Showing posts with label Gun Cult. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Gun Cult. Show all posts

Wednesday, January 25, 2017

The Republican Brain Part Eight: Don't Get Defensive

The last time we looked inside Chris Mooney's insightful and amazing book, The Republican Brain, conservatives and how they respond to authority was viewed through the cognitive lens. After the results of the 2016 election, this has never been more important. In fact, all of Mooney's book should be read by Democrats who want to win in the midterms in 2018 and take back the presidency in 2020.

In the next section we will be looking at, "Don't Get Defensive," Mooney cautions that people tend to get defensive when we talk about psychology and neuroscience. Mental health is a very personal issue for most Americans and there is still a great stigma attached to it. Considering that conservatives brains are on display in this book, Mooney spends the next chapter considering the possible outrage over what he has said.

Mooney with an outline of the chapter and summary of what is to come. He wonders whether it's fair to lump all conservatives together. Certainly a libertarian is vastly different from a Christian conservative. And don't conservatives lump liberals together? Can liberals be just as close minded as conservatives? The answer, based on what we have seen so far, is no and it's, once again, because of neuroscience. But what about independents? There sure are plenty of them. Can someone also be converted from left to right or vice versa? Mooney states that the left-right conversion is fairly easy if one employs fear and distraction. So here is Mooney, poking holes into this own research.

Who's a conservative...really? The answers to this question certainly varies from country to country. England's conservatives are ideologically more akin to our moderate liberals. When people answer questions on surveys about their ideology, invariably it's in opposition to something. Given that the word "liberal" has been effectively demonized in the United States, many people claim to be more conservative than they actually are out of fear of being looked down upon. Yet, John Jost's research (here and here) shows that there is a consistency in terms of behavior and political conservatism, even across countries.

What do all conservatives share? This question can best be answered by looking at the common traits, psychologically speaking, that most conservatives share. They are not as open to the world as liberals and fear change. New experiences frighten them and they are resistant to progress. Recall William F Buckley when he declare that the National Review "stands athwart history yelling Stop!!" Mooney, in one has to be an epic foreshadowing, notes, "the change that conservatives seek is not progressive; rather it is in the direction of restoring something they perceive as prior and better."

Like making America great again? :)

Mooney goes on to correctly note that the earlier status quo may not be one that ever existed. As long as they think it did, that's what drives their policies and agenda.

Why aren't we psychoanalyzing liberals too? Well, we are. There are an equal number of studies that show that liberals are more prone to appeasement and indecision than are conservatives. Again, this is merely because of the way their brains are made. Like conservatives, liberals tend to allow emotions affect their decision making process and the result is indecision and appeasement. Mooney notes for us all to remember that belief systems address psychological needs, whatever the ideology may be.

What about the difference between economic and social conservatives? While there are some differences, it's important to note here that both employ the "work hard and you will get ahead" model. Most conservative Christians I know are also die hard capitalists. It doesn't matter that they accept Darwin's "Survival of the Fittest" economically but not spiritually. The root force is still there: pull yourself up by your bootstraps and don't rely on the government.

What about the cultural cognition model? Let's recall the basic traits of conservatives and liberals. Conservatives are generally hierarchical/individual types while liberals are egalitarian-communitarian types. Isn't there something in the liberal personality type that would lead them to reject the science of something like nuclear power or vaccines in the same way that conservatives reject climate change? Not quite, notes Mooney. Cultural cognition models do show us interesting things about liberal reaction to these issues but they still don't react in the same way as conservatives do. They may understate the research or spin it but they don't outright reject it.

What about leftist regimes? Well, they aren't really all that "left" when you think about it. Communist regimes say that they are egalitarian but they usually end up being authoritarian and thus share more in common with a conservative psychological framework.

What about left wing ideologues? Extremism is extremism, right? I hear this all the time. Both sides are just as bad, especially as you move out from the center. Yet the evidence does not support this assertion. Conservatives are far worse in terms of rigidity and inflexibility. Researcher John Jost conducted 13 separate studies and not a single one showed increased rigidity on the left. They ALL showed it on the right, however. In fact, when Jost run more studies, he found that the more extreme one was on the left hand side of the spectrum, the more open they were. Robert Altemeyer confirmed this when he went on a search for the Loch Ness Monster of political psychology-the left wing authoritarian. He found none but did find plenty of right wing authoritarians.

