Showing posts with label Gun Violence. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Gun Violence. Show all posts
Wednesday, May 18, 2016
Tuesday, May 17, 2016
The Greatest Answer Ever On Quora
The question asked was...
Is it true that there are some "no-brainer" gun control laws that should be passed?
And the answer was this...
I own guns. I like guns. I can conceal carry (though may or may not). I enjoy hitting up the range and shootin' 'em. I do believe there exists a right to gun ownership in this country.
But I also think the ease with which one can acquire massive amounts of military-grade lethality in this country is flat-out stupid, and don't believe there's anything in the Bill of Rights that entitles me to purchase and own a .50 caliber sniper rifle loaded up with armor-piercing rounds.
Slippery slope be damned, there does exist such a thing as reasonable gun control legislation, just as there exist some very unreasonable guns.
For shits and giggles I went down to my local gun store the other day to see what they were up to as I expected there was some amusement to be had there post-Newtown. Indeed, there was.
While I was there, I literally witness shop staff taking the price tags off of AR-15s and other semi-automatic assault rifles, replacing them with significantly marked-up prices. Ammo shelves were empty, save for the odd box of cheap range ammo. Walls that had, a few weeks ago, been covered inch-to-inch by every imaginable type of assault rifle lay bare - people had come in and bought out every damn thing they could, certain they had to do so before the government swooped in to snatch up their right to do so. You'd think the zombie apocalypse had begun (especially since all the anti-zombie explosive rounds had been among the first to sell-out). At most, you might have found an antique rifle to buy. Oh... and that actual .50 caliber sniper rifle that was selling for $15,000 and had been on the shelf for about a year? Someone finally bought it just the other day.
I'm sorry, but while I don't doubt there are plenty of reasonable gun owners who genuinely enjoy the things for recreational purposes or even for what they represent technologically (as I like to consider myself to be), there are also some batshit crazy paranoid types far too eager to treat guns as the end all be all, along with some shamelessly opportunistic types giddy at the prospect of making money off the aforementioned crazies (the shop staff and owner, with whom I have rapport, admitted being near giddy each time a mass shooting takes place - they don't fear legislation because they know attempts at it usually fall apart, plenty of loopholes are left in place, and they sell out of every damn thing in the store no matter how much they mark it all up each time people freak out [such as after Obama first got elected, after Obama got reelected, after Aurora, after Newtown, etc]).
And I'll eagerly go on record saying that, when I went to take my classes to get my concealed carry permits, the overriding reason I ended up feeling like I wanted a concealed carry permit is because those other people in the class were going to have one. While I primarily wanted them to make going to the range or out to the desert to shoot an easier affair, most everyone else there expressed genuinely feeling like they needed to conceal carry before the United Nations took away any opportunity to do so or Obama himself came kicking in their doors to take away their guns (and wives and children, I suppose).
As much as some would like to say "the left" or the Feinsteins and Obamas are dictating the gun control debate and set to trash the Bill of Rights, the fact of the matter is the types of people I've described above, as well as the more sophisticated types taking advantage of the people I've described above, have actually been the ones dictating the gun control debate, passing the legislation at the federal and local level, and ensuring there's no shortage of truly devastating and lethal weaponry available and just about anyone can get their hands on the stuff.
Check out this guy:
This weapon doesn't seem like something anyone could carry around with them wherever they went. What if I told you, though, I could have it under my jacket in line behind you at Starbucks? A few seats down from you at the movies? In the car next to you at a stoplight? Walking alongside you at the mall? It's a Sig Sauer P556 "pistol" - yes, it's considered a pistol. One can carry it concealed (though it is almost 2ft long) as they would a pistol. Yet one can also use a 30-round magazine with 5.56 NATO rifle rounds and fire off those rounds as quickly as they can pull that trigger with that thing.
The average person would not look at that thing and consider it a pistol, much less suspect it's the type of weapon anyone would be allowed to "conceal carry" at will in public, but thanks to the ways laws are written and manufacturers work with those laws it is.
It's easier for me to go buy a .50 caliber sniper rifle than over the counter allergy medication; with a few easily-acquired attachments and accessories (that require absolutely nothing but money to buy) I can turn just about any semi-automatic assault weapon available (and there are tons available) in to one capable of firing at near fully-automatic rates; the only limit to how many rounds of ammunition I can acquire is how many I can afford, and I can feed those rounds in to weapons with belts and drums and high-capacity magazines that enable me to fire off dozens and even hundreds of rounds before having to reload.
I can assure you the licensing process that allows me to carry multiple concealed weapons - such as the "assault pistol" in the photo - in most every state is less stringent than getting a drivers license and easier than getting a license to cut hair. And if I simply want to own assault weapons without attempting to conceal-carry them, there's really no licensing process at all. None at all.
Sure, there's a 2nd Amendment. Sure, there are practical reasons to own guns. But to deny the absurdity behind how easily anyone can get guns and what types of guns they can get is irrational; to suggest no reasonable attempts at limitation and regulation exist is also irrational. Existing laws are already insufficient and far too lax, and at the same time manufacturers are able to circumvent them so effectively they might as well not exist; pro-gun legislators and the gun-lobby have purposefully ensured states and municipalities either can't pass laws, or can't effectively enforce whatever laws they do manage to pass.
