Unless you happen to be some kind of B-movie superhero ("Beware my fists of my doom!") during the hours of darkness, I suggest that an Uzi has a lot more potential for slaughtering a room full of children than your fists. "Purpose" is the category you are looking for.

You are missing the point. Designed purpose and inherent potential are not separated by degrees of efficiency. An Uzi, a rock and a hammer all possess the inherent potential to be used as hammers regardless of their designed purpose. They all also possess the inherent potential to be used as instruments of death regardless of their designed purpose.

The images in your idiotic comparison share neither designed purpose nor inherent potential regardless of their shared medium.

Anonymous High Churchian December 20, 2012 4:03 PM  

If you defend yourself but shooting a criminal, then effectively you've just done what any worldly fellow would do. I think that the Christian edict requires a different sort of thinking and action.

Ah yes, the doctrine of spread-the-other-cheek

Anonymous jay c December 20, 2012 4:05 PM  

It doesn't matter if a gun is designed to kill people and fists aren't. Our right to own and carry a gun must be protected because guns are designed to kill people. The 2nd Amendment is about killing people. Any argument for banning guns that relies on their lethality is actually an argument against banning guns.

Geez liberals are stupid.

Anonymous Mr. Pea December 20, 2012 4:05 PM  

Mudz

You're a girl. Huh?

Anonymous Matt December 20, 2012 4:08 PM  

Nuclear weapons are a red herring. "Nuke control" laws are not what prevents people from having backyard h-bombs. The fact that nuclear weapons are really hard to make prevents it. You could make nuclear weapons legal tomorrow and the number of people with personal nukes would stay pegged at exactly zero indefinitely.

Anonymous Noah B. December 20, 2012 4:15 PM  

"Nuclear weapons are a red herring."

That's the best response to the "nukes" argument, I think. We're not talking about nukes, we're talking about small arms.

I don't believe we're going to win the battle on the emotional level by trying to convince the left that it should be OK for someone to have a nuke.

Anonymous Unending Improvement December 20, 2012 4:17 PM  

It's true that nuclear weapons aren't in private hands for reasons besides legality.

However, it's also true that nuclear weapons really aren't hard to design in comparison to a lot of things. A Bill Gates could easily get together a team to build a nuke.

But it is due to "control" laws that no one has nukes in no small part. You cannot just 'acquire' fissible material, that is most certainly prevented by the Department of Energy and applicable national and international laws.

Anonymous Outlaw X December 20, 2012 4:25 PM  

Well Ran Jerry Mazza off with your WND Column and told him to got hell, not literally. I told him I had a Bushmaster that would never kill children but killed may feral hogs. He told me to never contact him again even after I told him 30 round clips were unreliable get the 20 round clips they ae easy to change.

I then went on to tell him how my grandpa made me go shoot a hog in the pen and asked him if he ever watched an animal suffocate in its own blood instead of your store shopping cleanly, clean bullshit. Fucking NYC Yankee bastard. I saved his damn life.

Anonymous Porky? December 20, 2012 4:28 PM  

Tad: the question is merely where to draw the line, not if a line should be drawn.

Then we should draw the line at any weapon that the president has access to.



Anonymous Matt December 20, 2012 4:31 PM  

You cannot just 'acquire' fissible material, that is most certainly prevented by the Department of Energy and applicable national and international laws.

That's sort of circular though. The main reason those laws succeed is that nuclear material is so extremely hard to make. If it had so happened that aluminum was fissile instead of isotopically pure uranium, such prevention would be impossible.

Anonymous J. Doe December 20, 2012 4:47 PM  

Jimbo December 20, 2012 2:05 PM

Guns are tools, no different than a knife

As are tactical nuclear warheads. Can you spot the missing step in your argument?


Can you? Nukes are offensive tools, causing much collateral damage to innocents. Guns and knives are tools that can repel an attacker, and only the attacker, who may be armed with similar tools, or none at all. The assailant is the instigator and needing to be put down. One doesn't set off a nuke in self-defense.

Emotional, knee-jerk rhetoric is not a substitute for logic, reasoning, common sense, reality or truth. If you fail to understand this, you prove yourself an irrational imbecile.