If you stop and think about it logically for a moment, all of this makes sense. Liberals' biggest fault is their penchant for being too flexible and changing their minds often. That is psychologically valid. So, how on earth could they be authoritarian?

Why not better distinguish conservatives from authoritarians? Consider the three basic groups of conservatives: libertarians, status quo folks, and out and out authoritarians. The reason Mooney doesn't distinguish between these three types are that each one still has that fear of uncertainty, rigidity and antipathy towards progress. This gibes with what I have always seen which is that even libertarians have closet authoritarians inside of them:)

What about centrists and independents? Let's take a look at the four types of independents.

Libertarians: Lean conservative.
Post Moderns: Young, hip, secular, pro-environment, not very liberal, in the classical sense, on economic issues
Disaffected: Financially stressed, hate politics (AKA Trump voters)
Bystanders: Young, not politically engaged

In looking at these four types, we can see that these folks aren't really centrist at all. Sure, they don't want to be labelled as a "Democrat" or a "Republican" but libertarians and disaffecteds are really conservatives and postmoderns are more liberal. Psychologically, Mooney's classification system still applies. The libertarians and the disaffecteds are less open to change with the post moderns more flexible and more open to new experiences.

What about political conversions? In the final section of this chapter, Mooney takes a look at the psychological triggers that cause these shifts. Too much authoritarianism may cause some conservatives to shy away from populous shifts within the GOP. Fear invariably causes liberals to become more conservative.

Linda Skitka of the University of Illinois in Chicago set up a study in which both liberals and conservatives were asked to stop and think about what they were proposing to check on fear as a motivating factor. Participants were asked to consider different groups of people who have AIDS and whether or not they should receive government assisted help for their disease. Some of the AIDS victims got through no fault of their own and others got it just because they were careless. Both liberals and conservatives said that the latter group should not get government help but after some considering, liberals' natural psychological tendencies kicked in and they said they should. Conservatives did not waiver. Yet, if liberals were asked to do another task, like listening to music while considering this decision, they behaved just like conservatives.

Mooney also notes a University of Arkansas study in which alcohol and political ideology were studies. Scott Eidelman and his team of researchers literally set up shop outside of a campus bar and found that when people drink, they become more conservative. This makes sense because booze disrupts cognitive reasoning and more emotional responses take over. In looking at the states that went for Trump last November, one can see higher incidences of alcohol, particularly in the Rust Belt, and drug abuse.  I'll have more on this later as I think it directly relates to how Democrats have to connect with disaffected voters who left them and went for Trump.

So, in looking at all these question, research shows we came back with the same answers. The conservative brain responds much differently than the liberal brain despite a critical look. The peer reviewed evidence holds up under scrutiny. But what about the actual physical makeup of the brain? Can we see actual differences between conservative brains and liberal brains? That's the topic of the next chapter. Are conservatives from the amygdala?

Wednesday, September 21, 2016

Gun Nation

A candid look at the hardcore, super owner....

Tuesday, September 20, 2016

More Guns, Less People

A recent study from Harvard and Northeastern University shows that gun ownership has declined in this country and the people that still do have them are buying more firearms. Half of guns owned in the US are owned by just 3 percent of the population. America’s gun stock has increased by 70m guns since 1994. At the same time, the percentage of Americans who own guns decreased slightly from 25% to 22%.

I've suspected for quite some time that gun ownership was declining. Up until this point, all I had were the many stories I have heard from colleagues, friends and family around Minnesota, Iowa and Missouri since Sandy Hook that they got rid of the their guns. The few that still have them have since bought more. My personal experience doesn't mean shit, though, so this was mere anecdata. Now we have an actual, peer reviewed study that shows this trend to be valid.

The one thing the Gun Cult needs is numbers. Remember, these are very insecure folks who feel inadequate in some way and were likely bullied at some point in their lives. The world is against them and the more guns they own, the better they feel. Having more people owning more guns fees their faux arrogance. Now that we see that the number of gun owners are dwindling, I wonder what they will say.