Again, I don't doubt reasonable gun owners exist and, again, I hope to consider myself one of those people. At the same time, however, after many years circulating among gun owners and participating in that culture and network, I simply have to admit I've spent a fair amount of time surrounded by people I'd consider to be fairly irrational when it comes to gun laws and those people and the lobbies representing them have had a far greater impact on existing laws in place than anyone attempting to restrict ownership or what is available for ownership.
The vast majority of weapons available today were designed to kill people. Their express purpose is to facilitate and enable the effective and efficient killing of people. Sure, there's the odd hunting rifle or shotgun round that kicks ass at bringing down ducks, but the measure of most any semi-automatic and fully-automatic weapon and round is how effective it is as "stopping", "neutralizing" and killing a person. You won't ever hear the folks snatching up weapons down at the gun store touting a particular brand's ability to effectively put holes in paper targets or fly down range with true aim. They sell that "double tap" ammunition (that actually fires two projectiles per cartridge) for your handgun so that single shot can put two bullets in a person; they sell "The Judge" - a revolver that fires out shotgun rounds - so one can still yield extreme force and lethality with as small a weapon as possible; they sell those high-capacity magazines so you can blast off round after round in rapid succession in the hopes you take out the bad guy, despite however bad your aim might be. These weapons' and accessories' designs, techniques, methods and technologies were borne and perfected on battlefields for use between armies, and just about anyone can easily employ them on the streets here at home.
Existing gun laws are not only inadequate, but absurd; existing gun laws are not only failing to protect, but just about facilitating obscene amounts of violence as pro-gun lobbies go out of their way to ensure each contains loopholes and workarounds that render them obsolete; existing gun laws are not taking weapons off the streets but rather encouraging manufacturers and retailers to find creative ways to enable just about anyone with sufficient money (which often isn't even that much) and a pulse to posses killing power and destructive ability beyond anything the authors of the Constitution could have ever imagined. And when some point to the failure of existing gun laws to effectively curb violence, don't let them convince you it's because gun laws stand no hope of ever accomplishing anything. Allow yourself to consider the possibility that existing gun laws haven't done enough to this point because gun proponents have ensured they can't be effectively implemented, people can easily avoid any jurisdictional enforcement they don't like, manufacturers can easily work around whatever laws that might exist, and concerted efforts are made by groups like the NRA to make any legislation impotent as they then point to that impotence as a reason to not have the laws in the first place.
It's high time the militia gets well-regulated, and we acknowledge there are absurd degrees of firepower beyond easily accessible to everyone.
Number One answer in the question.
Over 62,000 views.
Over 1,000 upvotes.
Fuck you, Gun Cult. Your trolling and swarming will not stop the majority of the people in this country that want to live in a safer place. As Mr. Dunlap noted, we are on to you.
And we will never stop until you are completely fucking neutered.
Is it true that there are some "no-brainer" gun control laws that should be passed?
And the answer was this...
I own guns. I like guns. I can conceal carry (though may or may not). I enjoy hitting up the range and shootin' 'em. I do believe there exists a right to gun ownership in this country.
But I also think the ease with which one can acquire massive amounts of military-grade lethality in this country is flat-out stupid, and don't believe there's anything in the Bill of Rights that entitles me to purchase and own a .50 caliber sniper rifle loaded up with armor-piercing rounds.
Slippery slope be damned, there does exist such a thing as reasonable gun control legislation, just as there exist some very unreasonable guns.
For shits and giggles I went down to my local gun store the other day to see what they were up to as I expected there was some amusement to be had there post-Newtown. Indeed, there was.
While I was there, I literally witness shop staff taking the price tags off of AR-15s and other semi-automatic assault rifles, replacing them with significantly marked-up prices. Ammo shelves were empty, save for the odd box of cheap range ammo. Walls that had, a few weeks ago, been covered inch-to-inch by every imaginable type of assault rifle lay bare - people had come in and bought out every damn thing they could, certain they had to do so before the government swooped in to snatch up their right to do so. You'd think the zombie apocalypse had begun (especially since all the anti-zombie explosive rounds had been among the first to sell-out). At most, you might have found an antique rifle to buy. Oh... and that actual .50 caliber sniper rifle that was selling for $15,000 and had been on the shelf for about a year? Someone finally bought it just the other day.
I'm sorry, but while I don't doubt there are plenty of reasonable gun owners who genuinely enjoy the things for recreational purposes or even for what they represent technologically (as I like to consider myself to be), there are also some batshit crazy paranoid types far too eager to treat guns as the end all be all, along with some shamelessly opportunistic types giddy at the prospect of making money off the aforementioned crazies (the shop staff and owner, with whom I have rapport, admitted being near giddy each time a mass shooting takes place - they don't fear legislation because they know attempts at it usually fall apart, plenty of loopholes are left in place, and they sell out of every damn thing in the store no matter how much they mark it all up each time people freak out [such as after Obama first got elected, after Obama got reelected, after Aurora, after Newtown, etc]).
And I'll eagerly go on record saying that, when I went to take my classes to get my concealed carry permits, the overriding reason I ended up feeling like I wanted a concealed carry permit is because those other people in the class were going to have one. While I primarily wanted them to make going to the range or out to the desert to shoot an easier affair, most everyone else there expressed genuinely feeling like they needed to conceal carry before the United Nations took away any opportunity to do so or Obama himself came kicking in their doors to take away their guns (and wives and children, I suppose).
