It’s to bad the Santa Barbara spree killer didn’t know it’s against the law to bring a firearm on campus.
I know, let’s pass another law restricting law abiding citizens, that will fix the problem this time for sure!!
Why don’t I believe that?
It’s to bad the Santa Barbara spree killer didn’t know it’s against the law to bring a firearm on campus.
I know, let’s pass another law restricting law abiding citizens, that will fix the problem this time for sure!!
Why don’t I believe that?
I’ve pretty much stopped watching Television in favor of the internet but I have a DVR now & have been saving South Park episodes. Sometimes I forget to fast forward through the commercials which has raised some questions about the sanity of some corporations P.R. Departments
Starting with Burger King’s commercial for their free small coffee, which get’s you your own guitarist & back up singers.
What would you get with a free LARGE coffee, a 10′ phallus & your own private jet stocked with roofied Dallas Cowboy cheerleaders?
Then there is the Doritos commercial, which shows the promise of nacho cheese flavored corn chips is all you need to turn big hairy macho men into dainty gowned pretend tea drinking dancing transvestites.
The most disturbing however is from Taco Bell. Why do you need portable nachos? Well if the parents of the under age chick your banging come home early….
Another mass murderer shoots up a gun free zone, a schizs who slipped through the system brought a shotgun to the Naval Yard & killed 12 defenseless people who were denied their right to Own & Carry a firearm for self-defense
Tamara Tabo writing for the Above the Law http://abovethelaw.com/2013/09/some-thoughts-on-the-washington-navy-yard-shooting/blog blog has called for more & better mental health screening, finding better drugs with less dangerous side effects as well as more effective laws denying the mentally ill the right to Own & Carry arms
I’m not going to go into a big long rant about all the defects those solutions contain
I’m just asking, can’t we please try the common sense solution? Anyone who wants to own & carry firearms for self-defense should be allowed to (absent any disqualifications from laws already on the books) We already have Laws in place to cover who can own & carry guns, & the circumstances under which fire-arms can be legitimately & legally used & under what circumstances usage is forbidden & criminal
Just one simple change is all it takes, an experiment of sorts, give lawful citizens the choice to practice defensive carry if they want to, give them a 3rd option to add to “run & try not to die” & “hide & try not to die”. Given the number of defenceless people who have been murdered in this country in ‘Gun Free Zones’ it’s hard to see any other viable option
It’s the simplest common sense solution, please lets try it!
I’ve been doing the dozens with this gerbil on a youtube video comments page & it finally got to the point that my response wouldn’t fit into the 500 character limit
I posted 2 pieces as comments but decided to post the rest here so I wouldn’t take up an insane amount of room [I may have been a little tardy in that regard] & edited for flow & punctuation =)
How do you do this day after day?
Twist words, lie, deflect & defame
Respond to simple requests with insult, innuendo & irrelevancy
This thread started 3 weeks ago with your lie that Mr Whittle said 100 lives saved for every life lost & “Goebbels would be proud” snark
Your next lie was claiming Mr Whittle said 12 Million Germans.
Over 21 comments, 12 by you & 9 by others & you’ve told the 12mil German lie 4 times & made some really bizarre claims about the effectiveness of guns held by state actors & the ineffectiveness of guns held by private citizens, as well as pretending every tyrannical assault was a unique occurrence.
In the real world once the Jews figured out what was happening many did fight back & if nothing else tied up resources the Nazi’s desperatly needed elsewhere Which is the focus of VirtPrez metaphor re: leopards & gazelles, dangerous prey impedes predation, whether on the savanah or in the ghetto, the principle is the same
Then you pretend tyranny only describes taxation without represintation, take a pot shot at the ‘Tea Party’
claim the war for independence was about money, which means the revolution was really an inssurection, & the whole tyranny thing is a misrepresitntaion of history by lying American history writers
Then you make a pump fake & admit the revolution would not have been possible without guns but immediately segue into the America didn’t mean freedom & justice for all, because slavery existed & also there’s Vietnam. Poor people going bankrupt from falling ill & dozens of 1st graders shot in the head all to prove that America sucks.
Then you revisit the whole tyranny is only taxation without representation again, next (for maximum confusion) you reference a different thread where you claim that England is a republic. A claim you made to dismiss the American experiment that claimed legitimate government power derives from the consent of it’s citizens as EQUALS. An equality you ignore so you can claim the only people who could vote were wealthy land owners (which is untrue except for a few places in the very beginning) so you can assert that American governance was no different from the British
A claim that ignores the Brits division between noblemen & commoners, which again is the division we rebelled against in favor of equality under the law.