It's important to note that we now have a definition for someone who owns a lot of guns-the hardcore super owner. The super owner appears quite arrogant on the surface. They scoff at non gun owners and believe they are impervious to any sort of danger that a firearm brings. They also feel that everyone else out there is equally capable of owning a gun so this arrogance extends to other people...people they don't even know! It's an arrogance that is deeply rooted in emotion driven ideology (government tyranny, statism etc). Peak below the surface, however, and you see a massive inferiority complex in the hardcore super owner. They feel unempowered in the face of the fictitious enemies they have created. So, they buy more guns.

In the words of their hero and current GOP nominee...."Sad..."

Wednesday, September 14, 2016

Respecting the Flag

Friday, August 19, 2016

A Dream of the Future

Wednesday, August 10, 2016

It's The Media's Fault!!

For years, conservatives have foamed at the mouth about victims. They caterwaul about how too few Americans don't take responsibility for their individual actions. Even the Gun Cult will tell you that if someone shoots someone else, it's not their fault. We have to place the blame squarely on the shoulders of the individual.

Yet when it comes to their candidates for office or even their pundits, they are not responsible for their words or actions. It's the liberal media, twisting their words and making it seem like they said something they didn't. Rather than own it, they wriggle away with scapegoating an institution that merely calls them on their bullshit.

Take the latest call from Donald Trump to commit violence in the name of liberty. I say "latest" because he's done this before with protesters at his events. Yesterday, he said the following.

Hillary wants to abolish, essentially abolish, the Second Amendment. By the way, and if she gets to pick her judges, nothing you can do, folks. Although the Second Amendment people, maybe there is, I don’t know. But I’ll tell you what, that will be a horrible day.

Conservatives have tried to spin this as Trump talking about taking political action to prevent Hillary from getting into office but let's keep in mind that his phrasing suggests that she has already won. That's when the Second Amendment people can step in and it will be horrible. It's pretty clear as to what he is referring. Check out this guy's reaction in the audience.

Rather than apologize for what he suggested and own it, Trump has blamed the media and its bias. Let me make this very, very simple.

No, Donald (and Cult members), it's YOUR fault because YOU said it.

Tuesday, August 09, 2016

Trump Calls For Second Amendment People To Deal With Clinton

I've said many, many times that the biggest danger to our country is the fucking Gun Cult. Their nominee just confirmed it. A not so thinly veiled call to assassinate the Democratic

If Hillary ever does start taking away peoples' guns, she should start with every gun blogger and commenter. And then put them in Gitmo since we can't seem to close it:)

Tuesday, July 12, 2016

Difficult At Best

The advent of open carrying a gun (see also: anger, hate, fear, paranoia, insecurity, inferiority, adolescent power fantasies) has caused a great number of problems for law enforcement. Two recent stories, one from the Times and one from AP, illustrate just how awful it is for them. and county leaders said the presence of armed protesters openly carrying rifles on Thursday through downtown Dallas had created confusion for the police as the attack unfolded, and in its immediate aftermath made it more difficult for officers to distinguish between suspects and marchers. Two men who were armed and a woman who was with them were detained, fueling an early, errant theory by the police that there was more than one gunman.

Yep. Pretty much what I have been saying all along. It's very difficult to tell who is who when the bullets start flying. The idea that you can tell who the bad guys are because they are the ones shooting at everyone is complete nonsense. Even trained professionals couldn't tell and wouldn't have been very thorough as police officers if they didn't question anyone with a gun.

Dallas Police Chief David Brown estimated that 20 to 30 open-carry activists attended the rally. He said some wore gas masks, bulletproof vests and fatigues. They ran when the shots rang out, but the presence of so many armed individuals at the scene of a sniper attack caused instant confusion.

Gas masks and bulletproof vests? Really? Wonderful. These assholes want to play make believe like it's The Walking Dead while the adults are trying to figure out who is shooting people.

I've said this many times and will repeat it constantly until the problem is solved. These people are an absolute menace to society and need to be treated as a threat to national security.

Monday, July 11, 2016

"Guns Are This Era's Slavery"

I was recently asked to answer a question with prize money on Quora. There have been many interesting answers but the best one so far is from famed programmer, Ernest W. Adams. I am reprinting it here in its entirety.

