Contributors

Monday, December 17, 2012

The Usual Three

The Right has reacted to the massacre at Sandy Hook Elementary in their three usual ways. First up was Mike Huckabee who blamed the public schools for taking God out students' lives. This struck me as odd as any student (or person, for that matter) has the right to go to whatever church they want and participate in the many after school and weekend activities. In fact, they could fill up much more time doing church activities than being at school if they really wanted to do so.

Their second reaction was Don't Take Away My Gun. This has never made any sense to me. Neither has the term "gun grabber." Nikto, a contributor here, was recently accused of being a gun grabber when all he called for was a ban on assault weapons and high capacity magazines. He did not call for banning rifles, handguns or other types of weapons that are not semi-automatic capacity. Apparently, the leap from certain types of guns to ALL guns is about an inch. Or less.

Of course, a ban like this will not prevent these types of incidents from happening and this is why I say that the two main sides in this debate, which we are likely to see quite a bit of over the next few weeks, are essentially wrong. By attacking the guns, that side avoids the real issue of mental health and the need for increased security in schools anyway for other issues (drugs, theft, fighting). How about marshals for schools like we have for airlines?

The other side has yet to provide a reason that is not grounded in paranoia and fantasy as to why people should be able to own the type of gun that Adam Lanza used last Friday. Obviously, these same people think that there are number of weapons that should not be owned by average citizens. So why not these? I'd like an answer that is not an emotional and frilled up sermon, please.

The third reaction (and perhaps the most disturbing) is They Should Have Armed Themselves. A completely ridiculous notion when you consider that Nancy Lanza was well armed and got shot with her own weapon! It would be one thing if they were calling for an increased police presence but that's not it. They want teachers wearing guns...a truly stupid idea simply on the basis that teachers don't have time to go through all the training necessary to be safe with a weapon. They are there to educate.

All of these reactions truly suck at a depth that I didn't think was possible to discover. It's been interesting to note that, aside from above, the reaction has largely been quiet from the gun lobby. Perhaps they are finally reflecting on the fact that their usual rag isn't going to work this time. In fact, what they should really be reflecting on is this question: What if the shooter last Friday was a Muslim? What would their reaction have been?

Further, I can't figure out why such a loud and large group of people are apoplectic about Benghazi, where 2 CIA Contractors, a Navy Seal, and a US Ambassador (all of whom were trained for being in massively unstable situations),  were are killed and then turn around be completely laissez faire about this incident where little girls were shot as many as ten times. They fault the president for the former and want him to do nothing for the latter.

And that makes me fucking nauseous.


12 comments:

Larry said...

What shoud make you nauseous, Mark, is your own illogic and relentless politicizing of the most senseless atrocities.

I'll only deal with first idiocy: was Nancy Lanza armed? By your definition, apparently, owning arms is equivalent to being armed, which as even the poor, innocent children who were victims at Newtown could explain to you, is a dopey, even insane assumption.

But from someone who claims to be able to read minds, what should we expect except dopiness?

There are times I think Nikto is the "ugly chick", but from things both of you say, there are times I think that "Nikto" is one of your imaginary friends. The only thing that makes me think "Nikto" might be real is that my (religiously fanatical, but purely political and evangelically atheistic) mother-in-law parrots many of the same points, apparently absorbed from the exact same sources you link to.

Nikto said...

There's no question that people have a right to own guns. The question is, how do we keep guns out of the hands of people who are incompetent, unqualified or simply too dangerous to have access to guns?

We have many laws on the books to keep bad drivers off the roads. We prevent certain people from voting. We keep certain people from drinking. And we already have laws that keep certain people from owning guns. Obviously they aren't working very well.

Gun enthusiasts love to dress up their hobby, pretending that its essential to the defense of the nation. But that's fatuous nonsense. Guns are their toys. They like to shoot stuff full of holes and blow shit up. Newtown itself has been going through a huge argument about this very issue: where does the right to play with guns and explosives end and where does the right of other citizens to enjoy peace and quiet in their own homes begin?