Anonymous Noah B. December 20, 2012 4:52 PM  

"30 round clips were unreliable"

HK brand AR mags. Highly recommended.

Anonymous pc geek December 20, 2012 5:19 PM  

OT but I have been hearing around the atheist web that in 528 that Christians brutally purged pagans and heretics...the main source that I found was the head of the university of Ottawa's classics dept Geoffrey Greatrex's Studia Patristica Vol. XXXIV.

You guys tend to be well read...any of you heard of this?

Anonymous Loki of Asgard December 20, 2012 5:55 PM  

Step aside, mortals, and allow me to distill Tad's meaning:

"The debate is whether [guns] ought to be easily accessible to anyone but government-employed trained killers and violent criminals who will acquire them maugre the law."

I have no "dog in this hunt", as you would say, because my weapons of choice tend to be knives or directed energy devices. This is solely for you. You may express your gratitude by kneeling to me.

Anonymous Kriston December 20, 2012 5:56 PM  

pc geek December 20, 2012 5:19 PM

OT but I have been hearing around the atheist web that in 528 that Christians brutally purged pagans and heretics...the main source that I found was the head of the university of Ottawa's classics dept Geoffrey Greatrex's Studia Patristica Vol. XXXIV.

You guys tend to be well read...any of you heard of this?


If you don't get an answer right away I would suggest that you e-mail VD and ask. .He may make a full post about it.

Also, since he is in Europe it may be too late tonight to see this.

Anonymous Anonymous December 20, 2012 6:12 PM  

I don't agree that the right to life somehow entails the legal responsibility to keep living. Do you have any case law to support that?

Anonymous paradox December 20, 2012 6:20 PM  

Mr Green Man December 20, 2012 10:21 AM

You know, that collapsing stock and military-looking plastic cladding on the Bushmaster really does make it a world-shaking killing machine. Time for a nice, safe hunting rifle like a Mini 14 with a wood stock.


Or just skip "mini-" altogether and go M14.

Anonymous Rantor December 20, 2012 6:20 PM  

Anonymous, the Christian answer is that God gave you life and neither you nor others should take it. As far as a legal responsibility to live, that is an odd question, but since murder and suicide are still illegal in most states, I would have to conclude that in ordinary circumstances, yes, you have a legal requirement to live.

Anonymous Godfrey December 20, 2012 6:41 PM  

It’s not about “rights”. It’s about the misanthropic ruling class wanting complete totalitarian control over existence. Our only hope is to convince the naïve around us that the narcissistic psychopaths that rule over us aren’t benevolent demigods bringing utopia.

It’s not going to be easy. Dumb naive people surround us..

Anonymous Mazianni December 20, 2012 6:42 PM  

Canadian here.

What do you think is the reason behind the much larger gun-related homicide rate in the US? Last time I checked, it's several times higher than in Canada (3.7 vs 0.76 homicides per 100k according to wiki). Honestly curious -- not trying to sound self-righteous. But if the difference isn't the gun culture, what is it?

I think you are conflating the US constitutional right to bear arms with a "God-given and unalienable right". It's far from obvious that carrying a gun is some kind of universal human right.

Personally, I have never owned or fired a real gun, don't know anyone who owns one, and have never felt the need to own one for self/family defense or otherwise. (Yeah, I know .. good for me!)

I *would* love to let loose at a firing range with a belt fed MG, admittedly.

Anonymous Godfrey December 20, 2012 6:48 PM  

Van December 20, 2012 11:44 AM "Most leftists I've known will mock the "paranoid" notion that they wish to outlaw private gun ownership immediately before they admit that they would like to remove all guns from society."


Most “Leftists” are merely naïve idealists with an unsophisticated world view. They don’t understand human nature, power or history. Hopefully some can be educated before it is too late. Others simply want the life of a farm animal.

Anonymous Godfrey December 20, 2012 6:51 PM  

Mazianni,

Besides the US being morally and culturally bankrupt, a large portion of the US population is drugged.

Anonymous VD December 20, 2012 6:57 PM  

You guys tend to be well read...any of you heard of this?

It's true. Justinian purged pretty much everyone, particularly the Arian Christians. He also wrote the legal code that is the basis for pretty much all law throughout the West.