The root cause (as opposed to the proximate cause) of the large quantity of gun violence¹ in the United States can be traced precisely to April 19, 1775.
By the rude bridge that arched the flood,
Their flag to April’s breeze unfurled,
Here once the embattled farmers stood
And fired the shot heard round the world.
At the Battle of Lexington and Concord, the rebellious Massachusetts militia, composed of farmers and other local people, fired on British regulars who had come from Boston to search for weapons. The detachment was forced to retreat.
The opening battle of the American Revolution has been romanticized in story and song for nearly two and a half centuries. The story contains two elements that have directly influenced the culture of the United States from that day to this: first, the authority of the state (the British troops) being used to search for and confiscate guns; second, citizen ownership of firearms being used to oppose this action. Thus began the Great American Gun Myth—using myth in the sense of a body of cultural belief.
As the new nation spread westward, firearms were needed on the frontier to hunt, to protect people from wild animals, and to fight native Americans. They were also used in lawless regions by lawless people, which meant that peaceful people were obliged to keep them too. The idea began to grow up that the guns created the nation itself.
It did not take long for the Gun Myth to find expression in stories of adventure and daring. The Indian Wars were a particularly fertile source of excitement, and Buffalo Bill was adding to the legends in his Wild West show before the Indian Wars completely over, rather as we now make war movies before the war is even over. The mythologizing begins early. His shows often of featured sharpshooting skills of Annie Oakley and others.
The first Western novel, The Virginian, was written in 1901, and the first Western movie was made in 1903. There followed a flood of others. Gunsmoke began as a radio series in 1952 and ran continuously until 1975. Movies like Falling Down and God Bless Americapresent us with heroes who took up arms when “pushed too far.” Even if the film’s intention is satirical or fantasy-fulfillment, it nevertheless presents shooting people as appropriate, fun, and consequence-free. It’s impossible not to internalize some of this. People with poor judgment or intelligence want to actually make those fantasies come true.
We have now arrived at a point at which it is part of our national ethos that guns are a legitimate resort with which to solve a problem. They’re not even a last resort. Armed people don’t seek alternative resolutions to conflict; they just pull out their guns. The United States is no longer oppressed by Britain, nor is it the Wild West, but we continue to act as if it were.
The short answer to the question is this: Americans shoot people in disproportionate numbers compared to other populations because they have been taught ever since April 19, 1775 that it is an acceptable thing to do.
Many other nations—Canada, Finland—have a fairly high number of firearms in the population, but they aren’t used for homicide. Other former British colonies—Australia, India—achieved independence without warfare. They don’t have the Great American Gun Myth.
Nations that do treat gun ownership as an aspect of manhood and personal identity and a legitimate solution to problems (Pakistan, Afghanistan) have even greater rates of firearms abuse than the USA does.
The Myth has made it impossible to create a sensible firearms policy that restricts guns to the hands of those who are responsible users. The nation is awash in weapons and too many of those weapons are owned by people who should under no circumstances own them. But make the slightest effort to restrict them and the Gun Myth gets invoked: we need guns to make us free; we need them to fight tyranny; they are part of who we are as Americans and it is unpatriotic even to question this.
So many people now have a vested interest in guns that even without the cultural argument it is very difficult to reduce their numbers. The firearms manufacturing industry is worth $13.5 billion annually, and retail gun stores another $3.1 billion. There are four times as many federally licensed gun dealers as there are grocery stores in the United States, which gives you an idea of the absurdity of the situation.
Guns are this era’s slavery. They are America’s “peculiar institution.” The justifications for them are poor, yet a vociferous minority continues to announce that firearms are an inseparable part of their “way of life,” and threaten violence to anyone who would take them away.
I hope that it will not be necessary to fight a civil war over them, but ultimately I think the growing damage that firearms do in the wrong hands will lead to enough political support for controlling them properly that the gun control voters will outnumber the gun enthusiast voters. It will be solved, in answer to your final question, by political action.
Until that day, expect the deaths to continue.

Sunday, July 10, 2016

Sunday Reflections

The racially charged violence that has taken place over the last week has me wondering about a few things. First, why hasn't the NRA and other gun rights leaders blown a bowel about the shooting of concealed carry permit holder, Philando Castile? Here was a guy who was merely exercising his 2nd amendment rights, even warning the police officer that he had a gun, and yet he still got shot. Where is all the mouth foaming about the state abusing the rights of freedom lovers everywhere?

