GayPatriot

Comments

RSS feed for comments on this post.

The URI to TrackBack this entry is: http://www.gaypatriot.net/2013/02/21/law-of-unintended-consequences-gun-control-edition/trackback/

  1. To every liberal friend of mine who wrings his or her hands and screams about “the safety of the children” and how we “must protect innocent lives,” I have taken to posing these two questions:

    (A) Why should we prevent children’s parents from protecting them?

    (B) Why should women and gays (and, for that matter, children) be prevented from defending themselves?

    I have yet to get an answer to either one of those questions. Except for some spluttering about how all they want to do is background checks and other innocuous-sounding stuff.

    When I ask them why it’s “paranoid” for people to worry that this will lead to total confiscation, when that is exactly what’s happened in many other places (including some in the U.S.), again I get no response.

    Comment by Lori Heine — February 22, 2013 @ 12:32 am - February 22, 2013

  2. I never understand why conservatives are so hellbent on keeping the “populace armed” in order to prevent against tyranny from the government. This isn’t 1820, and your muskets won’t protect you. So when the Obamunist Usurper decides to declare war on conservatives and send you all to FEMA camps, your little guns are going to look even smaller compared to the full strength of the nuclear-armed US Air Force and the tanks that will surely be patrolling your suburban neighborhoods looking for signs of trademarked Patriotic ‘Murkan descent. Stand on top of your double-wides and shoot guns all you want, folks, but don’t act surprised when your widdle arsenals are shown to be flaccid in comparison…

    Comment by Evan — February 22, 2013 @ 12:42 am - February 22, 2013

  3. *dissent, that should have said.

    Comment by Evan — February 22, 2013 @ 12:43 am - February 22, 2013

  4. Evan: not sure whether or not to take your comment seriously, as it sounds like it was made in an effort to caricature a typical ignorant leftwinger, given that there was so much that was absolutely wrong with it…

    Were you actually serious?

    Comment by AF_Vet — February 22, 2013 @ 7:29 am - February 22, 2013

  5. AF_Vet – Agreed sounds like a troll. The point of being armed is to defend ourselves from the government and from evil people. It’s a very simple concept. The nuclear weapon argument is simply horse-shit in my honest opinion. An armed populace is an excellent defense against tyranny, and to say otherwise is just the typical hyperbole bullshit of the typical leftist twit. It has become a rather boring argument as well.

    Comment by gigg — February 22, 2013 @ 8:55 am - February 22, 2013

  6. Re. gun control (i.e. eventual confiscation), ‘liberals’ vs. ‘leftists’ is a distinction without a difference.

    Comment by Ignatius — February 22, 2013 @ 10:33 am - February 22, 2013

  7. Stand on top of your double-wides and shoot guns all you want, folks, but don’t act surprised when your widdle arsenals are shown to be flaccid in comparison…

    Yep. Kennedy and Johnson marched us right into Vietnam to teach those barefoot spear chuckers how the big boys do it and we just cleaned their clocks.

    Our guys in Afghanistan have got all the best goodies and they are rarely killed or injured and when we leave, the natives will be stunned into submission and peace and harmony will break out they will support themselves by knitting prayer shawls for the world.

    When the Progressive Bull Conner’s start up the fire hoses and unleash the police dogs on the hop-poloi Kent Staters, the Progressives will mock and cheer as the rednecks and grits fall like David Koresh, Reginald Denny, Rodney King and little kids and old women at the hands of the TSA.

    Evan is so prescient. Big Brother will put on his hob-nailed boots and kristallnacht the suburbs and blitzkrieg the cities and strongholds and the SS will track down and kill the guerrilla resistance and the Obama Reich will be restored and the Progressives will brutally enforce the official equality, fraternity and state approved liberty.

    You are ready for the making of a fine little brownshirt, Evan. Your thinking is controlled just the way they want it.

    I never understand why conservatives are so hellbent on keeping the “populace armed” in order to prevent against tyranny from the government.

    Oh. Then why threaten us with the tyranny of government? I suppose the thought has never crossed your mind. I suppose that you would never amuse yourself with visions of the police state shooting poorly armed widdle rednecks on top of their double-wides.