Anonymous Mina December 20, 2012 6:57 PM  

"What do you think is the reason behind the much larger gun-related homicide rate in the US? Last time I checked, it's several times higher than in Canada (3.7 vs 0.76 homicides per 100k according to wiki)."

It really isn't significant to compare the US rates of gun violence with other countries' rates if they prohibit gun ownership by citizens. For the obvious reason.

At that point you need to compare the violent crime rates.

Most times you'll find stabbings, beatings, strangulation and other forms of manual killing taking up the slack where the US lists "death by gun".

Blogger Wagnerian December 20, 2012 6:57 PM  

Your imagination is running away with you. It's no incremental step. And you know this. No one is talking about banning all arms. Put our tin hat back on the hat rack.

Yeah, and it was no incremental step to do away with anti-sodomy laws, yet we have gay "marriage." It was no incremental step in implement a 1% income tax on only a few citizens, but look what we have now. It was no incremental step to have Affirmative Action, but look at the ridiculous discrimination against white males.

You can peddle that bullshit somewhere, but not here.

Anonymous Anonymous December 20, 2012 6:59 PM  

"The debate is whether certain extraordinarily powerful killing implements ought to be easily accessible."

If firearms are inaccessible or not "easily accessible" they are of no value in an emergency. An emergency is a sudden or impending situation that may lead to the loss of life or limb.

"[T]he sane among us would not object to banning the personal possession of nuclear arms."

The righteous among us would not object to to the personal possession of defensive weapons for the preservation of innocent life.

"[T]he question is merely where to draw the line, not if a line should be drawn."

Any hand-held, individually operated defensive firearm is clearly within the Second Amendment's orbit. This approximates the Browning Automatic Rifle or its equivalent. If you don't like the "defensive firearm" argument, quarrel with the Army. They define offensive weapons as being belt-fed and crew-operated. Since the 2A envisions an individual right, nuclear arms are nowhere in view. You offer a straw man argument.

MALTHUS

Anonymous pc geek December 20, 2012 7:02 PM  

It's true. Justinian purged pretty much everyone, particularly the Arian Christians.

Was this more for political reasons (i.e. one official state religion so he had to get rid of both Christian and non-Christian competitors) or was this more purely theological?

Anonymous VD December 20, 2012 7:02 PM  

What do you think is the reason behind the much larger gun-related homicide rate in the US? Last time I checked, it's several times higher than in Canada (3.7 vs 0.76 homicides per 100k according to wiki). Honestly curious -- not trying to sound self-righteous. But if the difference isn't the gun culture, what is it?

It's not rocket science. It's the African population. Canada is 2.5 percent black. The USA is 13 percent black, and that 13 percent commits 50 percent of the murders. Take out the Hispanics as well - not possible to calculate since the FBI counts them as white perpetrators - and the numbers would be more or less in line with other predominantly white nations.

Blogger IM2L844 December 20, 2012 7:05 PM  

What do you think is the reason behind the much larger gun-related homicide rate in the US?

Bad manners.

Shut up, Tad!

I'll be here all week.

Happy New B'ak'tun Eve and good night, everybody!

Anonymous Cinco December 20, 2012 7:08 PM  

@Mazianni

I think you are conflating the US constitutional right to bear arms with a "God-given and unalienable right". It's far from obvious that carrying a gun is some kind of universal human right"

Why should it be any different from carrying anything else?

As to why our murder rate is higher...
http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2010/crime-in-the-u.s.-2010/tables/table-43/10tbl43a.xls

*When 18% of the population is responsible from 50% of the murders, it skews the numbers. We have the additional joys of a drug war, and a welfare system that destroys the families of minorities.

Anonymous VD December 20, 2012 7:08 PM  

Regarding Hispanics: Mexico has one-sixth the firearms per capita as the United States. And its homicide by firearm rate is three times higher than the USA rate.

It's not the guns. It simply can't be.

