I wrote a response to a Washington Post OP-ED commentary section without verifying that I would be able to post it. I don’t want to reply enough to subscribe to the WaPo, but I also don’t want to trash the piece, so I decided to post it here. The article from 2013.APR.11 is currently linked to here.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2013/04/11/gun-experts-on-the-manchin-toomey-bill-it-is-a-step-forward-but-a-small-step/

First my response to the article itself, as propaganda, it’s not to objectionable, the only shading of the truth is maybe the implication that buying a gun over the internet from a Federal Firearm Permit holder, is a straw sale. Or when they offer up the statistic of 39% of criminals getting weapons from ‘family and friends’ without pointing out close to 100% of those transfers were by theft (it’s a lot safer to rob family and friends, there is a lower probability of your victim calling the police). Hanging their assertions on debatable ‘facts’ as if they were gospel is pretty common for Pre-Internet Media orgs.
If you know their cant you can glean trustworthy data from even biased sources.. Anyways enjoy=)

Original comment in blue.

Because all you geniuses dedicate yourselves to contorted rationalizations and outright deceit, in your single-minded opposition to any and all law about guns.
 
I just saw the whole schtick this morning: 
 
“Background checks wouldn’t have stopped Sandy Hook, so they’re no good.”
 
When it was pointed out that an assault weapons ban would have prevented the Sandy Hook slaughterer from having access to an AR-15, outcomes my personal favorite:
“There’s no such thing as an assault weapon.”
 
So now the gun psychos are arguing that the subject of the gun control argument doesn’t exist. Does that mean they think none of those children really died, that this whole movement is nothing but a cynical ploy to bamboozle the American people out of gun rights by faking the deaths of twenty first-graders?
 
I’m sorry, but the arguments coming out of the mouths of gun rights absolutists are coming out of minds that are cesspools of hypocrisy and deceit
by ‘lonquest’
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

The reasoning behind our viewpoints are so simple everyone should be able to grasp them.
We all ready have a background check system. According to this very article, background checks would not have stopped 77% of the transactions those checks are supposedly designed to stop.  So straight from the jump this bill is going to affect less than 25% of transactions.
And yet your frenzy in defense of this law suggest there is more going on here, probably the creation of a gun owners registry state actors can access when ever they want to. As to the why that is a bad idea is to complicated to go over here. I’ll put it on my list.

Although this might simply be a case where your single minded dedication in supporting any and all laws creating any limitation on gun owners might be at work here.

Imagine this, and please understand I’m not directing this at you personally. Often, a person who hates guns is in favor of abortion.

How would such a person react if everytime abortion was in the news the label used was ‘so called medical‘ abortions.

Imagine if any method of birth control can be labelled ‘so called medical’ abortions. Now imagine everytime birth control is labelled ‘so called medical’ abortion, the definition of abortion has been changed to only mean partial birth abortion.

Birth control pills labelled, ‘so called medical’ (now defined as partial birth) abortions.

The morning after pill, spermicidal foam, the rhythm method, even condoms for goodness sake, labelled ‘so called medical’ (now defined as partial birth) abortions. This is analogous to labelling any gun as an assault weapon.

Do you see where gun people could grow tired of the ‘assault weapon’ label? (What’s the opposite of assault anyway? Maybe deterrence?)

Especially when most of the people who use the term can’t tell the difference between a rifle and a shotgun, between a pistol and a semi-auto handgun, between semi and full auto. firearms.

Would the ‘assault’ deterrence weapons ban have kept a rifle out of the hands of the Sandy Hook shooter? Maybe, maybe not.

The only thing the 1994 ‘assault’ deterrence weapons ban accomplished was to change cosmetic features on some rifles for sale, while driving up the price on others.

It wasn’t a ban on ownership, just regulations increasing the complexity in the sale of certain firearms.

Rifles, which includes assault deterrence rifles, are still used in only 2% of violent crimes.

For a little perspective, in 2011 we saw about 11deaths from accidental drowning  for every person murdered with a rifle.

But assault deterrence rifles ‘look’ scary, so I don’t see the lack of criminal usage making a difference to gun haters anytime soon.

Trust me on this if nothing else, gun people are angrier than gun people haters about the Sandy Hook shooting.

Because none of the ‘solutions’ proffered by the anti’s will keep our children safe.

So you can call people names and behave like a 2 year old denied his rattle.

Or you can work to overturn the laws that makes a parent or teacher who has gone to the trouble of getting a carry permit, a Federal Felon if they bring their sidearm on to public school grounds.
The operational counter to a violent criminal with a gun, is a law abiding citizens engaged in defensive carry.
I really don’t understand why this concept is so hard for some people to see.

 

Today marks 120 days since the Sandy Hook shooting.

Aside from the ritualistic chants of the folks that hate gun owners asserting what bad evil people we are, and how the complete disarmament of our nation is the only solution possible and how stupid and insane we are in our mistaken belief that violence can be committed with out a gun,  nothing substantive has changed.

Sadly, the next mass shooting is around the corner. Some pathetic whack job luzer who has forgotten what it means to be a human being is fantasizing about how the world will have to sit up and notice them after they commit whatever horrific act they are contemplating. It is our good fortune that most of those residing in that dark place will NOT become a mass murdering spree killer.

The likeliest outcome for most of those poor souls is suicide, although some will learn how to reverse their down world spiral and make it back to the land of the living.

Sadly it only takes the one who has made the commitment to horror to spawn yet another preventable attack on helpless children.

Predictably, when that attack comes the usual suspects will keep arguing about how this proves we need to ban guns from our country ad nauseum.

Possibly our laws will have changed, and our budding terrorist will have his ticket punched before he really has a chance to begin, by a cop, a security guard, or, as in other places, a parent, teacher, principal, or even a janitor who practices defensive carry.

But until those changes are made, sadly I wouldn’t count on it.

Advertisements