    Please give us the pleasure of watching row and bail at the same time. You shot the hole in your own boat, so do keep us amused with your tragic antics. But don’t worry, we will save you from yourself. Conservatives are like that.

    Comment by heliotrope — February 22, 2013 @ 10:46 am - February 22, 2013

  8. heliotrope – Well said! And Evan will be the first to duck behind a redneck with a gun when the brown-shirts come for him. Funny how that works.

    Comment by gigg — February 22, 2013 @ 11:38 am - February 22, 2013

  9. The ultimate goal of the left is to completely disarm the populace. This is the modus operandi of dictators and those who aspire to be one. The proposed legislation by Senator Diane Feinstein is more inclusive than just the so called ¨assault weapon.¨ As a wrote on a previous thread that I sent a letter to her in protest and urged her to not to submit it to committee. I further opined that she needs closure, that she hasn´t recovered from the trauma of the assassinations of then Mayor Moscone and Counilman Harvey Milk.

    Today I read that Comcast will no longer accept advertisments from those businesses that sell firearms. I as a stockholder,wrote to the CEO to express my disappointment that they are buying into the lie that guns kill. I suggested that they no longer accept infomercials in which the product being demonstrated are knives. Knives kill, at least that is the thinking in Great Britain, which has had gun control for several years. They are now laying the foundation for restricting the sale of knives.

    I live in El Salvador, which is currently on the list advising tourists not to vacation here due to the violence. Two years, in this country which is smaller than L.A. County and with 1/3rd the population, the daily death toll was 14 murders a day. Most of which were gang members. Those who weren´t, were and are still shop keepers, and busdrivers who refuse or can´t pay extortion when due. Last April a truce was made between Mara Salvatrucha, 18th Street, the church, and some suspect the government. The object was to bring back foreign investors. So we´re now down to five a day. Yet the leftist government is on a campaign to disarm the citizens. Then again the leftist FMLN has a nexus with Hugo Chavez and the Brothers Castro in Cuba. Last year they recognized the Palestinian State.

    Comment by Roberto — February 22, 2013 @ 1:55 pm - February 22, 2013

  10. The nuclear weapon argument is simply horse-shit in my honest opinion.

    Absolutely correct. People like Evan seem to think that military personnel are heartless trolls who would have no problem launching large scale military attecks (nuclear or otherwise) on their family, frineds, etc. Or that they would support it in any way shape or form.

    When I took my oath, it was to the Constitution, NOT the President.

    Comment by AF_Vet — February 22, 2013 @ 5:51 pm - February 22, 2013

  11. Hey, who is this “Ignatius” doppleganger of faint capital distinction? Granted, I haven’t been around for a bit, but, c’mon.

    But on topic, what gets me every time is the anti-2A sputterer who sincerely thinks America is utterly immune to capitulation. Staggeringly myopic and dangerously foolish. Oh, and BTW, don’t they ever notice how durable and effective those poor, under-dog scarcely armed Afghanis remain largely unconquered anyway? So the reductio ad absurdum fallacy boringly re-re-re-repeated is what’s absurd.

    Thatisall.

    Comment by ignatius — February 22, 2013 @ 7:15 pm - February 22, 2013

  12. As far as I know, I was the first Ignatius to post comments at this blog, though I’ve since seen a couple of others do the same.

    Comment by Ignatius — February 22, 2013 @ 7:56 pm - February 22, 2013

  13. Well that may be up for debate or confirmation of some sort by who knows, but you’re the first other same name different cap I’ve seen here. But, whatever, just to be clear.

    Comment by ignatius — February 22, 2013 @ 8:20 pm - February 22, 2013

  14. I’ve been posting comments as ‘Ignatius’ for quite some time — years, though I took a break for a while. A quick search will prove this.

    Comment by Ignatius — February 22, 2013 @ 8:46 pm - February 22, 2013

  15. Roberto,

    In terms of domestic tranquility, MS-13 (Mara Salvatrucha), Zetas, et al are terrorists. When one gets tattooed up and pledges to “rape, control, kill” he is declaring himself an outlaw to society.

    People in this country have a weird belief that the Indians (“native” Americans; first to arrive; former regional rulers) treated one another as brothers and lived in a state of peace and harmony that would make the UN proud.