Anonymous Kommandant von Tadowicz; Sanfransisklag December 20, 2012 7:11 PM  

There is a saying my Russi... eh, International benefactors are fond of telling me: A fish is tastiest from the head down. Henceforth, this talk of banning extremely deadly... no, wait - what was it? - EXTRAORDINARILY POWERFUL KILLING IMPLEMENTS OF STURM UND RAGE™ - is superfluous. One simply need apply my own humane method of weapons control, which is liberal dactylectomies for everyone. Sure, they won't be able to point, dial a phone, or play piano, but then again, this is a work camp. No need for the specifics of life when you're told what to do all day with a spade and barrow, yes?

Long live the People's Republag, its Five Year Plans, and most of all, me as its works chief.

Anonymous Desiderius December 20, 2012 7:13 PM  

"was this more purely theological?"

Unlikely it rose to that level. Study Justinian's dealings with Belisarius. Consider Theodora and their relationship from a red pill perspective.

Anonymous VD December 20, 2012 7:13 PM  

"What do you think is the reason behind the much larger gun-related homicide rate in the US? Last time I checked, it's several times higher than in Canada (3.7 vs 0.76 homicides per 100k according to wiki)."

Canada: 30.8 firearms/100 people, 0.51 gun homicides/100k people
Mexico: 15.0 firearms/100 people, 9.97 gun homicides/100k people
USA: 88.8 firearms/100 people, 2.87 gun homicides/100k people

Anonymous Desiderius December 20, 2012 7:16 PM  

Godfrey,

"Hopefully some can be educated before it is too late."

Hope is not a plan.

What will be required is turning the Mensheviks against the Bolsheviks.

Divide and conquer.

Anonymous Cinco December 20, 2012 7:17 PM  

Canada: 30.8 firearms/100 people, 0.51 gun homicides/100k people
Mexico: 15.0 firearms/100 people, 9.97 gun homicides/100k people
USA: 88.8 firearms/100 people, 2.87 gun homicides/100k people

Lol, clearly it's the proximity to the equator! Maybe we ought to petition the whitehouse to move it further south...

Anonymous Desiderius December 20, 2012 7:23 PM  

"If you defend yourself but shooting a criminal, then effectively you've just done what any worldly fellow would do. I think that the Christian edict requires a different sort of thinking and action."

The existence of a third party (and there is always a third party) muddies those waters.

What if the Good Samaritan had arrived before the thieves instead of after?

This is the crux of Just War doctrine.

Pacifism is most effective when one is already utterly dominant or utterly dominated. In between, things are much more problematic.

Anonymous VD December 20, 2012 7:23 PM  

Just to be clear on the African predilection for gun violence:

South Africa: 12.1 firearms/100 people, 17.0 gun homicides/100k people

Anonymous Van December 20, 2012 7:28 PM  

Mazianni:

The US's elevated gun homicide rate is entirely explained by blacks and latinos. Whites alone, despite being heavily armed, have rate comparable to those in Europe.

Anonymous pc geek December 20, 2012 7:35 PM  

Regarding Hispanics: Mexico has one-sixth the firearms per capita as the United States. And its homicide by firearm rate is three times higher than the USA rate.

It's not the guns. It simply can't be.


So yet again one group of politically protected people are behaving badly, and the libtards have to prescribe a policy that is both

a.) Inherently retarded and ineffective
b.) Treats all groups as if they are the same, when basic historical and contemporary observation screams very loudly that they are not.

Those 2 concepts underlie much of the tad-like thinking that we see among the left in this country...

Anonymous Matt December 20, 2012 7:35 PM  

The US's elevated gun homicide rate is entirely explained by blacks and latinos.

This is probably the bulk of it, but "entirely" is a bit of a stretch. The homicide rate in mostly-white Wyoming/Montana/Dakotas is above the western European average. Not by a whole lot, but above nonetheless.

Anonymous Van December 20, 2012 7:37 PM  

VD:

You can tease out the portion of hispanics from the white gun homicide number by looking at the number of hispanic victims, since most murders are intraracial. If anything you'll still exaggerate the white number and downplay the hispanic number (hispanics and blacks kill more whites than the reverse).

Anonymous Van December 20, 2012 7:41 PM  

Matt:

for every year that I've done the numbers, the white. Rate is in the range of European nations. At the high end, but in the range.