Zimmerman is currently having his day in court, no matter what the verdict is, expect hysterical condemnation from the losing side. This is a good example of Hippodrome factionalism existing even in the 21st century.
Checking the web before posting, if the prosecution loses there is already rumbling that this will be prima facie evidence of a corrupt Criminal System of Justice. The claim is the only way the D.A. could lose is intentionally, by throwing the case. I’m also finding a lot of backpedalling on the MSM websites
I have observed the people who know enough (or think they know enough) about this case to form an opinion, will invariably have strong feelings supporting one side or the other. This judgement seems formed by mere exposure to the discussion about the case than the actual facts of the case, pro or con. Indeed I find it worrisome that people can have such strong emotions about this incident given that much of the discussion involves gossip and innuendo instead of critical thinking skills and factual evidence Seriously, if you’re angry at George Zimmerman or Trayvon Martin, can you step back and ask yourself, what thoughts created my upset? Can I be sure those thoughts are true and not produced by mediapathic reporting?
I have my own bias, when it comes to a shooting, I care more about the justification, (is it self-defense or is a murderer trying to game the system), and less about the actual personalities involved. Spend enough time studying the politics of crime and punishment and you develop techniques that help you maintain a distance from the very real misery suffered by the very real people involved
I guess what I’m trying to say is that I approached the case from a different perspective. I was looking at the ‘logic’ of the incident. I was troubled by the first ‘news reports’ about the case. Opinions were proffered as evidence. One day there would be interviews asking Martin’s mother if they thought Zimmerman was a maniac or a monster, the next they would interview Martins father, asking if he thought Zimmerman should be executed or get life in prison, and a dozen other questions that were just not that relevant to establishing evidence of a crime. What the courts refer to as hearsay was being presented as fact.
Things got weirder, “hoody’s” were all over the news, then it would change and everyone is now talking about Zimmerman stalking Martin. A couple of days later and the new topic is how Zimmerman had profiled Martin (and yes I know the above isn’t necessarily in chronological order). What piqued my interest enough to start actively looking into the case were either the reports on The Smoking Gun &or the OP-EDs of what became known as ‘the Talk’. If you’ve forgotten, this was the story about how every black parent would have to talk to their children and warn them that all white people stereotype all black people.
This stereotyping by all white people would lead them to believe that all black people were dangerous, just from the color of your skin, and how if you weren’t careful, you might scare a white person, who would then shoot you, since white people were all stereotypers. This transcendent hypocritical nonsense was an actual part of the news cycle for a few days, (again I might be wrong on the chronology maybe I discovered The Smoking Gun evidence first)
Smoking Gun? The Smoking Gun is a website devoted to the posting a “Large collection of public documents on crimes, celebrities, politicians, and the FBI”. Their website was one of the first places I found when I decided to do a little research. While there I found 3 pieces of evidence that led me to form an opinion on what was important to me whether or not this was a legitimate Defensive Gun Use (DGU).
Here it might be useful to expound on the difference between objective evidence vs hearsay evidence. Objective evidence is stuff you can point to or hold in your hands, touch, see, hear and so on. Hearsay is pretty much everything else=).
An Anonymous phone call claiming Zimmerman is a member of the Aryan Brotherhood, is hearsay.
A photograph of a LEO’s handwritten note recording an eyewitness account is objective evidence to the fact that there was a report, which may be useful when evaluating the eye witness testimony the report contains.
A photograph of a person is objective evidence, although relevance is determined by when the photo was taken.
Again, I started out questioning the legitimacy of the shoot, and I had quickly found strong evidence that justified this as a DGU. And the fun wasn’t over
This is just a smattering of the problems surrounding the case from my perspective. I am happy with my opinion, that this was a justified shoot that fits the parameters of Defensive Gun Use. What I find disturbing is the behaviour of state actors in reference to this case, although it does happen, politics should not trump the Rule of Law. There is more evidence of malfeasance by state actors in pursuing this case, than evidence George Zimmerman purposefully killed Trayvon Martin
One last thing, Zimmerman brought the rope they are trying to lynch him with.