As much as some would like to say "the left" or the Feinsteins and Obamas are dictating the gun control debate and set to trash the Bill of Rights, the fact of the matter is the types of people I've described above, as well as the more sophisticated types taking advantage of the people I've described above, have actually been the ones dictating the gun control debate, passing the legislation at the federal and local level, and ensuring there's no shortage of truly devastating and lethal weaponry available and just about anyone can get their hands on the stuff.
Check out this guy:
This weapon doesn't seem like something anyone could carry around with them wherever they went. What if I told you, though, I could have it under my jacket in line behind you at Starbucks? A few seats down from you at the movies? In the car next to you at a stoplight? Walking alongside you at the mall? It's a Sig Sauer P556 "pistol" - yes, it's considered a pistol. One can carry it concealed (though it is almost 2ft long) as they would a pistol. Yet one can also use a 30-round magazine with 5.56 NATO rifle rounds and fire off those rounds as quickly as they can pull that trigger with that thing.
The average person would not look at that thing and consider it a pistol, much less suspect it's the type of weapon anyone would be allowed to "conceal carry" at will in public, but thanks to the ways laws are written and manufacturers work with those laws it is.
It's easier for me to go buy a .50 caliber sniper rifle than over the counter allergy medication; with a few easily-acquired attachments and accessories (that require absolutely nothing but money to buy) I can turn just about any semi-automatic assault weapon available (and there are tons available) in to one capable of firing at near fully-automatic rates; the only limit to how many rounds of ammunition I can acquire is how many I can afford, and I can feed those rounds in to weapons with belts and drums and high-capacity magazines that enable me to fire off dozens and even hundreds of rounds before having to reload.
I can assure you the licensing process that allows me to carry multiple concealed weapons - such as the "assault pistol" in the photo - in most every state is less stringent than getting a drivers license and easier than getting a license to cut hair. And if I simply want to own assault weapons without attempting to conceal-carry them, there's really no licensing process at all. None at all.
Sure, there's a 2nd Amendment. Sure, there are practical reasons to own guns. But to deny the absurdity behind how easily anyone can get guns and what types of guns they can get is irrational; to suggest no reasonable attempts at limitation and regulation exist is also irrational. Existing laws are already insufficient and far too lax, and at the same time manufacturers are able to circumvent them so effectively they might as well not exist; pro-gun legislators and the gun-lobby have purposefully ensured states and municipalities either can't pass laws, or can't effectively enforce whatever laws they do manage to pass.
Again, I don't doubt reasonable gun owners exist and, again, I hope to consider myself one of those people. At the same time, however, after many years circulating among gun owners and participating in that culture and network, I simply have to admit I've spent a fair amount of time surrounded by people I'd consider to be fairly irrational when it comes to gun laws and those people and the lobbies representing them have had a far greater impact on existing laws in place than anyone attempting to restrict ownership or what is available for ownership.
The vast majority of weapons available today were designed to kill people. Their express purpose is to facilitate and enable the effective and efficient killing of people. Sure, there's the odd hunting rifle or shotgun round that kicks ass at bringing down ducks, but the measure of most any semi-automatic and fully-automatic weapon and round is how effective it is as "stopping", "neutralizing" and killing a person. You won't ever hear the folks snatching up weapons down at the gun store touting a particular brand's ability to effectively put holes in paper targets or fly down range with true aim. They sell that "double tap" ammunition (that actually fires two projectiles per cartridge) for your handgun so that single shot can put two bullets in a person; they sell "The Judge" - a revolver that fires out shotgun rounds - so one can still yield extreme force and lethality with as small a weapon as possible; they sell those high-capacity magazines so you can blast off round after round in rapid succession in the hopes you take out the bad guy, despite however bad your aim might be. These weapons' and accessories' designs, techniques, methods and technologies were borne and perfected on battlefields for use between armies, and just about anyone can easily employ them on the streets here at home.
Existing gun laws are not only inadequate, but absurd; existing gun laws are not only failing to protect, but just about facilitating obscene amounts of violence as pro-gun lobbies go out of their way to ensure each contains loopholes and workarounds that render them obsolete; existing gun laws are not taking weapons off the streets but rather encouraging manufacturers and retailers to find creative ways to enable just about anyone with sufficient money (which often isn't even that much) and a pulse to posses killing power and destructive ability beyond anything the authors of the Constitution could have ever imagined. And when some point to the failure of existing gun laws to effectively curb violence, don't let them convince you it's because gun laws stand no hope of ever accomplishing anything. Allow yourself to consider the possibility that existing gun laws haven't done enough to this point because gun proponents have ensured they can't be effectively implemented, people can easily avoid any jurisdictional enforcement they don't like, manufacturers can easily work around whatever laws that might exist, and concerted efforts are made by groups like the NRA to make any legislation impotent as they then point to that impotence as a reason to not have the laws in the first place.
It's high time the militia gets well-regulated, and we acknowledge there are absurd degrees of firepower beyond easily accessible to everyone.
Number One answer in the question.
Over 62,000 views.