    The Pawnee, who were warring types and settled along the Platte River provided us with the term “Pani” (pronounced “pawnee”) which designated a generic “Indian” who had been captured in war and was sold as a slave to white settlers in the 1600′s and 1700′s. The Pawnee tribe specialized in providing “Pani.” By authority of the ordinance of Apr. 13, 1709, the enslavement of negroes and Pawnee (meaning Indian slave, not the specific tribe) was recognized in Canada (Shea’s Charlevoix, v, 224, 1871).

    Across the Americas tribes had war parties dedicated to disrupting the domestic tranquility of other tribes. Indians didn’t create Mesa Verde type housing because they lived in peace and harmony.

    When they encountered one another, they fought to the death until some of them discovered the usefulness of alliance and confederacy. However, some regional tribes just kept at one another until the “white man” overwhelmed them entirely.

    I blather on about this, because civilized law does not really account for the likes of Mara Salvatrucha. These thugs are not only committed to violence against those outside of their tribe, they are committed to kill anyone in the tribe who attempts to leave the tribe. Thus, a person “joining” the tribe has actually forfeited his life to the tribe.

    From my cold hearted and Neanderthal perspective, I favor rounding these guys up and locking them away with rival gangs where they can work out their differences.

    Meanwhile, leftists want to disarm the citizens and treat these vicious Huns like strayed souls who need comfort and understanding.

    I know all about how kids are dragged into the gangs and how mothers wish they could have their child back. But the reality is that the little boy is transformed into a hate machine who is trapped into a life of violence.

    Our approach to this is to sit back and watch and then convict an occasional member when we finally have goods on him and then send him to a selected prison where we protect him from rivals and on and on and on.

    We wouldn’t treat malaria or TB as worthy diseases that should have their day in court. Yet we howl about giving their day in court with full due process rights to terrorists in Gitmo and Somali pirate kids we capture.

    In my view, if you have an MS-13 tattoo or other tangible evidence of gang membership, you have forfeited your right to the domestic tranquility of having things worked out under the assumptions of Western law.

    You are a designated enemy of the state. Citizenship or not.

    Comment by heliotrope — February 23, 2013 @ 12:17 pm - February 23, 2013

  16. This debate between the two commenters named Ignatius prompted me to do a quick search. I believe that this comment (from the upper case Ignatius above) was the first one posted by him. It also appears to be the first comment by anyone using the name Ignatius here. And I believe that this comment from the lower-case i ignatius (in this thread) was the first one he posted. Of course, it’s possible that the second ignatius also posted under a different e-mail address, in which case there may be earlier posts under that name.

    Comment by Kurt — February 23, 2013 @ 12:29 pm - February 23, 2013

  17. So when the Obamunist Usurper decides to declare war on conservatives and send you all to FEMA camps, your little guns are going to look even smaller compared to the full strength of the nuclear-armed US Air Force and the tanks that will surely be patrolling your suburban neighborhoods looking for signs of trademarked Patriotic ‘Murkan descent. Stand on top of your double-wides and shoot guns all you want, folks, but don’t act surprised when your widdle arsenals are shown to be flaccid in comparison…

    Comment by Evan — February 22, 2013 @ 12:42 am – February 22, 2013

    Uh huh.

    U.S. forces in Afghanistan were moving forward Monday following a bold attack on Camp Bastion that killed two Marines, including the commanding officer of a Harrier squadron, wounded nine other U.S. personnel and destroyed six Harrier jump jets.

    Lt. Col. Christopher Raible, 40, and Sgt. Bradley Atwell, 27, were killed after 15 insurgents armed with automatic rifles, rocket-propelled grenades and suicide vests breached the perimeter of Bastion about 10 p.m. Friday. Raible served as the commanding officer of Marine Attack Squadron 211, and Atwell was assigned to Marine Aviation Logistics Squadron 13. Both units are out of Marine Corps Air Station Yuma, Ariz.

    The attack significantly damaged two additional AV-8B Harriers, each worth about $24 million, and destroyed three refueling stations, U.S. military officials said in a statement released Saturday. Six soft-skin aircraft hangars also were damaged.

    And that is with antiquated second-hand materials and weapons against an enemy that is absolutely unified in resistance to you.

