Next time someone DEMANDS “common-sense” legislation of fire-arms on grounds recent advances in gun technology have made them so much more dangerous than before… Point out we’ve had rapid fire high capacity guns capable of mass murder for over 1 ½ centuries, and semi-automatic weapons have been available to the public for over a century.
So if we’ve had the technology for well over a century… why are mass shootings a comparatively new phenomena?
Some things that DO coincide with the advent of mass shootings:
- raising kids without discipline or requiring respect
- open disdain for religious precepts of moral behavior
- letting children park for hours in front of shooter video games
- a music genre that literally glorifies shootings/ homicide/ violence
- the prevalence of children raised without a dad
- “gun free zones” that ensure shooters a safe place to work
Common-sense says a problem that became prevalent over a century later was NOT caused by hardware we’d had access to for well over a century prior. The problem has to lie in changes more recent than guns.
So don’t try to legislate “common sense” while employing an argument that lacks it.
PS: Our right to bear arms is one of our original “civil rights”.
It was not “discovered” in the constitution a century or so later… It was written explicitly into the Bill of Rights to protect it from being challenged by subsequent legislators.
If you oppose rights protected by the US constitution, don’t pretend you have some mythical moral high ground. You are just an opponent of my civil rights, and will be treated as such.
Popular Response To Mass Shootings: FAST ACTION!
“We must take action now! Harumph harumph harumph!”
Anyone familiar with handling a boat that hits whitewater knows the wrong reaction to hitting turbulence is a LOT more dangerous than none. The same applies with passing well meaning but ill-considered legislation.
I’m constantly amazed when I see folks that might otherwise be considered sane tell me that we need more gun laws because shooters keep shooting folks in gun free zones.
Ummm, does that not raise even a slight bit of doubt in your mind as to the effectiveness of what you humorously call a “gun free zone“?
What seems to be the problem? If it’s “gun free” how is there a “shooter”?
- They didn’t post enough signs?
- Should they print them in a different color for visibility?
- Was the font too small for the shooter to read?
- Is it a literacy issue?
If gun free zone signs are an effective method of disarming bad guys, shouldn’t the military post them in Iraq to disarm ISIS? If not, please explain why they’re useless as tits on a boar hog elsewhere, but a brilliant solution here.
But instead of carefully taking stock of what works and what doesn’t, we see hair-on-fire demands to do something, anything, immediately! And so we collectively double down on prior mistakes.
Any shooting instructor will tell you it is impossible to miss your opponent fast enough to kill him. Speed cannot take precedence to hitting the target. That same lesson applies to laws about guns. It doesn’t matter how fast you pass ineffective “solutions“.
Also worthy of note: Solutions that repeatedly fail to fix a problem are not solutions, and solutions that actually exacerbate the problem are called “problems“.
Gas may look a lot like water, but it’d be nice if we quit trying to use it to put out fires.
Witnesses report hostilities began when a predominantly white mob armed with military style assault weapons initiated an unprovoked attack, targeting Asian men at a scenic beachfront resort. Violence escalated for days, during which many men of Japanese descent were murdered in an orgy of gunfire and terrorist bombings.
Afterward a group of largely white Americans celebrated the atrocity by raising their racist flag over land they’d stolen. FBI informants verify this flag has been used as a symbol of hate in many other military style attacks, including violent hate crimes perpetuated against Asians by white skinheads at Tarawa and Guadalcanal.
The gang believed to be responsible for these and other attacks is known to relish their history of racial violence, even singing songs celebrating displays of anger in places ranging from the halls of Montezuma to the shores of Tripoli.
Though conspiracy buffs contend the attack was planned & coordinated in military fashion, sources in DC indicate it was likely just a spontaneous response to a vicious and racist John Wayne movie.
President Roosevelt went on radio to assure all that Bushido is a creed of peace… and warned racist white Americans that “the future must not belong to those who slander the emperor of Japan”.
PRESIDENT OBAMA on the Charleston shooting…
“…once again, innocent people were killed in part because someone who wanted to inflict harm had no trouble getting their hands on a gun.”
Once again defenseless victims were methodically shot like fish in a barrel.
Once again it took place in what gun control advocates cynically call a “gun free zone“. Witnesses say the shooter reloaded 5 times. He had nothing to fear.
Once again cynical politicians score political points saying more laws would have stopped it. Because someone out to commit murder, which has been illegal since roughly the dawn of time, is going to be deterred by laws.
People who would laugh if you say unicorns are real are perfectly mollified when politicos pretend making something illegal makes it magically go away. You know, since it worked so well with pot, meth and heroin.