Anonymous VD December 20, 2012 7:41 PM  

This is probably the bulk of it, but "entirely" is a bit of a stretch. The homicide rate in mostly-white Wyoming/Montana/Dakotas is above the western European average. Not by a whole lot, but above nonetheless.

Not at all. Their African/Hispanic populations are also higher. In Wyoming, for example, the combined African/Hispanic population is 10 percent of the total.

Anonymous VD December 20, 2012 7:42 PM  

You can tease out the portion of hispanics from the white gun homicide number by looking at the number of hispanic victims, since most murders are intraracial.

Send me the 2010 or 2011 numbers if you have them. That makes sense.

Anonymous The Great Martini December 20, 2012 7:46 PM  

A lot of odd thinking in that post.

According to the AAP, a child in a gun-free home is safer than one with guns.

Yes, the president is protected by an armed force, but then again, he's the fricking President of the United States!. Every loon or motivated assassin in the world would love to bag them a president. To compare him to ordinary citizens is a false equivalence.

Sure, a conceal carrier can stop a shooter. You know what else? If neither of them have guns, there won't be a shooting.

So now a failed gun running sting operation equates to the US gov being in the gun running business? Logic fail.

The Newtown murderer didn't kill his mother to acquire the weapons; he obviously intended to kill her from the start. He shot her while she slept, for heaven's sake! He could have just walked out of the house with them.

There's also this pernicious sentiment:
"In short the answer is not found in gun bans -- no matter what sort of excuse is offered. In the instant case there is no gun ban that would have changed the outcome."

It's tempting to use particular instances to make general points. There will always be certain special reasons why no law will be effective in any given circumstance. Assault weapons are banned in Connecticut and they weren't used in the shooting, therefore assault weapon bans are useless. Bad logic. Laws enforce general policy and each contributes to lowering risk in general. Deep down, Karl knows this, because he makes this statement in another context:

"The point is to deter assault, not make it impossible."

That is exactly the type of thinking that justifies gun control laws. To use Karl's bad logic, you could just dismiss "up-armoring" schools by saying gunmen would just bring dynamite. It's the exact analog to that argument. There's always a way to special plead your way out of any suggestion.

So what are some things that actually would be effective, in this circumstance (yes, which is a form of special pleading, but let's just play the game...)

First, you have to keep guns out of the hands of lunatics. This might mean that a house with an unstable person cannot, by law, have a gun in it, or that guns must be regularly verified to be secure in it by law enforcement. It might mean that every gun purchase, individual or not, require a background check, or even that failed background checks triggers further investigation.

There's a lot that could be done to keep guns out of the hands of lunatics while allowing them to remain in most people's hands, but of course, as most of you reading this suspect, the processes this would require, the invasiveness and imposition, is every pro-gun American's nightmare come true.

Anonymous Van December 20, 2012 7:49 PM  

VD

I don't have any saved (decided two days ago to take redo the numbers and catalog them, but probably after Christmas). Not sure if the FBI-UCR has them; I've gotten them from hispanic activist "stop the violence" websites

Anonymous rienzi December 20, 2012 7:56 PM  

@Mazianni: Canadian here.

What do you think is the reason behind the much larger gun-related homicide rate in the US? Last time I checked, it's several times higher than in Canada (3.7 vs 0.76 homicides per 100k according to wiki). Honestly curious -- not trying to sound self-righteous. But if the difference isn't the gun culture, what is it?


Lots and lots of Black folks capping each other in the Ghetto. A great deal of it related to the Drug trade.

If our African-American brethern all suddenly decided to move back to West Africa, the violent crime rate in this country would drop off a cliff. Still might not be Japan or Denmark, but a lot better than it is now.

Anonymous Outlaw X December 20, 2012 8:28 PM  

This guy needs a VP Ilk beat down on the right to bear arms.

http://www.intrepidreport.com/archives/8492#comment-22139

Flood his damn comment section.

Anonymous Outlaw X December 20, 2012 8:32 PM  

Wrong link use this one.

http://www.intrepidreport.com/archives/8492

Blogger Lovekraft December 20, 2012 8:53 PM  

What legislators need to do is interview those who support gun control and release these results to the public.

I suspect that you would discover very nefarious motives, such as a glee in humiliating conservatives.