If you are ever in enough danger that you need to resort to Defensive Gun Use, remember that after the shots you made to stop the threat to your existence, you are not finished defending yourself. Beyond telling the police you were in fear for your life and acted to stop the threat, keep your trap shut. If you, like George, think you’re safe to cooperate with Law Enforcement Officers, then you might end up in the hot seat. Don’t give statements, don’t take lie detector tests, don’t make video taped walk throughs with the police. It is an unfortunate fact but the police and District Attorneys are not always on the side of the law abiding citizen, and they can tell any lie they want attempting to get you for a crime. Even a half-way decent lawyer can make sure you don’t give them a chance to hook you up. If you choose to practice defensive carry, you need to give as much attention to preparing for the aftermath of such an event as you do your gun handling skills. Find someone you can trust to have your back, then make sure they are cool being your backup. After calling the Law to report your DGU, call your friend and have them come babysit you. You need to make sure they know enough about this area of the law that they can prevent you from giving the Criminal Justice System rope they can tie into a noose
Keep Your Powder Dry=)
Ohio cops encounter an armed Ohio resident.
This is the way it could have gone down instead
Today our nation is encouraged to remember and celebrate the deaths of those brave men and women who have sacrificed their lives in service to our country. Some may question the term ‘celebrate’ but that is the greatest honour we can give this day. Looking at the world outside our borders shows us what happens to a people poor in courage, lacking in love, and unwilling to pay the price civilization demands. I realize that many will be unable to understand the phrases and terms above, to the point of being nonsensical, as the meanings and connotations of the various terms have been co-opted, or distorted by those who hate these memes and by the indifference of those who don’t understand why they should care.
A benefit inherent in written language is that we don’t need to constantly reinvent the wheel. In a different work the Grandmaster wrote “Basic truths cannot change and once a man of insight expresses one of them it is never necessary, no matter how much the world changes, to reformulate them.”
With that in mind…
Just a little over 40 years ago, on 1973.APR.05, Robert Heinlein delivered the James Forrestal Memorial Lecture to the Brigade of Midshipmen at his alma mater the United States Naval Academy. As the first half of the lecture, at the request of the midshipmen, he discussed freelance writing. This is the second half:
In this complex world, science, the scientific method, and the consequences of the scientific method are central to everything the human race is doing and to wherever we are going. If we blow ourselves up we will do it by the misapplication of science; if we manage to keep from blowing ourselves up, it will be through intelligent application of science. Science fiction is the only form of fiction which takes into account this central force in our lives and futures. Other sorts of fiction, if they notice science at all, simply deplore it — an attitude very chic in the anti-intellectual atmosphere today. But we will never get out of the mess we are in by wringing our hands.
These last several years has been a hard time for me. I’ve lost friends, property and self-respect. Been scared into thinking I had cancer when I didn’t. Seen opportunities vanish and resources wasted. Found out my value as a friend existed in tandem with how much abusive B.S. I would swallow. Fixing a long term health issue and it brings 2 new problems. To get to the pocking monkey, I have lost more times than I’ve won, it seems.
I’ve been dialoging with an entity labeled Redraw4444 in the comments section of a youtube video about what role firearms should play in a civilized society. He recently made a comment about how I would react if somebody spit on me or cussed me out. He accused me that I would lose my temper and punch my tormenter, and how weird and abnormal it would be if my punch was met with a bullet, about how unfair that would be.
I shoot, Ive studied a little Karate, but my entire adult life, especially my early 20’s where violence on the job was an accepted hazard, during a time WWIII was thought to be a hairs breath away of bringing Nuclear Armageddon, I decided that firefights are contraindicated and decided to train myself for defensive violence (if your expecting a training montage sorry, most of the time the training was completely mental). Most people seem less freaked out that I carried a gun, and more weirded out that I wasn’t a bully or aggressive jerk. That I had created a code of conduct to determine when gun use was appropriate was weirder than actually following it. Of course Heinlein probably provided the nucleas of how I should conduct myself, but it was something Joel [no C] Rosenberg wrote in one of his Guardian of the Flame novels that stuck in my head, that people who make a profession of violence should never use violence on family, friends, or strangers. That being a bully was unacceptable behavior for an honorable person.
Thinking about Redraw4444’s accusation in light of the crap storm I’ve been wading through without an umbrella brought me a realization, that during all of the trouble I’ve had with people over the last several years I never once thought that shooting my problem person was an option. Gun use against my notional ‘adversary’ was never on the menu. Defensive use, defensive carry, it’s not a hard concept. Remind your self daily, run scenario’s to inform your actions if trouble finds you. Decide you will only use your firearms for immediate defense
Even though I have faced many disappointments over the last few years, in this respect I have become the person I want to be. It’s a good feeling.
So thank you Redraw4444, without our discussions I’m not sure I would have discovered my win
From this viewpoint who gets to decide who is a responsible gun owner and who isn’t?
Certainly not people who live in other countries=)
Seriously though you still don’t get it, the question isn’t who gets to decide the characteristics of the responsible gun owner, it’s who gets to decide what is criminal gun use, the answer of course, is we (Americans) do.