    Do you think American soldiers carry the same hatreds towards their homes, their families, and their countries that you do, Evan Hurst?

    For you to invoke nuclear weapons is telling. You and your fellow Obama supporters, Barack Obama included, as well as your organization Truth Wins Out, your leader Wayne Besen, and your fellow writers at Wonkette truly DO want people who would dare resist Obama, people in the flyover states, people who criticize your “progressive” fascist utopian views, to be nuked. You have zero qualms whatsoever about seeing your family, your friends, and your countrymen destroyed by nuclear explosions for having the wrong political and social views.

    Once one recognizes the true sociopathic depth of the hatred that you and your fellow Obama supporters have for anyone who dares tell you no or to disagree with you, it is breathtaking. Once people learn that you endorse killing them and wish death on them for having the wrong political views, your lies about “hope” and “change” and “tolerance” are shown to be nothing more than attempts to manipulate and destroy others.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — February 23, 2013 @ 12:54 pm - February 23, 2013

  18. Evan: not sure whether or not to take your comment seriously, as it sounds like it was made in an effort to caricature a typical ignorant leftwinger, given that there was so much that was absolutely wrong with it…

    Were you actually serious?

    Comment by AF_Vet — February 22, 2013 @ 7:29 am – February 22, 2013

    AF_Vet – Agreed sounds like a troll.

    Comment by gigg — February 22, 2013 @ 8:55 am – February 22, 2013

    AF_Vet and gigg, I can assure you that Evan, who is actually an individual named Evan Hurst, believes every word that he says.

    Evan Hurst is a violent, hateful bigot. He is the writer at Wonkette who, when that hate blog was criticized for their hit piece on Trig Palin, cried that anyone who criticized it was “homophobic”.

    Furthermore, Evan Hurst and the organization he represents as Director of Social Media, Truth Wins Out, are bitterly and virulently anti-conservative, anti-religious, and anti-Semitic. In conjunction with that organization’s leader, Wayne Besen, a known bigot, Truth Wins Out officially endorsed as “everything (he) said is true, and then some” this statement about one of the bloggers here.

    This is how “progressives” and Obama supporters actually believe and behave. Evan’s joyful tirade about those people he thinks all live in “double-wides” getting nuked shows the “progressive” and Obama Party mindset in its full glory: those who disagree with us politically must be destroyed.

    One should not make a habit out of assuming the worst about people; however, it is even worse to not recognize the worst when it’s clearly shown to you.

    They have shown the worst.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — February 23, 2013 @ 1:13 pm - February 23, 2013

  19. heliotrope,

    I agree, MS and 18th St. are terrorists, but here in El Salvador they have not yet been designated as such. They are delinquents. Many of those which have been arrested are between the ages 14 to 25. Although recent arrests have taken into custody members who are thirty five years or so. If you have read Pat Buchanan´s book; State of Emergency, you know he indicates that MS was formed in Los Angeles, by youthful exiles or were the children of salvadorians claiming political exile and were sympathizers with the communist FMLN. They already began with the hate which communism breeds against successful and law biding people. Just recently on local tv, it was announced that there are 75,000 gang members in 8,000 cliques in El Salvador. This is a country that does not have the death penalty and the maximum sentence is 30 years (although multiple counts are not served concurrently) Think how many more are in Honduras, Guatamala, and in the U.S. Los Angeles County, Chicago, Washington D.C./Arlington VA.

    I wonder with the proliferation of these gangs if they have been desiginated terrorists by Homeland Security in the U.S. As a Viet Nam vet, and a dues paying member of the NRA, I´m probably on Janet Napolitano´s list.

    Comment by Roberto — February 23, 2013 @ 1:33 pm - February 23, 2013

  20. I never understand why conservatives are so hellbent on keeping the “populace armed” in order to prevent against tyranny from the government.

    The United States constitution was written as a set of checks and balances to prevent any specific branch of power gaining too much power. The notion of an armed citizenry was the ultimate check on government power. The idea is to preserve the notion that the rights of the government derive from the people and that the people themselves ultimately have the final say.

    This isn’t 1820, and your muskets won’t protect you.