Anonymous elmer December 20, 2012 9:30 PM  

What am I, a citizen, to protect myself from the tyranny of not just the rogue/shadow, but the official govt?

An assault rifle (a real one, not a civilian AR type), a .50 cal. stand-off weapon, a FGM-148 Javelin, an M1A3 Abrams, is not enough for me, to protect myself from the tyranny of govt. I want my very own f*cking charged particle beam projector!

Go intercourse yourself, tadpole et al...

Anonymous zen0 December 20, 2012 9:31 PM  

Yes, the president is protected by an armed force, but then again, he's the fricking President of the United States!. @ One Martini Too Far

And? Its not like he's royalty or something. Why do you hate equality?

Anonymous Signe December 20, 2012 9:49 PM  

According to the AAP, a child in a gun-free home is safer than one with guns.

When I was a little girl, probably about four years old, my father took me into the master bedroom and showed me the household handgun. He kept it, loaded, in his nightstand drawer, no locks and no gun safe or anything else.

What kept me from it? My first lesson in gun safety involved watching Westerns; that guy lying on the ground coughing blood and suffering convinced me that shooting someone was not to be done lightly.

My second lesson was my dad's short lecture: "This is a gun. It is a real gun. It is loaded, and I keep it here. You have seen what guns do. If you touch it, I will kill you."

Or maybe I'm just a genius who figured out that playing with guns was not a good idea.

Anonymous Mudz December 20, 2012 10:02 PM  

@ High Churchian

If you like that sort of thing.

@ Mr. Pea

No.

@ Desiderius

Agreed. Defending somebody else is different from just worrying about your own skin. I still think that the answer comes out the same though, but honestly, like I said, I think (do not take my word for it at all) it'd be forgiveable to say, knock a guy out to stop him from shooting a chick or something.
But I still think ideally we're supposed to be setting an example of what people should be like, and I think that includes never reaching for the kill button, or even the violence button if you can help it. I'm sure that people would be judged individually and according to situation and desire to do right (etc, etc), but I think 'no guns' of the home defense variety is a good rule of thumb for people who wanna be like Jesus, or who wear his name (well, title).

Anonymous oregon mouse December 20, 2012 10:04 PM  

"I do believe that where there is only a choice between cowardice and violence I would advise violence. Thus when my eldest son asked me what he should have done, had he been present when I was almost fatally assaulted in 1908, whether he should have run away and seen me killed or whether he should have used his physical force which he could and wanted to use, and defended me, I told him that it was his duty to defend me even by using violence. Hence it was that I took part in the Boer War, the so called Zulu rebellion and the late war. Hence also do I advocate training in arms for those who believe in the method of violence. I would rather have India resort to arms in order to defend her honor than that she should in a cowardly manner become or remain a helpless witness to her own dishonor"
Ghandi, The Sword of Truth
Even Ghandi adamantly recognized the right to self defense and, I've read, was a supporter of our second amendment. Liberal support for gun grabbing just reveals their anti-human, fascist roots.

Anonymous Anonymous December 20, 2012 10:15 PM  

Mazianni, you wrote: "What do you think is the reason behind the much larger gun-related homicide rate in the US? Last time I checked, it's several times higher than in Canada (3.7 vs 0.76 homicides per 100k according to wiki). Honestly curious -- not trying to sound self-righteous. But if the difference isn't the gun culture, what is it?"

I'm a Canadian as well, and in my part of the country we are bristling with guns. Nevertheless, there is very little violent crime here at all; in my county we have only had two murders over the past ten years, and neither of them was a shooting. So yes, it is the culture that determines the level of violence, rather than the amount of available weaponry. (At the same time it is certainly true that an extremely confrontational and strife- torn culture will produce an overactive demand for weaponry; still, that fact does not apply to most suburban and rural areas of the U.S.)

Anonymous Outlaw X December 20, 2012 10:28 PM  

The GD world ends tomorrow why worry? I ean some people will go to their grave worrying about gun control. Oh Ummm... Never mind.

Anonymous Asher December 20, 2012 10:31 PM  

@ Tad

It's no incremental step. And you know this. No one is talking about banning all arms.