FUN FACTS ABOUT GUN CONTROL:
— Strict gun control in France did not prevent the Charlie Hebdo massacre.
— Strict gun control in Australia likely contributed to the success in December of a single nutty cleric with an illegal gun taking an entire cafe in Sydney hostage. [Psst. Try that in a Texas cafe]
— Strict gun control in Norway didn’t deter Andre Brevik from taking 77 human lives.
— Strict gun control in DC has not kept it from having one of the highest murder rates in the country despite reporting virtually the lowest gun ownership.
— Strict gun control has not stopped Chicago from being ground zero for murder in the USA.
Historically mass shooters tend to do one of two things when armed resistance arrives. It does not matter if it is a civilian or police that are armed… the shooter typically either surrenders or he kills himself. No matter how well armed or how much body armor he has, they do not in most cases shoot it out. They are bold ONLY while they are the only one armed.
There may be exceptions, but that is the norm. Gun free zones serve only to give them a less hostile work environment.
BUT GUN CONTROL LAWS MAKE ME FEEL SAFER!
OK, but do they MAKE you safer? Some, like “gun free zones”, actually make you LESS safe.
Returning to the American people once again to propose a cure that has actually exacerbated the problem thus far is like a child complaining to the wood shop teacher that he’s sawed this board three times and it’s STILL too short. Not bright.
Don’t be fooled. As always, gun control is NOT about guns. It’s about control.
KEEPING SENSATIONAL NEWS IN PERSPECTIVE
A lot of internet exposure about the guy that shot at police HQ in Dallas. Yes, he was white. He also killed NOBODY white or black before dying, but somehow ignited the race-baiters on the left to harumph a lot on the net.
Either way, kudos to the DPD for a job well done.
Meanwhile in the inner cities, life is so cheap nobody mentions the deaths unless a white cop kills a black guy. Then it is “news“.
Speaking of news, let’s talk for a minute on how they handle sensational murder stories.
INCREASINGLY USELESS NEWS CLICHES
“Hate Crime” – in general use this has devolved to simply mean either a white guy killed a black guy or a straight guy killed a gay guy. We realize some violence is motivated by hate of another’s race (or nationality, etc), but if a black crowd beating a Serbian guy with hammers is not a hate crime, don’t bother using the phrase just because the perp is white. I’m almost sure most murders, regardless of whether the participants are the same color/sex/etc, are not “love crimes“. At least try for some measure of consistency.
“Racist / Racism” – The simple act of disagreeing with someone of another race is not “racism“. Even violent conflicts between people of opposite colors is not automatically “racism“. If two guys start shooting at each other because their drug deal went bad or one cut the other off on the road, their respective colors are probably a superfluous factor. If the term is to have meaning, it should be applied only when a conflict is actually motivated by race. Throwing it out when it is not applicable ends the possibility of rational discussion.
“The suspect” – I gave a newsman grief on twitter for calling a guy that was killed inside a van from which gunfire was directed at a police station “a suspected gunman“. He was the only person in the van. The news guy replied he has not been convicted. Seriously? After he’s been shot with a .50 cal and baked in his van… It’s a tad late to worry about his civil rights. Just call him “the shooter“. Common sense, ya know?
“Disturbed individual”– When there is a mass shooting, news outlets helpfully point out that the shooter is a “disturbed individual“. Thanks a lot for differentiating this from all the mass shootings performed by happy and well adjusted individuals. It means a lot to us.
“Time for a national discussion…” – Don’t bother finishing. We KNOW what follows. Just say what you mean: “Hi kids, we’d like to use this tragic event to renew our objection to anyone but the politically connected having the opportunity to keep and bear arms.” If you have a problem with the 2nd amendment, see the methods noted in the constitution for removing that. Until you can accomplish changing it… Remember the words “shall not be infringed” are pretty unambiguous.
WHY MENTION THIS TODAY?
There was a shooting in SC yesterday. It very likely IS a true “hate crime“. The fact he shot 9 people tells you he’s definitely disturbed. And given that a white guy went to a black church he does not normally attend to shoot everyone present, he very likely IS a racist.
Hopefully he’s caught quickly. A good public hanging would probably discourage this type of behavior… But that’s not as politically acceptable to point out as is the “time for a national discussion” stuff.
But for the record… He does not reflect poorly on all white people any more than the plethora of black on black murders in Chicago every weekend reflect poorly on all blacks. He needs to be caught and hung, but so does every single gang-banger that killed someone of any color this weekend.
Nor does he reflect poorly on the NRA or all gun owners. We don’t have a “national discussion on car ownership” every time a drunk plows into a pedestrian.