    At the time, the musket was the most advanced infantry weapon of its day. The idea was for the people to bear individual infantry weapons. That would mean that the people today should be able to own the same individual weapons that our military and our police currently have. In fact, it is my personal opinion that a person who has served their six year obligation or longer of active duty military service and separates under honorable conditions should be keep their individual weapon and take it with them after separation / retirement.

    So when the Obamunist Usurper decides to declare war on conservatives and send you all to FEMA camps, your little guns are going to look even smaller compared to the full strength of the nuclear-armed US Air Force and the tanks that will surely be patrolling your suburban neighborhoods looking for signs of trademarked Patriotic ‘Murkan descent.

    Nice straw man you built there, obviously went to a lot of trouble. It isn’t a matter of “declaring war on conservatives”. But most of all, you give absolutely no reason why we should take these weapons away. They account for a very small number of deaths each year compared to other causes. It is somehow important for you to take them away and you are not expected to provide justification for doing so, we are supposed to provide justification for you NOT doing so. Taking them away would not have any significant impact on the homicide rate. It wouldn’t save any lives. So what is the *real* purpose for taking them away? It isn’t up to us to justify keeping them, we already have them. It is up to you to justify taking them away.

    The police are not a personal protection agency, they are law enforcement agencies. Their job is to enforce laws *after* they have been broken. Our protection is our own responsibility. It is impossible to disarm criminals through regulation because the criminal segment of our society ignores regulations. You can ban guns in every single state of the union and disarm every law abiding citizen and the mob would simply smuggle them in from outside the country and the criminals would remain armed just as they do today in countries where it is against the law for citizens to be armed such as in Mexico. The unarmed civilian population would be sitting ducks for armed criminals.

    Who benefits from disarming the population? Well, for one, public safety unions. Without armed citizens, crime goes up and people are afraid. When they are afraid, they want more cops. More cops means more political power for the police unions. The government employee unions tend to support one particular party. It also means that party gets a certain intimidation factor advantage over the people. Lets say the cops come around and want to shake you down for a donation to the “Fraternal Order of Police” and sort of imply that it might be in your best interest to give a generous donation if you would like to have access to their full range of services when it is needed. You aren’t armed. You can’t defend yourself. They give every business that donates a nice sticker to put in the window. Corrupt police is a tradition that goes back centuries in this country. Having a helpless, unarmed population facilitates corruption among those who would be tasked to “protect” them.

    Armed citizens also reduces crime of all sorts, not just violent crime making less of a need for police. Why would we see this massive drive for disarming the people right now when we have seen a dramatic decline in crime since gun laws were eased in many jurisdictions across the land. Most crimes are committed by only a few people. Those few people usually commit more than one crime. Armed citizens result in those criminals being stopped and being more often apprehended and incarcerated removing them from the streets and resulting in reductions in crime that go beyond their numbers. So incarcerating 10 criminals might result in a reduction 500 crimes over the course of a couple of years.

    The only people who stand to benefit from disarming the population is the Democratic Party and their constituent special interest groups. The Democratic Party is generally corrupt. They run most of the urban political machines. It is probably the most corrupt organization we have seen in over 100 years. These are the people that “run” the most corrupt cities in America. They do not want armed citizens. The criminal element is actually their political ally and facilitates their ability to control the population through intimidation and fear. Removing that intimidation and fear would result in less need for police and other government entities which would directly reduce the amount of cash flowing into their pockets.

    Stand on top of your double-wides and shoot guns all you want, folks, but don’t act surprised when your widdle arsenals are shown to be flaccid in comparison…

    And what is most ironic is that you close with an implied threat that the federal government WILL actually attack the population and they “widdle arsenal” will not help them. I am not so much worried about our military, I am worried about paramilitary organizations such as DHS and others we might not even be aware of.

    Comment by crosspatch — February 23, 2013 @ 2:08 pm - February 23, 2013

  21. And why is the Department of Homeland Security ordering and training with targets representing pregnant women, women protecting their children, and armed children? This acts to psychologically “desensitize” DHS personnel from shooting citizens. This is the same DHS that has recently ordered over a billion rounds of ammunition.