Yes, even if we were to ban all guns (which I don't advocate) people would still die from illegal guns and from knife attacks and savage beatings. But we've spent trillions of dollars fighting Islamic terrorists, and they still manage to kill American soldiers in about the same numbers as gun-wielding maniacs in the United States are killing innocent civilians. Shouldn't we expend at least some effort to prevent guys like Adam Lanza from murdering little kids, instead of just throwing up our hands in impotence?

The mother whose son killed all those kids in Newtown was reportedly a survivalist, and taught her son everything he knew about guns. And he killed her with her own weapon, shooting her in the face apparently while she slept. Doesn't that give gun owners the slightest pause about the way they behave and talk in front of their kids?

Anonymous said...

Nikto, a contributor here, was recently accused of being a gun grabber when all he called for was a ban on assault weapons and high capacity magazines. He did not call for banning rifles, handguns or other types of weapons that are not semi-automatic capacity. Apparently, the leap from certain types of guns to ALL guns is about an inch. Or less.

This is because both you and N are rather ignorant about guns and how they function.

Can you actually explain to us what an 'assault weapon' is? Can you explain the real world difference between what N wishes to ban and what he doesn't?

Because you use terms incorrectly, and because you think what you wish to ban is radically different from what you say you don't want to ban you don't understand what you are actually calling for is a broad reaching ban on the majority of guns owned in this country.

Mark Ward said...

This comment (and some on TSM) are unfortunately illustrative and all too typical of the way you guys talk about issues like this...especially the gun issue. Rather than defend your position (something that's pretty hard to do anyway and now is going to be largely impossible), it quickly becomes about how stupid the left is...how stupid I am. Why is that?

There is no way I know as much about guns as you guys do but I do know that you are paranoid about the fact that even handguns could be classified as semi-automatic and you've made a very large leap if you think that they are going to be included in any sort of ban. And, yes, I know you can turn many hand guns into "automatic" after market and then they are illegal. Have you ever stopped to wonder why one should do that?

It would better serve you to just admit that you feel like your culture is being attacked. This is your social outlet and it's now threatened. It doesn't really have anything to do with freedom and protection from government because, let me tell you, even a Bushmaster isn't going to help you out if the government decides to lock down this country. They have tanks, planes, and even bigger guns.

Anonymous said...

Mark, you don't know what you don't know. I can't defend against an argument that is so ignorant that it can't even define it's own terms.

Mention an assault rifle ban. Why? An assault rifle wasn't used. The other talk is about banning certain features that are so common that banning them does indeed amount to wholesale banning.

Even in you're last post.... wtf do you mean handguns COULD be classified semi automatic? Every handgun I own IS semi automatic.

Mark Ward said...

Well, that's a convenient dodge. Is that all you have? Saying I'm stupid? It's the same crap with every issue. You don't actually stand for anything, just against what you perceive to be stupid people.

Here's a though, GD. State your case through detailed evidence. Explain how this is NOT a national security issue now and why it still is an issue of freedom. How does an AR-15 Bushmaster help you to defend yourself where handgun falls short?

Anonymous said...

Is that all you have? Saying I'm stupid?

Did I? I said you were ignorant.


ig·no·rant

adjective
1.
lacking in knowledge or training; unlearned: an ignorant man.
2.
lacking knowledge or information as to a particular subject or fact: ignorant of quantum physics.
3.
uninformed; unaware.
4.
due to or showing lack of knowledge or training: an ignorant statement.

Since you've admitted yourself to have a lack of knowledge about guns then you have also said you are ignorant.

But since you refuse to remedy that ignorance, and insist upon interjecting upon subjects that you are ignorant about - now I'm going to call you stupid.

stu·pid
adjective

1.
lacking ordinary quickness and keenness of mind; dull.
2.
characterized by or proceeding from mental dullness; foolish; senseless: a stupid question.
3.
tediously dull, especially due to lack of meaning or sense; inane; pointless: a stupid party.
4.
annoying or irritating; troublesome: Turn off that stupid radio.


State your case

The onus is upon you to present a case - you are the one who wants to ban the guns. Figure out what you want to prevent - and then what you propose to do to achieve that goal. Having some knowledge upon the subject matter here will prevent you from making a fool of yourself.

why it still is an issue of freedom.