I'll tell you exactly where it is. Castile was black and the NRA knows who butters their bread...angry old white men who love it when the police gun down niggers. Conservatives may be "rugged individuals" (I can barely type that without laughing) but they love themselfs white authority over the coloreds who are running all over the place asking for their damn rights. After all, recall how these folks profile from a psychological standpoint. They are hierarchical-individualists which more or less puts them at loggerheads with themselves.

So I call bullshit. The Gun Cult doesn't give two shits about the 2nd amendment. Once again we see how they really only want to make sure certain people are still able to cock ride their guns. That's why they are also silent on this steaming pile of bullshit.

Dallas Gunman Learned Tactics at Texas Self-Defense School

The gunman who killed five police officers at a protest march had practiced military-style drills in his yard and trained at a private self-defense school that teaches special tactics, including "shooting on the move," a maneuver in which an attacker fires and changes position before firing again.'s nice to know that gun cult hang outs are now officially training spree shooters to be able to kill people more effectively. These people are an absolute menace to civilized society. How many more people have to die before we act to stop them?

Sunday, July 03, 2016

The Republican Brain Part Seven: For God And Tribe

The last time we looked inside Chris Mooney's insightful and amazing book, The Republican Brain, we saw that conservatives are dogmatic, intolerant of ambiguity and uncertainty, fear death, less open to new experiences, less "integrative complexity" in thinking and have more need for closure...all backed up by peer reviewed science. The next section in Mooney's book, "For God and Tribe," examines the moral system created by this type of political personality.

Consider the trolley dilemma. You are on a trolley that is about to have an accident. Everyone on board will be killed unless you push off one person in which case everyone will be saved. Do you do it? The cognitive processes of most people reason that the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few or the one so the sacrifice is made. But what if that person is named Jerome Williams and the other people on the trolley are all Nazis? Or the one person is named Chip Anderson and the rest of the people on the trolley are all Muslims? Or what if the person you are pushing off is fat?

In the next section of Mooney's book, he takes a look at motivated reasoning and the emotional impulses that drive it. A UC Irvine study showed that when liberals were presented with the either/or of saving a white guy or black guy, invariably they chose to save the black guy...even though they were explicitly told that race was not to be factored in to their answer. Liberals were intellectually more inconsistent conservatives. Perhaps race doesn't really matter to conservatives after all. At least it didn't in this scenario.

Yet when conservatives were presented with an alternate that involved a military leader in Iraq trying to decide to kill opposition leaders...conservatives gave the thumbs up if Iraqi civilians were going to be killed but the thumbs down if American civilians were going to be killed. So. the same inconsistency was present. Further, they accepted either civilian casualty as being a part of war.

So, why does this happen? Recall that Mooney discussed how liberals and conservatives tend to have classification types in terms of their ideological bend. Liberals are more egalitarian-communitarian whereas conservatives are hierarchical-individualists. Thus, we see why conservatives and liberals fall into this cognitive trap. Liberals have an bias towards making sure that everyone is equal so they feel bad for Jerome who is about to get pushed off the trolley. Conservatives trust that authority figure of the military leader and tend to want to protect their tribe more than the other tribe.

Closely related to this study of cognition is the work of George Lakoff and how all of us tend to think in metaphors. We understand what it means for stock markets to rise and fall because we are familiar with those descriptors in everyday life. Yet the word "family" means something entirely different to a conservative than it does to a liberal. When conservatives think of family, they think of a strong father figure. Liberals tend to think of a more caring and nurturing parent that is gender neutral. So, the way each political ideology views authority is different and this extends to science. Conservatives have no problem with nuclear energy, for example, because it fits in with the strong father figure that goes out and provides for his family in the free market of energy. Liberals, conversely, have no problem with climate science because it show the necessity of nurturing one's planet. It's not surprising that the science is denied is the one that goes against neurological type.

I was pretty amused when I read this because I simply accept the science of both. The cool thing about science is that it's true whether you believe in it or not. Why try to buck reality? Besides, I don't have any emotion invested in nuclear energy or climate science. My rational mind accepts the science of both. They are what they are.