    Exactly why would they be doing this?

    http://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2013/02/20/dhs-training-to-shoot-pregnant-women/

    http://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2013/02/21/police-desensitivity-training-success/

    Comment by crosspatch — February 23, 2013 @ 2:35 pm - February 23, 2013

  22. Gracias Kurt. Sorry, but what I meant by “just to be clear” was I am the LC iggy, not the UC one. Just trying avoid mistaken attribution, not trying to assert any “seniority” of any kind. But it is true I have been reading GP for much longer than I’ve commented, and I did start commenting years ago using a different name and email (I can’t remember them now), took a sabbatical, then just started over.

    Comment by ignatius — February 23, 2013 @ 3:05 pm - February 23, 2013

  23. Crosspatch #20, the blogger you link to is either a moron or a paid instigator. The “target” displaying unwittingly lethally armed toddlers is not used to learn how to double tap them, it is used to train LE to quickly differentiate the type of threat before them, such that they can more rapidly determine who really does need to be double tapped and who needs to be approached very differently. A child unknowing of how dangerous they have suddenly become would be handled with profound sensitivity toward making sure he survives.

    So either you are willfully naive, incapable of critical thinking due to immaturity, a useful idiot of the agitprop blogger, or also a paid shill doing the Orwellian work of spreading double-plus-good speak in order to keep us off-balance. Nice try.

    Comment by ignatius — February 23, 2013 @ 3:19 pm - February 23, 2013

  24. The “target” displaying unwittingly lethally armed toddlers is not used to learn how to double tap them, it is used to train LE to quickly differentiate the type of threat before them

    Not in this case. The specific purpose of these targets is to desensitize and to reduce hesitation for shooting. That is why this line of targets is called “no hesitation”. They are DESIGNED to TRAIN law enforcement to SHOOT people in situations where normal people would hesitate to fire.

    So either you are willfully naive, incapable of critical thinking due to immaturity, a useful idiot of the agitprop blogger, or also a paid shill doing the Orwellian work of spreading double-plus-good speak in order to keep us off-balance. Nice try.

    Coming from someone who doesn’t have a clue what they are babbling about, I’ll have to consider the source and weight it accordingly.

    http://current.com/community/94059002_dhs-contractor-apologizes-for-selling-shooting-targets-of-children.htm

    That is the entire purpose. No problem with someone MAKING such a target, serious problem with DHS buying $2 million worth of them.

    Comment by crosspatch — February 23, 2013 @ 3:24 pm - February 23, 2013

  25. Ignatius #14, what a coinky dink, me too. But I wasn’t kidding when I said I’ve never seen another Ignatius or ignatius here before; likely I’ve simply not commented at the same posts as you or whatever. Had I seen you before, I’m pretty sure I would have picked a totally different name, again, just to be clear.

    Thatisall2.

    Comment by ignatius — February 23, 2013 @ 3:30 pm - February 23, 2013

  26. Crosspatch #23, what, are you trying to get me to take you seriously now? *chuckle* Considering that you only cite a whiney blogger and the Al Jazeera owned Current site, you have only confirmed to me that you are a poorly paid shill. And a rather clumsy one at that. Try harder please. I’ll be happy to train you further but only if you buy me a lot of beer goggles.

    Comment by ignatius — February 23, 2013 @ 3:39 pm - February 23, 2013

  27. Crosspatch, I simply don’t have time right now to slog through the entirety of your comment #19 but I think that we actually agree on at least the fundamentals, namely, that US citizens are Constitutionally ensured of our natural right to arm ourselves without infringement. I otherwise think you are anti-DHS for ulterior reasons, while I’m more bothered by the DOJ under Holder.

    Comment by ignatius — February 23, 2013 @ 3:51 pm - February 23, 2013

  28. Lori said 1.To every liberal friend of mine who wrings his or her hands and screams about “the safety of the children” and how we “must protect innocent lives,” I have taken to posing these two questions:

    (A) Why should we prevent children’s parents from protecting them?

    (B) Why should women and gays (and, for that matter, children) be prevented from defending themselves?”.

    It’s no coincidence that rates of gun violence in the U.S. have declined with the percentage of Americans that own guns. Most criminals get their guns by stealing them from licensed gun owners or buying them on the used market.