It's funny that for four years you've been ridiculing the right for thinking the left wanted to take away their guns. Now in the space of several days you are demanding that we defend the reasons we should keep those same guns.

How does an AR-15 Bushmaster help you to defend yourself where handgun falls short?

Is that your question? Should I point out that it is again based in ignorance? Or do you really mean to give me a choice between ONLY the Bushmaster manufacturer model of an AR-15 rifle or a handgun - any handgun? Perhaps you mean to say any ar-15 rifle. Or any semi-automatic rifle? Do you take umbrage to semi-automatic firearms as Nikto does? Is it the number of rounds in a magazine that bothers you? Would that change if I showed you how easy it is to change an empty magazine with a loaded one? Perhaps it's the power of the cartridge fired by the AR-15. Should I point out that the .223 caliber round is considered a intermediate power round and most rifle cartridges are much more 'powerful'. Even if you banned the AR-15, would you be shocked to find numerous other rifles that have essentially the same characteristics and you would have accomplished exactly nothing?

See - ignorance. You don't know what you don't know and can't even ask a question that isn't ridiculous.

But I will answer this question.
Explain how this is NOT a national security issue now and why it still is an issue of freedom.

Because fuck you. I don't need to explain to you why, what or how I need or want any particular gun. I have a human right to defend myself, my family and my community with the best tools as I see fit. I have that right legally enshrined in the constitution so if you try to take my guns you - you are the aggressor. If you become the aggressor and try to disarm this country you will spark a civil war. A war that you will not win. In short, if you try to take my guns I will kill you.

Juris Imprudent said...

Well, that's a convenient dodge.

If all you have is ignorant emotionalism, that isn't a dodge - it is a statement of fact. Yes, facts are stubborn - and inconvenient - things, but that doesn't change the matter.

You are responding in fear, and fear only. Perhaps when you calm down it might be possible to actually discuss the matter.

Mark Ward said...

But since you refuse to remedy that ignorance

No, I've asked you to remedy it. You're the expert. It's not my fault that your arguments thus far aren't compelling. See my post today as to why that is.

The onus is upon you to present a case

No, it's not. Again, you're the experts, not me. And I'm not the one on the ropes right now, dude. That's you. And you're ripping me for being ignorant:)

Having some knowledge upon the subject matter here will prevent you from making a fool of yourself.

Translation: People that don't agree with me are stupid.

As far as your last paragraph goes, I think that's the general attitude that is part of the cause for these shootings. In fact, how is it different from the threat Al Qaeda perceives from the West? You say you need everything short of nuclear, biological, and chemical weapons to defend yourself and the community. Fine. Let's see the intel on this imminent threat using logic, facts, and evidence.

We don't yet know what drove Lanza to do what he did but he did manage to destroy his cyber footprints and I find that very interesting, don't you?

Larry said...

Condensed Mark: "I'm a deliberate fuckwit! It's not my fault you're too poopy-headed to explain the concepts to my delicately ignorant ears without offending their senses of propriety.

Juris Imprudent said...

Translation: People that don't agree with me are stupid.

There appears to be something defective in your reading comprehension. But we've been over that before, haven't we?

Anonymous said...

No, I've asked you to remedy it. You're the expert.

Ah, yes. And you are such a willing student.....

It's not my fault that your arguments thus far aren't compelling.

Because I keep getting stuck at your gross ignorance of the subject matter. I cannot present and argument against your position when you are unable to define your position. You use words and terms that do not mean what you think they mean. (I'm referring to your use of gun words - not your stupefying confusion of the words 'ignorant' and 'stupid')

Translation: People that don't agree with me are stupid.

Newflash Mark. We haven't even begun to disagree yet.

BECAUSE YOU HAVE YET TO PRESENT AN ARGUMENT THAT MAKES ENOUGH SENSE TO DISAGREE WITH.

imminent threat

Lets define some words again for the language challenged.


imminent
adjective
1.
likely to occur at any moment; impending

Think about that for a second Mark.

If a threat is imminent isn't it already to late to acquire a defense against it? When the flames are licking up the wall it's too late to run to the store and buy a fire extinguisher.