The takeaway from all of this is that the leaders of the conservative base know exactly what kind of authority their people respond to and they use that to manipulate them. If an authority on climate science comes out and talks about how it is settled science, they will throw a competing authority that matches conservatives' God and tribe out there and all is well. The need for this becomes more stark as Mooney notes in the closing pages of this chapter how science, and, indeed, academia in general has people that are more liberal in ideology. Why? As previously noted by Mooney, liberals tend to psychological be more open to new experiences, novel ideas and want to use science to improve society. In short, they are progressive whereas conservatives are not.

Mooney uses the example of Galileo and Darwin. Even though they were separated by hundreds of years, each man was confronted with the same problem: instransigent, conservative ideology rooted in emotion, not logic and rationality. Each man had to buck the powers that were deeply entrenched in God and tribe. At this point, Mooney interestingly notes that even conservative intellectuals are aware of this. Yuval Levin, conservative science and policy writer, notes that conservatives have a problem with science when it directly threatens the imperatives of their cultural continuity. Again, God and tribe...

Mooney concludes this section by noting that the ol' conservative meme of academia creates liberals no longer applies when considering the research in this section. More liberals are in academia because of how the brains work to begin with and they are naturally drawn to places where openness to new experiences are the order of the day. All of the information in this chapter reinforces the overall thrust of this book so far. The conservative brain is, by nature, far different from the liberal brain.

Thursday, June 30, 2016

Are They Merely Lonely?

This showed up in my Newsfeed recently and it really struck me as being true. I've felt pity in the past for gun rights activists but not like this. A big reason why this resonates with me is my experience interacting with gun bloggers and their commenters. I got the real sense that they were pretty lonely people who were likely bullied in secondary school. The guns make them feel important.

If we can understand how this works on a sociological level, we can finally begin to take substantive steps towards progress.

Wednesday, June 29, 2016

Why Gun Nuts Lie

David Smalley has a great piece up over at Patheos called "Why Gun Nuts Lie – I Know From Experience."  It is filled with many wonderful things but I'd like to start with two of the images from the comments.

Right. He was a carpenter after all:)

And fool them they have. Remember, a lot of these guys live in their parents basement and play video games all night so it makes sense. Here are some choice cuts from the rest of the piece.

Secondly, what if you were? I could hand you 50 AR-15s, give you 1000 illegal bombs, steal you a couple of tanks, and smuggle in some bazookas, and even let you fully train 500 of your closest friends. If the government wants your shit, they’re going to take it. You still wouldn’t be a match for even a single battalion of the United States Marine Corps. Not to mention the Air Force, Army, Navy, National Guard, Secret Service, FBI, CIA, and Seals. So stop acting like your little AR-15 is going to stop tyranny..

And you will give it to them without any sort of fight. Internet comments bravado is largely BS. Gun bloggers and their commenters like to brag about how they will never hand over their guns and would welcome a shootout with the federal government but they are completely full of shit. These are people who have families and children in their house and they will avoid any sort of conflict. And honestly, they are cowards at heart. The louder the protestation online, the quicker they will be the ones giving up their guns willingly.

The only reason you want to protect your second amendment now, is to justify buying an AR-15 or weapons for your home. I understand. I have them. But is it worth it? Does it really make you feel safe? If it does, it’s a false sense of security that statistically puts us in more danger.

Yes, it does. And, unlike the Gun Cult, I actually care about what happens to other people in my society. More guns mean more chances for accidents...accidents, btw, which happen more often than defensive gun use as study after study has shown.

Treat guns like cars. Mandatory licenses License renewals Mandatory training Mandatory insurance Operating laws Operating age limits Restrict some models Require safety inspections Mandatory registration Background checks. 

Amen. It's not all that I want but I'd go along with it for now to see how it would work.

Perhaps Smalley is the start of a trend and the ultimate defeat of the gun lobby will come from within. Isn't that what happened with tobacco? Reading this, I can see a few folks breaking ranks at first and then some sort of event will trigger a larger group breaking away. And then we might actually get some real progress.

Tuesday, June 28, 2016

Another Gun Rights Activist Goes On Shooting Rampage

Texas mom Christy Sheats liked to post stuff like this on her Facebook page.

Sounds familiar, eh?

Well, two days ago she called a family meeting and proceeded to shoot and kill both of her daughters before finally being gunned down by police. It turns out she had a history of mental illness but thank goodness she retained her constitutional right to carry a firearm.

Two beautiful young women are now dead and why? Because...ground stood!!