    Guns just make it easier to kill greater numbers of people more quickly. If we were to give nuclear weapons to parents to protect their children and to gays and women criminals would soon get them and there would be a huge escalation in violence and death.

    If guns are outlawed this will greatly reduce the supply available to criminals and there will be a huge drop in gun violence – Parent’s won’t need guns to protect their children from gun toting criminals and neither iwll women or gays.

    http://www.vpc.org/press/1302gundeath.htm

    http://factcheck.org/2008/03/violent-crimes-and-handgun-ownership/

    David Hemenway, director of the Harvard Injury Control Research Center and the Harvard Youth Violence Prevention Center, notes that most types of crime don’t necessarily involve guns – car theft or muggings or rape, for instance. But other crimes, such as murder, often do. Studies that have looked at gun ownership and murder rates, he says, have shown “yes, there’s a strong relationship.” Such studies, Hemenway says, have controlled for certain variables, comparing urban areas to other urban areas or households in violent areas to other households in violent areas. With those types of studies, “the evidence is very compelling.” There’s more gun murder in areas with more guns, and more murder overall, he says.”.

    Fact check notes that the correlation doesn’t prove causation but any rational person can see the writing on the wall

    Comment by Priya Lynn — February 23, 2013 @ 4:46 pm - February 23, 2013

  29. It’s no coincidence that rates of gun violence in the U.S. have declined with the percentage of Americans that own guns.

    Actually, that’s exactly backwards.

    The FBI recently released its Crime in The United States statistics for 2010. Overall, murders in the U.S. have decreased steadily since 2006, dropping from 15,087 to 12,996. Firearms murders — which made up 67 percent of all murders in the U.S. in 2010 — have followed this trend, decreasing by 14 percent.

    At the same time that firearms murders were dropping, gun sales were surging. In 2009, FBI background checks for guns increased by 30 percent over the previous year, while firearms sales in large retail outlets increased by almost 40 percent. The number of applications for concealed carry permits jumped across the country as well.

    As is also validated by this study and review.

    Most criminals get their guns by stealing them from licensed gun owners or buying them on the used market.

    Guns just make it easier to kill greater numbers of people more quickly. If we were to give nuclear weapons to parents to protect their children and to gays and women criminals would soon get them and there would be a huge escalation in violence and death.

    If guns are outlawed this will greatly reduce the supply available to criminals and there will be a huge drop in gun violence – Parent’s won’t need guns to protect their children from gun toting criminals and neither iwll women or gays.

    So the solution is to punish the law-abiding, not the criminals.

    Which is consistent with your endorsement of the Obama Party, under orders from Barack Obama, ordering illegal sales to Mexican drug cartels in the hope of driving up gun violence in the United States and forcing through laws to disarm the law-abiding.

    Since it is your official government policy to give guns to criminals, Priya Lynn, your argument falls apart. Either repudiate and condemn your Obama Party for its doing so, or acknowledge that you do not care about criminals possessing guns and are just using that as an excuse to disarm the law-abiding.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — February 23, 2013 @ 5:26 pm - February 23, 2013

  30. Roberto,

    My proximity to Arlington allows me a bit of the inside view what the locals feel when someone says he is from El Salvador. That alone is almost a reason to have a concealed carry permit. Naturally, that is totally unfair to the many fine people who are here from El Salvador, but MS-13 set out to take over the drug traffic in Maryland, Virginia, West Virginia and Delaware many, many years ago. For the most part, they have been driven into the liberal conclaves near DC where they get by with more “understanding” and “compassion.”

    L.A. has whole police divisions studying and dealing with these creeps. I am very much aware that they have hardened young teens among them. Like guys who will deliver their own sisters for a gang-bang. Pol Pot also appealed to the brutal side of testosterone-hyped teens to do violence. Those who were on the ground in Nam were aware of what violence and death a kid could deliver. No American is comfortable with the thought of killing a young teen until he finally discovers that guy he killed who was behind the enemy weapon was some 13 or 14 year old.

    My point about MS-13 and other tribes of terrorists is that the Geneva Conventions and the assumptions of the legal codes for civilized people don’t apply to these terrorists. They are sworn to violence and to upend every aspect of civilization.

