IN THE NEWS
By presidential executive action the USDA has been granted $1.2 million to enact a study on why Democrats never make a profit farming chickens.
It’s a mystery. :-)
“Common sense” regulations anti-gun guys want include a ban on assault (ie- “scary looking”) rifles.
– Latest FBI stats… 12,253 murders in US.
– Rifles (any kind) account for 285
– Blunt objects… 428
They need this to fight our rising murder rate!
Except it is actually on a steady decline.
Maybe “common sense” doesn’t mean what I thought.
Seriously folks… math r hard. Right?
Take heart… Maybe you can get a waiting period on hammers. :-)
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:
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”?
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.
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.