Over 1,000 upvotes.
Fuck you, Gun Cult. Your trolling and swarming will not stop the majority of the people in this country that want to live in a safer place. As Mr. Dunlap noted, we are on to you.
And we will never stop until you are completely fucking neutered.
Thursday, April 21, 2016
Turning the Lens on the Gun Culture
I have noticed a trend occurring of late that I find most heartening. Researchers are turning their lens towards gun violence and gun culture. There are many reasons why they are doing this but the recent news that UT researcher Haril Shapira is going to examine gun culture and the future of American democracy is extremely interesting.
Shapira’s work investigates what drives people to join gun-owning communities and what this means for democracy. The communities, Shapira observes, not only shape and transform individuals drawn to gun culture but also society at large.
“We are seeing individuals taking on the roles of government when it comes to self-defense and issues of enforcement of the law,” Shapira said. “What might this mean for democracy and democratic institutions? What does an armed society hold for the future of America’s democracy?”
Indeed.
I'm not sure what his research questions will be or even what form his research will take but I'm hoping he gets into the issue of empowerment. I've been asking friends of mine who are gun owners why exactly they own them and one thing I've noticed about nearly all of them is they have something in their lives that makes them feel insecure and weak. Whether they have some sort of long term health issue or have been bullied in their lives, having a gun makes them feel better.
I can't wait for Professor Shapira's book to be released.
Shapira’s work investigates what drives people to join gun-owning communities and what this means for democracy. The communities, Shapira observes, not only shape and transform individuals drawn to gun culture but also society at large.
“We are seeing individuals taking on the roles of government when it comes to self-defense and issues of enforcement of the law,” Shapira said. “What might this mean for democracy and democratic institutions? What does an armed society hold for the future of America’s democracy?”
Indeed.
I'm not sure what his research questions will be or even what form his research will take but I'm hoping he gets into the issue of empowerment. I've been asking friends of mine who are gun owners why exactly they own them and one thing I've noticed about nearly all of them is they have something in their lives that makes them feel insecure and weak. Whether they have some sort of long term health issue or have been bullied in their lives, having a gun makes them feel better.
I can't wait for Professor Shapira's book to be released.
Saturday, April 16, 2016
Speaking Is Difficult
The filmmaker promises to keep adding his work. He will certainly have plenty of material with which to work.
Tuesday, March 29, 2016
Why, Chicago?
Every single day our nation hears stories like this from Chicago. Everyone across the cultural and political spectrum weighs in with their opinions and solutions which they are CERTAIN will work.
My favorite is the Gun Cult who harp continually about how "restrictive" gun laws prohibit ordinary citizens from defending themselves. This results in the "only criminals will have guns" meme which has always cracked me up. So, we make guns easier for them to get? And we allow more, untrained citizens access to guns? I guess the Gun Cult wants a return to this...
I suppose it makes sense since they are largely older, white men who grew up on a Hollywood western view of violence. Yet this on Chicago's ongoing challenges with crime (along with nearly all of them) fails to note the root cause.
Violence in Chicago is the direct result of slavery.
Consider that it was slavery (and the ensuing Jim Crow laws) which drove African Americans north to Chicago over the course of several decades in the 19th and 20th century. The result of such an influx of people resulted in a jolt of increased population density that was economically harmful to the area. With so many people vying for jobs, especially in times of economic contraction, many citizens of Chicago, newly arrive or long time residents, were bound to be disenfranchised economically. Invariably, this leads people to crime and it has continued on to this day with city officials endlessly trying to play catch up in a game they will never win.
So, we are back, once again, with being confronted by the great wound that our society fails to recognize. Violence in Chicago will not be mitigated until our entire country admits that slavery is still having a profound effect on the socioeconomic status of millions of US citizens of color.
We can't even begin to discuss possible solutions until we recognize the problem.
My favorite is the Gun Cult who harp continually about how "restrictive" gun laws prohibit ordinary citizens from defending themselves. This results in the "only criminals will have guns" meme which has always cracked me up. So, we make guns easier for them to get? And we allow more, untrained citizens access to guns? I guess the Gun Cult wants a return to this...
I suppose it makes sense since they are largely older, white men who grew up on a Hollywood western view of violence. Yet this on Chicago's ongoing challenges with crime (along with nearly all of them) fails to note the root cause.
Violence in Chicago is the direct result of slavery.
Consider that it was slavery (and the ensuing Jim Crow laws) which drove African Americans north to Chicago over the course of several decades in the 19th and 20th century. The result of such an influx of people resulted in a jolt of increased population density that was economically harmful to the area. With so many people vying for jobs, especially in times of economic contraction, many citizens of Chicago, newly arrive or long time residents, were bound to be disenfranchised economically. Invariably, this leads people to crime and it has continued on to this day with city officials endlessly trying to play catch up in a game they will never win.
So, we are back, once again, with being confronted by the great wound that our society fails to recognize. Violence in Chicago will not be mitigated until our entire country admits that slavery is still having a profound effect on the socioeconomic status of millions of US citizens of color.
We can't even begin to discuss possible solutions until we recognize the problem.
Sunday, March 27, 2016
Facing Charges
Remember Jamie Gilt? She was the gun activist who had images like this on her Facebook page.