Sunday, June 26, 2016

Gun Toting Soccer Mom=Dead

Remember the woman pictured left? This was Melanie Hain, the gun toting soccer mom who made the headlines when she open carried and stood her ground against the dark denizens that were ready to pounce on her and her daughter any second in suburban Pennsylvania.

Yeah, she's dead now.

Was she shot by the gun grabbers? Mooselems? Those evil criminals that lurk around every corner with the weapons they will always have even if there are new gun laws?


She was shot by her husband in a domestic dispute who then turned the gun on himself. Most sadly, both of their children (ages 2 and 6) now have to live the rest of their lives without their birth parents.

Perhaps that's a good thing, though, given both of the Hains were part of the Gun Cult and clearly presented a danger to themselves and others. I guess I'm wondering what happened to the whole guns protecting people and good guys with guns thing here.

Sorta looks like that theory just shit the bed...again!

Wednesday, June 22, 2016

Domestic Terrorists

With the failure (once again) to pass any sort of meaningful new gun safety laws in the wake the Orlando shooting, the president should declare the NRA a domestic terrorist organization. This should extend to all gun rights groups and activists as they are essentially accessories to terrorist attacks on home soil.

He should direct Attorney General Loretta Lynch to use the FBI to investigate and possible arrest high ranking members of the NRA for aiding and abetting enemy combatants who seek to murder US citizens. If they are found guilty, they should be sent to Gitmo. Since we can't seem to close it, why not use it for the purpose intended?

The NRA and gun rights supporters are unmoved by the piles of dead bodies we accumulate every day. They feel that their entitlement is more important than US security. They have created a country that has zero domestic tranquility and an incredibly warped reality where we actually bear little children gotten shot in the face. US citizens need to understand that we can't negotiate with these guys. They essentially have the same level of ideological intransigence as the fucking Nazis. They only understand one thing: force. 

So, let's start using it.

Sunday, June 19, 2016

The Arrogance of the Gun Cult

Here's a great example of the arrogance of the Gun Cult.

“I think a lot of the fear comes from something [people] don’t understand,” said Maxwell. “They don’t understand that there is a sport that revolves around shooting. They just know that [the AR-15] looks scary on TV.”

What's not to understand? It's a toy. You guys like it a lot. And, like children, you don't want it to be taken away.

Further, it's not the gun that scares us, asshole. It's the mentality behind it...a mentality which continues to allow events like Orlando to happen on a regular basis and is directly responsible for murder.

Friday, June 17, 2016

An AR-15 Owner Has Had Enough

Daniel Hayes' recent piece says it all. He's an AR-15 owner and he's had enough. His solution?

There’s a saying that goes “when seconds count the police are only minutes away.” It’s meant to enforce the truism that we are all ultimately responsible for our own defense when the chips are down. But what it really reinforces is the importance of time. Time matters immensely when you’re defending yourself. You need time to do so. You need opportunity. Ban magazines over ten rounds. Give potential victims time and opportunity and in giving them that time we will deter murderers from attempting these mass shootings. They will fear that they won’t be able to kill enough to make their point before they are crushed by their chosen victims. They are cowards. Give them reason to fear.

My only quibble is that non gun owners have, in fact, been calling for this for quite some time. So, a little bit of the gun owner condescension aside, he's right that this would make an immediate impact. Of course, we have to do more.

Thursday, June 16, 2016

Heed This Warning

A recent answer on Quora struck a similar tone to what I have been saying in terms of the Gun Cult giving a little now to save a lot of pain later.

I think the pro gun camp is making a mistake. They are letting the anti gun camp look like the reasonable side and they are letting the anti gun camp control the message. The pro gun camp is looking more and more like a bunch of gun crazy conspiracy theory nuts.
I think the pro gun camp needs to take a step back and stop being so defensive. They need to calm down and start sounding reasonable and controlling the message. Most gun owners want there to be common sense regulations for guns. The second amendment and the Heller decision allows for those regulations so the pro gun camp should be the ones proposing the reforms that will help decrease these big mass shootings.
If they don't, I suspect that the pro gun camp is going to create exactly what they fear the most by being defensive and obstinate. They are going to let the anti gun camp win.


Wednesday, June 15, 2016

The Not So Lonely Lone Wolf