We can broadly divide political philosophies into the assertions that humans can live a worthwhile life if left to their own devices. On the other side we have claims humans are inherently flawed and that we can only live worthwhile lives if we are under constant supervision
When we look at a problem in our society we don’t look at it from the top down, but the bottom up. So when psycho’s start shooting up public schools we don’t immediately leap to let’s regulate the behaviour of 37,500,000 citizens to stop the problem. Heck for that matter, when we are planning to do most anything the first thing we think of isn’t asking for permission.
Back to the matter at hand although, the assertion the best way to protect a place or a person is to increase vulnerability seems insane.
Where is the legislation to stop ‘anyone’ buying guns from gun shows, be they responsible gun owners or a ‘nutter’?
What makes you think legislation that will stop ‘anyone’ from buying a gun from a gun show or the classified newspaper advertisements will do anything positive. You’ve seen the math, why should we disrupt the daily affairs of the millions of ‘responsible’ citizens in a futile attempt to stop dangerous humans, whether the violent criminal, the murderous lunatic, or the ideologically driven terrorists from planning and carrying out there atrocities? I think it’s pretty clear that you cannot remove these threats with legislation
There just isn’t anything in place that has regard for human life in America.
This is the bit that dissuaded me from a youtube comment answer and sent me here.
Think about what you have written. Can you honestly claim to believe that there isn’t anything in America that has a regard for human life? Our charities don’t exist? Our ‘social justice’ government programs don’t exist? The relief efforts after a major disaster anywhere in the world that finds NGO Americans, using their personal resources and under their own volition working right along side the ‘official’ efforts carried out by the United States government shows there isn’t a regard for human life in America? Are you high?
You know more people have died in America from gun murder in the last year than in the Iraq war.
No I don’t know that, because it isn’t true. 12,000 doesn’t equal 100,000 to 1,000,000 (depending on which numbers are correct)
. Think about that for a moment, are you basing your opinions on truth or the gossip in popular culture.
If you ponder that thought you have to ask questions of where the American people place their priorities.
Well from my point of view as an American person, we place our priorities on the severest problems first, as guided by facts, unless some moon bat (not claiming your one of them) activists have been spreading FUD that takes our time away from real problems like say falls, which killed 24,792 Americans in 2009. Or accidental poisoning, which killed 31,758. Or maybe alcohol induced deaths that accounted for 24,518 American lives lost. How about renal failure (fancy Doctor talk for Kidney Failure) which accounted for 43,840. Malignant neoplasms that left 567,628 of us dead
When you stack these up against the 11,493 gun homicides the claim we should focus and prioritize on firearms in American society starts to look kind of tattered.
And that is even with the heavy suggestion and sway that Iraq is a lawless land, where in fact America is a supposed civilized country but there is more emphasis put on a soldier dying in Iraq than there is on some black dude from the ghetto being shot. There is an arguable disparity between the two circumstances but if you are talking philosophy then it is unlike a philosophy I have ever encountered or indulged in.
Already disposed of the Iraq fallacy above which is good because you have stumbled over a vital point. The role of skin color in American Politics when applied to guns. Black Americans have been uniquely stressed over the last 200 years. Starting with slavery, then ‘freedom’ that didn’t address education, which led to poverty, then the legalized Jim Crow abomination in the south was accompanied by the de facto segregation in the north wrapped up with a big shiny bow by Lyndon Johnson’s Great Society programs have all combined to disrupt the social and cultural conditions of Black Americans, like no other group I know of in history. Then add the prejudice that determines who can and cannot discuss issues facing Black Americans, the situation just sucks and I don’t know, I don’t think anybody knows how to fix it. But without assigning blame we can acknowledge that.
In light of the above, I think you can grasp the difficulty and the intensity of the struggle to combat the crime on crime gun violence that accounts for 80% of the problem. The elimination of which I have mathematically demonstrated elsewhere would bring American gun violence down to the level of European gun violence
This part of the issue becomes surreal when you find out the role of guns in the hands of Black Americans during the civil rights movement
And with due respect, I have been meaning to respond to your forum but I have not been compelled to of late. If you take the last 3 mass shootings in the UK as an example. Each of those individuals was a legal gun carrier and would be considered by you and other mainstream pro gun advocates as quote ‘responsible gun owners’. Therein lays the fallacy that gun ownership and responsible should ever be used in the same sentence in an unequivocal and complete sense, it’s broken logic, not even logic.