The gun control proposals I've seen are unlikely to eliminate school shootings or, even, reduce their likelihood. Let's just hypothesize that your particular array of gun control passes and tat school shootings continue at about the same rate within the last decade or so. What then? Will you just declare your current preferences as the golden mean of reasonable gun control? Or will you seek to repeal the prior legislation you advocated? Given the history of leftism it's most likely that you'll advocate even greater measures of gun control, which will themselves fail.

Rinse and repeat.

This reminds me of all the failures of the various Soviet "five year plans" and how each successive failure was attributed to "saboteurs". The first rule of leftism is that the more leftist a society the more stridently its failures will be attributed to non-leftists.

I would bet the farm you are no different.

Anonymous Asher December 20, 2012 10:37 PM  

@ Anonymous

But if the difference isn't the gun culture, what is it?"

The entire difference between US and Canadian murder rates is in the thirty percent of the population that is black or hispanic. IIRC, black men are around six percent of the US population and commit about forty percent of the gun homicides. US states with demographics resembling Canada have roughly the same murder rates as Canada; EX: Wyoming has around two murders per hundred thousand residents.

It's been several years since I encountered the murder rates just among black in Canada, but IIRC it was pretty similar to that of US blacks.

Anonymous Noah B. December 20, 2012 10:45 PM  

Martini, were you aware that those "children" the AAP is talking about includes gang members in big, vibrant cities? And that a significant number of those "children" that die from gunshots, possibly even the majority, occur where the AAP's desired gun bans are already enacted? And that many of AAP's "children" were shot by police? The AAP have intentionally hidden these key facts to push their gun control agenda. By knowingly hiding pertinent facts, they have discredited themselves.

"Sure, a conceal carrier can stop a shooter. You know what else? If neither of them have guns, there won't be a shooting."

Gun control takes guns away from law abiding people, not criminals. Even if you had a way of magically making guns disappear, there are other weapons like knives and clubs. And with these, a young, strong adult male has a dramatic advantage over everyone else. This disparity of force is a recipe for more violence and bloodshed, not less. (If you want to read more on this, I recommend Guns and Violence: The English Experience by Joyce Malcolm.)

"So now a failed gun running sting operation equates to the US gov being in the gun running business?"

How did the ATF plan on conducting a sting without tracking where the guns went, following the guns into Mexico, or coordinating with Mexican law enforcement?

"First, you have to keep guns out of the hands of lunatics."

Prison does that. Well, mostly.

"Laws enforce general policy and each contributes to lowering risk in general."

Some laws may, but not gun control. See Vox's comparison of the murder rates in Mexico and the US. More guns in the right hands = less crime.

"...or that guns must be regularly verified to be secure in it by law enforcement."

Law enforcement like...this guy? It's also quite the coincidence that you, too, are also not a 4th amendment fan.

"...or even that failed background checks triggers further investigation."

I really want to thank you for pointing this out. It's a fantastic point. There is nothing whatsoever that would prevent the FBI from investigating someone who applies to buy a gun but doesn't pass the background check. So why didn't the FBI intervene to stop this horrible attack?

Anonymous Asher December 20, 2012 11:09 PM  

@ The Great Martini

Um, there's this little thing called "proportionality". The US President is not issued a conceal carry permit on attaining the presidency. He is, instead, assigned a vast armada of Secret Service agents with state-of-the-art weaponry and tactical support. I don't see anyone here calling for that sort of security.

Jesus, talk about intellectual dishonesty.

Blogger James Dixon December 20, 2012 11:23 PM  

> Yes, the president is protected by an armed force, but then again, he's the fricking President of the United States!.

The President has no more of a right to self defense than any other citizen.

> To compare him to ordinary citizens is a false equivalence.

No, it's not.

Anonymous Noah B. December 20, 2012 11:26 PM  

What's more, if our political leaders haven't done anything wrong, they should have nothing to fear from citizens.

Anonymous bw December 21, 2012 12:14 AM  

“He gazed up at the enormous face. Forty years it had taken him to learn what kind of smile was hidden beneath the dark mustache. O cruel, needless misunderstanding! O stubborn, self-willed exile from the loving breast! Two gin-scented tears trickled down the sides of his nose. But it was all right, everything was all right, the struggle was finished. He had won the victory over himself. He loved Big Brother.”