Quit falling for the politicians and media’s use of every tragedy to promote their unrelated agendas.
The NY Times first published a shocking expose’ showing Marco Rubio had 4 traffic tickets in 18 years, and his wife had a bunch more. Not unpaid tickets mind you… they just had some traffic tickets.
You know, like normal people that have not been chauffeur driven everywhere they go since the day in the early 90s their husband was elected president.
This amazing revelation brought guffaws from social media, with the NY Times editorial board bearing the brunt of the laughter. The Twitter hashtag #RubioCrimeSpree was active for days as people imagined his other possible sins… ranging from things like returning tapes to Blockbuster without rewinding to failing to pay library fines in a timely manner.
Someone has GOT to keep an eye on him.
And so the NY Times did… following up the story a few days later with the news that when he received an $800k book advance, Rubio “splurged” and bought “an $80k luxury speedboat”!
And of course the liberal Twittersphere began furiously breaking out all their puppet IDs to publicly denounce Rubio for his vile crime of boat ownership.
Funny part: Just as soon as the left started handing out the pitchforks to villagers, some spoilsport published a picture of the offending vehicle.
It’D be nice as small (24 ft) seagoing FISHING boats go, but you probably don’t want to enter it in a race, or get too far offshore for that matter. It makes the SS Minnow look like the QE2.
As @JohnEkdahl points out in a scale overlay… Rubio’s luxury speedboat would float like a cork in a bathtub in Hillary’s pool.
And then people pointed out such fun facts as what this boat looks like next to John Kerry’s boat, which is several times longer than and which he does NOT dock in his home state in order to avoid about half a mil in excise taxes. [Wait, I thought Dems LIKED to see the rich pay taxes?]
And naturally there were references to Ted Kennedy’s choice of luxury watercraft.
Next the discussion turned to tongue-in-cheek mention what an evil one-percenter Rubio must be to own such a magnificent craft. One comparison showed his residence vs Hillary’s…
So basically twice in the span of a week the NY Times staff has provided mass hilarity to the social media world without trying. The reporter… Michael Barbaro… responded by calling those who laughed at his partisan hack job “haters” and blocking them on Twitter. And of course the more petulant he got, the more people laughed.
And here is Michael Barbaro’s clever method of handling criticism of his media bias.
Seriously… who would NOT want to be a fly on the wall at a NY Times editorial board meeting? Imagine what it must look like.
SENIOR EDITOR: Alright, we need a serious piece on a presidential candidate. Ideas?
REPORTER 1: I hear there’s evidence Hillary used her position as Sec of State to work around US govt sanctions in return for “charitable donations” from foreign governments.
REPORTER 2: Let’s not forget she was caught straight faced lying to a grieving mother at a funeral, claiming her kid that was killed in a terrorist attack was actually murdered by angry film critics.
REPORTER 3: I heard Rubio owns a nice boat.
SENIOR EDITOR: Quick… GET ME THAT BOAT STORY NOW!
C’mon, New York Times. We KNOW you’re liberal political hacks, but for the sake of appearances you might at least PRETEND you’re journalists. Occasionally. Right?
Watching Matt Lauer interview Jim (Sheldon Cooper) Parsons about his role on Broadway playing God. Matt giggles that some might not like him playing God, and Parsons replies “What can I say… haters gonna hate”. They both chuckle and continue chatting.
Gee. No mention he might “incite violence” by Shiite Baptists? So if some Catholic objects, THEY are the “haters”, not the one that offended them? Watched the news lately?
Similarly, in a glowing review of Broadway hit “Book of Mormon”, the NYT says it’s “… blasphemous, scurrilous and more foul-mouthed than David Mamet on a blue streak. But trust me when I tell you that its heart is as pure as that of a Rodgers and Hammerstein show.”
Wait a sec. It’s “blasphemous“? Oh my. Aren’t you worried it’ll CAUSE violence?
The same New York Times is all over Pam Geller for her blatant and intentional “disrespect” of Islam… and the AP News crew is openly amazed she “has no regrets”.
Yeah, she’s just a troublemaker isn’t she? How DARE she think she can mock a religion? Right?
I’m NOT suggesting the self-crowned “elite” must temper their antics to avoid offending religions. The 1st amendment says they CAN. I don’t have to like it. I can change the channel, read a different paper, even boycott their sponsors… but I cannot MAKE them “respect” my religion, and I for sure cannot threaten violence.
Just trying to figure out how they can’t see the blatant hypocrisy of granting Islam a preferred status.
If the media didn’t have double-standards… they’d have none at all.