Then her 4 year old son accidentally shot and wounded her. Ah, "responsible" gun owners...
Well, she's now facing charges which could land her in jail for up to 180 days. Here's to hoping she does the full stretch.
Well, she's now facing charges which could land her in jail for up to 180 days. Here's to hoping she does the full stretch.
Friday, March 25, 2016
Pass Three Laws
Bindu Kalesan from Boston University has just released a peer reviewed study that concludes the following.
Of 25 firearm laws, nine were associated with reduced firearm mortality, nine were associated with increased firearm mortality, and seven had an inconclusive association. After adjustment for relevant covariates, the three state laws most strongly associated with reduced overall firearm mortality were universal background checks for firearm purchase, ammunition background checks, and identification requirement for firearms. Projected federal-level implementation of universal background checks for firearm purchase could reduce national firearm mortality from 10·35 to 4·46 deaths per 100 000 people, background checks for ammunition purchase could reduce it to 1·99 per 100 000, and firearm identification to 1·81 per 100 000.
This means...
Very few of the existing state-specific firearm laws are associated with reduced firearm mortality, and this evidence underscores the importance of focusing on relevant and effective firearms legislation. Implementation of universal background checks for the purchase of firearms or ammunition, and firearm identification nationally could substantially reduce firearm mortality in the USA.
Boom.
Done.
Of 25 firearm laws, nine were associated with reduced firearm mortality, nine were associated with increased firearm mortality, and seven had an inconclusive association. After adjustment for relevant covariates, the three state laws most strongly associated with reduced overall firearm mortality were universal background checks for firearm purchase, ammunition background checks, and identification requirement for firearms. Projected federal-level implementation of universal background checks for firearm purchase could reduce national firearm mortality from 10·35 to 4·46 deaths per 100 000 people, background checks for ammunition purchase could reduce it to 1·99 per 100 000, and firearm identification to 1·81 per 100 000.
This means...
Very few of the existing state-specific firearm laws are associated with reduced firearm mortality, and this evidence underscores the importance of focusing on relevant and effective firearms legislation. Implementation of universal background checks for the purchase of firearms or ammunition, and firearm identification nationally could substantially reduce firearm mortality in the USA.
Boom.
Done.
Friday, March 11, 2016
Poetic Justice
So, let's see here...mom brags on social media, "My right to protect my child with my gun trumps your fear of my gun" and then ends up accidentally getting shot in the back by that same child.
Now she might be charged because Florida law requires guns to be secured from minors?
Poetic justice...
Sunday, February 28, 2016
Monday, February 22, 2016
What Drives The Gun Cult
I was recently asked to answer a question on Quora about gun rights activists. Here was my response.
There are several reasons why gun rights activists ignore gun control success in other countries and they all revolve around the reasons why they are passionate about their guns in the first place.
First, like any hobby, people love their toys. If there is a chance that they might be taken away, it's only natural that people would get upset. Seeing that the rest of the civilized world functions just fine with stricter gun control translates into the possibility that their toys will be taken away hence the emotion, temper tantrums, and willful ignorance of functional societies.
Second, gun rights activists are generally a very insecure lot who draw empowerment from their guns. It would be interesting to see a peer reviewed study on how many of them were bullied as kids because they've always struck me as having inferiority complexes. Seeing other people "disarmed" in other countries strikes deep to their biggest fear: being powerless. Ironic, for two main reasons. One, owning a gun makes it more likely that they will injure/kill themselves or others as opposed to protecting them against bad guys.
Two, having a few guns against a federal government who has drones/tanks/planes/battleships and thinking that somehow they are a force to be reckoned with is pure fantasy. Speaking of governments...
Third, gun rights activists believe that they are guarding against a possible, future totalitarian government. This is a very powerful belief that overcomes any positive news about countries with successful gun control. They disseminate propaganda that "proves" that countries with stricter gun control are subjugating their people. Here is an example...
Fourth, gun rights activists, like most conservatives, experience cognitive dissonance when confronted with objective reality. When they see how successful gun control has been in reducing violent crime in every other civilized country in the world, their brains react in such a way that the feel like they are under physical attack. Several peer reviewed neurological studies have shown this to be valid and are detailed in the following book.
Amazon.com: The Republican Brain: The Science of Why They Deny Science- and Reality (9781118094518): Chris Mooney:
Books In many ways, this is the most direct and scientific reason why they ignore the precedent set by other countries. It makes them feel physically uncomfortable and this is due to the previous three reasons mentioned above.
There are several reasons why gun rights activists ignore gun control success in other countries and they all revolve around the reasons why they are passionate about their guns in the first place.
First, like any hobby, people love their toys. If there is a chance that they might be taken away, it's only natural that people would get upset. Seeing that the rest of the civilized world functions just fine with stricter gun control translates into the possibility that their toys will be taken away hence the emotion, temper tantrums, and willful ignorance of functional societies.
Second, gun rights activists are generally a very insecure lot who draw empowerment from their guns. It would be interesting to see a peer reviewed study on how many of them were bullied as kids because they've always struck me as having inferiority complexes. Seeing other people "disarmed" in other countries strikes deep to their biggest fear: being powerless. Ironic, for two main reasons. One, owning a gun makes it more likely that they will injure/kill themselves or others as opposed to protecting them against bad guys.