- 1984 Last Paragraph

Anonymous The other skeptic December 21, 2012 12:21 AM  

Why do the Chinese want Americans disarmed

Do they:

A. Expect America to collapse in a few years and it will make it easier for them to take over?

2. Want to send lots of low-wage workers to work in America's energy industry and don't want local opposition?

3. They genuinely care about civil rights?

Anonymous Noah B. December 21, 2012 12:24 AM  

@other

I think it's mostly about telling their own population that it is wrongheaded to think that citizens have the right to keep and bear arms. I don't think they seriously expect to have a significant impact on US policy.

Anonymous Matt December 21, 2012 12:30 AM  

No, it's not.

Yes it is. The president is indeed not equally important compared to ordinary citizens. We're his boss. We're more important.

Anonymous Asher December 21, 2012 12:46 AM  

@ Matt

The President is first among equals. There's no question that pretty much every President starting with FDR would have notched assassination attempts and that is why we render them a greater proportion of protection than that of the average citizen. Your rigid, metaphysical conception of what is reasonable, here, undermines your argument and makes you and easy target for leftists.

Anonymous Kickass December 21, 2012 1:13 AM  

Really, we are using a verse in the Bible where Jesus is telling Peter to stop trying to interfere with Him going to the cross for gun control? Reading comprehension!

Anonymous VryeDenker December 21, 2012 1:18 AM  

Susan:"The same people who are screaming for new target rich environments via gun control have absolutely no problems with the reality that they have offered multi-millions of unborn babies to moloch.

They don't value life anymore. That is why they don't like it or understand it when folks like the ilk here want to protect it. Life has no value or interest to them unless they can control it for the rest of us.

Jack is right. The elites will never ever give up their right of self protection.Thanks for posting this. Hard to find commonsense writing right now."


This is why thinking in terms of the "collective" instead if the individual is so dangerous. The collective is seen as an organism and as such, a few people dying is nothing more than the organism shedding a few cells.

Anonymous oregon mouse December 21, 2012 1:19 AM  

It is ironic that most gun-control proponents are enthusiastic supporters of democracy. If the electorate is so incompetent they can't be trusted with the tools necessary to protect themsleves, how can they be competent to chose the elites who would make these laws for them (for their own good of course)?
Likewise, the common arguement that CCH permit holders and other gun owners are "paranoied" is similairly hypocritical. We believe the general population is more or less capable and trustworthy with these tools. On the other hand, gun-grabbers look at your average peacefull citizen and imagine a blood thirsty, trigger happy idiot. Who is really paranoied here?
Once again, the gun debate has nothing to do with guns and everything to do with who is sovereign over your person, you or the state.

Anonymous FrankBrady December 21, 2012 1:33 AM  

@oregon mouse

Once again, the gun debate has nothing to do with guns and everything to do with who is sovereign over your person, you or the state.

Or, to say it just a bit differently, gun control has nothing to do with guns and everything to do with control.

Blogger Nate December 21, 2012 1:38 AM  

"30 round clips were unreliable"

No they aren't. You just need to remember they aren't 30 round mags. They are 28 round mags.

Only load 28 rounds into them.. and you'll find they work perfectly.

Blogger IM2L844 December 21, 2012 2:50 AM  

Bad guys will always have guns! Criminals are always going to do what criminals have always done. They are going to break laws. They are going to commit violent crimes. What is so difficult about this absurdly simple concept? What makes it so hard for some people to wrap their heads around?

When you ban anything the supply can't meet the demand and as prices go up the black-market becomes so lucrative criminals can't resit it. Does anyone really believe we can keep Mexicans with shipments of guns out of this country?

Those most prone to use guns to commit violent crimes would have a protected monopoly.

If we would just pass a law making crime illegal maybe that would solve the problem.

Blogger LP 999/Eliza December 21, 2012 2:56 AM  

This comment has been removed by the author.

1 – 200 of 223 Newer› Newest»

Post a Comment

NO ANONYMOUS COMMENTS. Anonymous comments will be deleted.

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home

Newer Posts Older Posts