And I must say I don’t see any logic here. Because 3 men shoot up places in the U.K. the entire population of American gun owners must be considered irresponsible? This is the logic that says since young black men are arrested more than any other group, to keep society safe they should all be imprisoned when they turn 15 and not be let out until their 30. That since a small subset of drivers use their vehicle as a weapon, then all drivers are irresponsible in an unequivocal and complete sense. If you believe one of above claims is true, you have to believe all are true, as they are structurally identical. Do you see the flaw here?
If you want to come to London I will gladly escort you around the roughest of the roughest estates and ares in London. I can’t promise we would get no trouble, but I can promise you we can actually fucking walk into them without any fear of being shot lol, not just that, I can show you how little emphasis or fascination or need we have for guns, they are simply unnecessary. You are welcome to take me up on my offer.
Sure and I’ll match your offer, come across the pond and I’ll take you on a tour of what passes for ‘the ghetto’ in my state (the worst we have to offer in my region, I have a certain Section 8 apt complex in mind). If you like I’ll leave you there to explain your philosophy that guns are unnecessary to the inhabitants, you shouldn’t worry much about being shot as none of the residents own guns. I can’t guarantee you will be there when I come back anymore than I can guarantee anyone will ever see you again. Let me put it this way, I would recommend you put your affairs in order first.
Or we can go everywhere, and I mean everywhere, else, restaurants, stores, parks, library’s, churches, museums, the stockyards, truck stops, video arcades, shopping malls, outlet malls (entirely different from shopping malls), private homes, where ever you want to really, even onto public school grounds (I am legally barred from going with you so I’ll wait in the car). And you might not believe this but you don’t need to worry about being shot even though quite a few of the people we encounter will be armed, although you won’t be able to tell who is and who isn’t in most cases. The odds of one of my neighbours or countrymen being both armed and psycho is so low as to be statistically insignificant. I can guarantee if you want me to drop you off in any of these areas you’ll be there when I come back. Put it this way, I’d have no problem with you holding onto my wallet, baby, or bag of gold while your not in my armed company. Hopefully this will show you how your obsession with who is or isn’t allowed to be armed is simply unnecessary.
No man and woman walking this earth is immune to depression, psychotic episodes and aggression. That is why guns are incompatible with people..
This is the final failure, you realize we live in a dangerous world, although not as grim as you have painted because depression, psychotic episodes and even aggression doesn’t automatically transform into mass murder if the poor soul afflicted with such a condition also owns guns. . I think people are basically decent, even those people who I am fiercely in disagreement on political or religious issues with are never going to be a threat to me or anyone else. So I don’t mind if they are armed or not. Since violent crime continues to decline while the number of armed Americans continues to rise, I’m confident that guns are compatible with people. Invalidating any paranoid phobia or neuroses about the owning and carry firearms.
Look I understand that this issue is unique to the United States. The rest of the world, especially Europe, have created their social and government organizations in such a way as to eliminate any need for their populace being able to protect themselves, or indeed even seek that option. European political science is so perfect that tyrants, psychotics, and terrorists, not to mention violent criminals, just don’t pose a credible threat anymore, not just today but tomorrow as well. Especially since stalkers, rapists kidnappers, murderers and robbers don’t pose any more danger beyond the level of the fist fight. Maybe in 100 years we violent racist, misogynistic scared, paranoid Americans will finally grow up enough to get rid of our guns. And seat belts. And insurance. And doors. Until then I don’t think we can change our society enough so that it no longer scares you. Sorry
One last quick point, I didn’t wake up one morning and decide, today I am going to educate the world on the beneficial aspects that owning and carrying firearms provide, at both the individual level as well as society as a whole. I was just stumbling around the net looking at stuff that caught my eye and found this video, and more importantly, the ludicrous nonsensical views some people have about guns and/or Americans.
I think that if truth is not presented, falseness wins by default.
Falsehoods must be challenged simply because what you don’t know will kill you
Without a regard for human life I could easily ignore this issue but since I do regard and treasure human lives I am compelled to act
Until We No Longer Have To Play Under Waco vs Romainian Rules!
Keep Your Powder Dry Baby!!
1) ALWAYS treat ALL GUNS “as if” the gun is LOADED.
2) NEVER POINT a gun at ANYTHING that is WRONG to DESTROY.
3) ALWAYS CHECK the BACKGROUND
4) NEVER put your FINGER ON the TRIGGER until READY to FIRE
5) NEVER use a gun AGAINST another PERSON except in cases of IMMEDIATE DEFENCE.
6) ALWAYS make sure your FIREARMS are SECURE before ALTERING your MENTAL state.
7) NEVER let a gun LEAVE your CONTROL without CLEARING it first
8) ALWAYS seek instruction BEFORE handling an UNFAMILIAR Firearm.