Two, having a few guns against a federal government who has drones/tanks/planes/battleships and thinking that somehow they are a force to be reckoned with is pure fantasy. Speaking of governments...
Third, gun rights activists believe that they are guarding against a possible, future totalitarian government. This is a very powerful belief that overcomes any positive news about countries with successful gun control. They disseminate propaganda that "proves" that countries with stricter gun control are subjugating their people. Here is an example...
Fourth, gun rights activists, like most conservatives, experience cognitive dissonance when confronted with objective reality. When they see how successful gun control has been in reducing violent crime in every other civilized country in the world, their brains react in such a way that the feel like they are under physical attack. Several peer reviewed neurological studies have shown this to be valid and are detailed in the following book.
Amazon.com: The Republican Brain: The Science of Why They Deny Science- and Reality (9781118094518): Chris Mooney:
Books In many ways, this is the most direct and scientific reason why they ignore the precedent set by other countries. It makes them feel physically uncomfortable and this is due to the previous three reasons mentioned above.
Wednesday, February 17, 2016
A Gun That Offered No Protection
Today, I'm wondering if Trisha Nelson knew that when she bought her gun and got her conceal carry permit that she would up being shot with it.
He had served his sentence and was on probation when he shot Nelson. He most likely used Nelson’s gun, for which she had a concealed-carry permit, Padden said.
Having a gun increase, not decreases, your chances of being shot.
He had served his sentence and was on probation when he shot Nelson. He most likely used Nelson’s gun, for which she had a concealed-carry permit, Padden said.
Having a gun increase, not decreases, your chances of being shot.
Thursday, February 04, 2016
Monday, January 25, 2016
Solving Problems With Guns (Ground Stood Edition)
So, this guy named Marvin Lee done got his car stuck in a ditch in Charlotte, North Carolina. Jefferson Deavner stopped to help him push it out. Lee turned into a dick after this and when the police were called to help him out of the ditch, he shot Deavner and killed him.
Ground stood!
This story is a great example of what happens when you allow the fever dream of gun rights activists to take over a country. A person like Lee should never be allowed to own a weapon but he does because of his 2nd amendment rights.
How many thousands of Lees are out there being supported by the Gun Cult?
Ground stood!
This story is a great example of what happens when you allow the fever dream of gun rights activists to take over a country. A person like Lee should never be allowed to own a weapon but he does because of his 2nd amendment rights.
How many thousands of Lees are out there being supported by the Gun Cult?
Thursday, January 21, 2016
Sunday, January 17, 2016
A Sharp Rise
Take a look at the mass shootings in this country over the last 50 years.
When the Gun Cult flaps their yaps about decrease gun violence, the above numbers show just how fucking tone deaf they are. No other country in the civilized world has problems like this.
We have these problems because domestic terrorists are holding our country hostage. If you support looser gun laws, you are offering aid and comfort to the enemies of national security. Gitmo is getting mighty empty these days and, considering we can't seem to close it, perhaps we should start putting some people in it who represent more of a threat than ISIL or Al Qaeda.
How about the gun bloggers first? :)
When the Gun Cult flaps their yaps about decrease gun violence, the above numbers show just how fucking tone deaf they are. No other country in the civilized world has problems like this.
We have these problems because domestic terrorists are holding our country hostage. If you support looser gun laws, you are offering aid and comfort to the enemies of national security. Gitmo is getting mighty empty these days and, considering we can't seem to close it, perhaps we should start putting some people in it who represent more of a threat than ISIL or Al Qaeda.
How about the gun bloggers first? :)
Saturday, January 16, 2016
Memo To Next President: Tougher Gun Laws
With the United States now accounting for 82 percent of all gun deaths among 23 high income countries, I was please to note that a new Reuters poll regarding gun safety had this to say.
Sixty-three percent of Americans overall said they would like to see the next president push for stricter gun laws.
Even better...
Respondents from both parties support more research into the causes of gun violence, the poll showed. Nearly 80 percent of Democrats and 66 percent of Republicans said they would support the next president, who takes office next January after the Nov. 8 election, pushing for more research.
Even Republicans are shifting...
Republicans are split on efforts to tighten gun control more broadly. Forty-four percent of those polled said the next president should work to tighten federal gun control laws, while 49 percent were opposed.
44 percent? Wow! I had no idea the number was that high. This is fantastic news and gives me a great deal of hope!!
Sixty-three percent of Americans overall said they would like to see the next president push for stricter gun laws.
Even better...
Respondents from both parties support more research into the causes of gun violence, the poll showed. Nearly 80 percent of Democrats and 66 percent of Republicans said they would support the next president, who takes office next January after the Nov. 8 election, pushing for more research.
Even Republicans are shifting...
Republicans are split on efforts to tighten gun control more broadly. Forty-four percent of those polled said the next president should work to tighten federal gun control laws, while 49 percent were opposed.
44 percent? Wow! I had no idea the number was that high. This is fantastic news and gives me a great deal of hope!!
Saturday, January 09, 2016
Town Hall Frustrations
My initial thoughts on the president's town hall on gun violence are ones of frustration. While I am pleased that the issue is getting more attention and it appears that it's going to be a center piece to the 2016 presidential campaign, there are two core points that are not being addressed.
The first is illustrated in Taya Kyle's portion of this video. As Chris Mooney noted in his book "The Republican Brain," people let emotion drive their reasoning process and this was never more true than with the gun issue. I was hoping that Ms. Kyle would have learned the lesson that her husband and Nancy Lanza did not learn and that is that the gun culture creates a myopia. Neither Mr. Kyle nor Ms. Lanza used reason in their judgement regarding gun safety and allowed mentally ill people to operate firearms. The ideology of the gun rights activist (one devoid of reason and more rooted in paranoia and chest thumping emotion) is a chief cause of mass shootings and gun violence in this country.
Instead, Ms. Kyle spoke of needing a gun for protection and spoke of the hope of declining gun violence. The former is, of course, ridiculous as has been proven time and again by study after study. If you own a gun, you are more likely to kill/injure yourself or a loved one than protect yourself or a loved one. Believing the latter is, again, an emotional response driven by some sort of need for empowerment. The latter I found to be incredibly insulting to the families of the now weekly victims of mass shooting. How can anyone say it's getting better? This is especially befuddling behavior of someone who lost their own loved one to the myopia of gun rights ideology.
I think the president knows this because he's obviously an intelligent man. I get that saying something like this would be a bad PR move but it is the truth and we have to face the fact that this ideology is a threat to our national security.
My second frustration is that the NRA and other gun rights supporters are essentially getting what they want here: enforcement of current laws. Despite their faux protestations, they have successfully shifted the argument so far to the right, that "compromise" is something they've actually supported for years. They've been employing a political tactic that needs to be countered immediately.
Instead of allowing them to set the table with talk of totalitarian governments and dystopic futures (see: appeal to fear), gun safety advocates like the president should be talking about mandatory, minimum training, liability insurance, registration, and even altering the 2nd amendment so that only people who want to devote a considerable portion of their lives to community protection own firearms. These things may seem like a pipe dream now but gun safety advocates need to cease starting from a point of capitulation.
It's clear that the gun issue is going to have ongoing prevalence. I only wish that it wasn't due to the regularity of gun violence and our inability to accept what we need to do to solve the problem.
Here is the full town hall...
The first is illustrated in Taya Kyle's portion of this video. As Chris Mooney noted in his book "The Republican Brain," people let emotion drive their reasoning process and this was never more true than with the gun issue. I was hoping that Ms. Kyle would have learned the lesson that her husband and Nancy Lanza did not learn and that is that the gun culture creates a myopia. Neither Mr. Kyle nor Ms. Lanza used reason in their judgement regarding gun safety and allowed mentally ill people to operate firearms. The ideology of the gun rights activist (one devoid of reason and more rooted in paranoia and chest thumping emotion) is a chief cause of mass shootings and gun violence in this country.
Instead, Ms. Kyle spoke of needing a gun for protection and spoke of the hope of declining gun violence. The former is, of course, ridiculous as has been proven time and again by study after study. If you own a gun, you are more likely to kill/injure yourself or a loved one than protect yourself or a loved one. Believing the latter is, again, an emotional response driven by some sort of need for empowerment. The latter I found to be incredibly insulting to the families of the now weekly victims of mass shooting. How can anyone say it's getting better? This is especially befuddling behavior of someone who lost their own loved one to the myopia of gun rights ideology.
I think the president knows this because he's obviously an intelligent man. I get that saying something like this would be a bad PR move but it is the truth and we have to face the fact that this ideology is a threat to our national security.
My second frustration is that the NRA and other gun rights supporters are essentially getting what they want here: enforcement of current laws. Despite their faux protestations, they have successfully shifted the argument so far to the right, that "compromise" is something they've actually supported for years. They've been employing a political tactic that needs to be countered immediately.
Instead of allowing them to set the table with talk of totalitarian governments and dystopic futures (see: appeal to fear), gun safety advocates like the president should be talking about mandatory, minimum training, liability insurance, registration, and even altering the 2nd amendment so that only people who want to devote a considerable portion of their lives to community protection own firearms. These things may seem like a pipe dream now but gun safety advocates need to cease starting from a point of capitulation.
It's clear that the gun issue is going to have ongoing prevalence. I only wish that it wasn't due to the regularity of gun violence and our inability to accept what we need to do to solve the problem.
Here is the full town hall...
Thursday, January 07, 2016
Wholesale Defeat
Looks like EJ Dionne is echoing yours truly.
Bullies are intimidating until someone calls their bluff. By ruling out any reasonable steps toward containing the killing in our nation and by offering ever more preposterous arguments, the gun worshipers are setting themselves up for wholesale defeat. It will take time.
But it will happen.
The best part about it is they don't see it yet...:)
Bullies are intimidating until someone calls their bluff. By ruling out any reasonable steps toward containing the killing in our nation and by offering ever more preposterous arguments, the gun worshipers are setting themselves up for wholesale defeat. It will take time.
But it will happen.
The best part about it is they don't see it yet...:)
Tuesday, January 05, 2016
Exactly Why I Voted For Him
I voted twice for Barack Obama for two basic reasons. The first reason was to fix problems that we already knew we had. He's certainly done some of that. Getting bin Laden and literally saving American lives by making health care available to everyone are two of the biggest accomplishments.
But I also voted for him because he'd work to fix the problems that we didn't know about yet. The main problem I have with conservatives is they are very limp when it comes to new problems, especially if it's domestic issues. A great example of this is the gun issue. When the president took office, guns weren't really a top priority. We didn't have mass shootings every week and violence was on a downward trend. We did have the ongoing issues of gang violence and suicides but guns aren't necessarily at the root of those problems.
Then came Aurora and Sandy Hook and everything changed after that.
It certainly did for me. The chief cause of Sandy Hook was the Gun Cult. Nancy Lanza bought into their bullshit, armed herself to the teeth, and, like most "responsible" gun owners, allowed someone access to guns that should not have had them. As a result, first graders were shot in the face. Nothing was done to change our insanely loose gun laws and look what has happened since. Can anyone really remember all the mass shootings? I can't because they happen all the fucking time now.
Today, the president issued executive orders that are going to expand universal background checks and allow doctors to report some mentally ill patients to the FBI to prevent them from getting guns. His speech was extraordinary and made me proud to be an American and have this man stand up for what is right. Here is an excerpt.
But I also voted for him because he'd work to fix the problems that we didn't know about yet. The main problem I have with conservatives is they are very limp when it comes to new problems, especially if it's domestic issues. A great example of this is the gun issue. When the president took office, guns weren't really a top priority. We didn't have mass shootings every week and violence was on a downward trend. We did have the ongoing issues of gang violence and suicides but guns aren't necessarily at the root of those problems.
Then came Aurora and Sandy Hook and everything changed after that.
It certainly did for me. The chief cause of Sandy Hook was the Gun Cult. Nancy Lanza bought into their bullshit, armed herself to the teeth, and, like most "responsible" gun owners, allowed someone access to guns that should not have had them. As a result, first graders were shot in the face. Nothing was done to change our insanely loose gun laws and look what has happened since. Can anyone really remember all the mass shootings? I can't because they happen all the fucking time now.
Today, the president issued executive orders that are going to expand universal background checks and allow doctors to report some mentally ill patients to the FBI to prevent them from getting guns. His speech was extraordinary and made me proud to be an American and have this man stand up for what is right. Here is an excerpt.
President Obama, tearing up about the Sandy Hook shooting: "Every time I think about those kids, it gets me mad." http://cnb.cx/1UtHVET
Posted by CNBC on Tuesday, January 5, 2016
Sunday, January 03, 2016
Arrest The Communists!
When you embolden terrorists, they continue to take advantage of you.
That's a line we here all the time from conservatives and I actually agree with it, taking a harder line against those who would do us harm because of stark differences in ideology. Where conservatives and I part ways, however, is the definition of what is terrorism. For example, I view people that actively support gun rights and people who vote for candidates who actively support gun rights as aiding and abetting the murders of thousands of Americans. A stark example of this is domestic terrorist Robert Dear. Dear is another example of where I part ways with conservatives. No doubt many of them view him as a freedom fighter, crusading against the evil that is abortion.
Similar to their support of Dear is their support of Cliven Bundy. Recall that Bundy is the guy who thinks that all land belongs to the people, not the federal government (see also: communism) and has still not been arrested for grazing his cattle on federal lands. This inaction by the federal government has led to another incident in Oregon where similar minded people, including Bundy's son, Ammon Bundy, have now seized a federal government wildlife facility with no intention to leave.
The federal response to both of these incidents has been lackluster at best. They need to arrest all of these people and remove them by force, if necessary. I get they don't want another Waco but these people are in direct violation of the Constitution. They are committing and overt act of sedition and need to go to jail.
In the final analysis, they are honestly communists. Property, whether owned by a person or an entity, isn't owned by the people. How that works out to be conservative in their pea brains, we'll never know. Yet we do know that they are dangerous and it's way past time to take them down several notches.
I think a tank ought to do quite nicely:)
That's a line we here all the time from conservatives and I actually agree with it, taking a harder line against those who would do us harm because of stark differences in ideology. Where conservatives and I part ways, however, is the definition of what is terrorism. For example, I view people that actively support gun rights and people who vote for candidates who actively support gun rights as aiding and abetting the murders of thousands of Americans. A stark example of this is domestic terrorist Robert Dear. Dear is another example of where I part ways with conservatives. No doubt many of them view him as a freedom fighter, crusading against the evil that is abortion.
Similar to their support of Dear is their support of Cliven Bundy. Recall that Bundy is the guy who thinks that all land belongs to the people, not the federal government (see also: communism) and has still not been arrested for grazing his cattle on federal lands. This inaction by the federal government has led to another incident in Oregon where similar minded people, including Bundy's son, Ammon Bundy, have now seized a federal government wildlife facility with no intention to leave.
The federal response to both of these incidents has been lackluster at best. They need to arrest all of these people and remove them by force, if necessary. I get they don't want another Waco but these people are in direct violation of the Constitution. They are committing and overt act of sedition and need to go to jail.
In the final analysis, they are honestly communists. Property, whether owned by a person or an entity, isn't owned by the people. How that works out to be conservative in their pea brains, we'll never know. Yet we do know that they are dangerous and it's way past time to take them down several notches.
I think a tank ought to do quite nicely:)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)