    Here is something from special forces guy in Afghanistan: I’ve been living with these Tajiks and Uzbeks, and Turkmen and even a couple of Pushtuns, for over a month-and-a-half now, and this much I can say for sure: These guys, all of ‘em, are Huns…actual, living Huns.. They LIVE to fight. It’s what they do. It’s ALL they do. They have no respect for anything, not for their families, nor for each other, nor for themselves. They claw at one another as a way of life. They play polo with dead calves and force their five-year-old sons into human cockfights to defend the family honor. Huns, roaming packs of savage, heartless beasts who feed on each other’s barbarism. Cavemen with AK-47′s.

    You can find these types in Indonesia, the Andes, the Malay, many parts of Africa, India and Eastern Europe. They are the shock troops for the communists who are bent on sewing the seeds of distrust and dissension.

    I am afraid that we are so corrupted by political correctness that the TSA wouldn’t dare upset the sensibilities of an MS-13 creep out of “respect” for his unique diversity status.

    Stephen Sondheim said it best in West Side Story:

    “Officer Krupke, you’ve done it again.
    This boy don’t need a job, he needs a year in the pen.
    It ain’t just a question of misunderstood;
    Deep down inside him, he’s no good!”

    We have an estimated 1.4 members gang members in the US and 230,000 gang members in jail and prison in 2011. We deport them and pay the consequences of recruitment and return. About half of all gang members are Hispanics, a third are black about a seventh are white and about a fifteenth are Asians.

    The Wanna Be’s are not hard to separate from the hard core gang members. Taking out the hard core would have a chilling effect on many Wanna Be’s. That is the fact of matter and it is where we fail in confronting the crisis of gangsterism and hooliganism.

    The politics in all of this crazy. Because the Hispanics would be the biggest target, due to their disproportional representation in ganges, we are extra sensitive to profiling.

    Comment by heliotrope — February 23, 2013 @ 5:32 pm - February 23, 2013

  31. #18: NDT, thank you for the enlightenment on this individual.

    Comment by AF_Vet — February 23, 2013 @ 7:53 pm - February 23, 2013

  32. #28 – “Guns just make it easier to kill greater numbers of people more quickly.”

    That is absolute nit-wittery. In the first place because guns are not nuclear weapons — despite the attempt here to confuse one form of weaponry with the other.

    In the second place, this argument is worse than stupid. It is dehumanizing. What is being said here, in true stealth statist “progressive” fashion, is that human beings do not have the right to defend themselves.

    Self-defensive is one of the most basic and elementary human rights. If we can’t defend ourselves against the violent actions of others, then we have been debased even below the level of the meanest beast.

    What Priya Lynn is actually saying is that human beings do not own themselves. She wouldn’t even be content with stripping us of our right to own property.

    The mask needs to be ripped away from this nonsense so its real, evil face can be seen.

    Comment by Lori Heine — February 24, 2013 @ 1:46 am - February 24, 2013

  33. On February 15, Politico wrote of Obama’s gun speech in Chicago:

    Four separate shootings took place in the span of 90 minutes Friday evening in Chicago, the first coming less than an hour after Air Force One departed O’Hare Airport after President Obama spoke on the culture of gun violence and economic decay that plagues many cities, including his hometown.

    “Last year, there were 443 murders with a firearm in this city, and 65 of them were 18 and under. That’s the equivalent of a Newtown every four months,” he said. “That’s precisely why the overwhelming majority of Americans are asking for some common sense proposals to make it harder for criminals to get their hands on a gun.”

    Whew! Criminals get their guns in a variety of ways. 1.) The most common method is by recruiting someone with a clean record to buy them. 2.) They steal them. 3.)They buy them from people who specialize in supplying guns to the black market. 4.) They are the legal owners of guns who turn to crime.

    The war on guns and the war on crime are two entirely different things. The manpower, paperwork and loss of “privacy rights”* it would take to find and keep track of all the guns (and magazines) is too staggering to rationally contemplate. ["privacy rights"*: a woman can have her womb vacuumed because of the privacy right to choose, but she can't own a gun without all manner of privacy invasion paperwork.]

    The war on crime is a different animal. Cops know the neighborhoods where bullets fly. When they choose to concentrate on those areas, they can quell the violence. But, a “no man’s land” is a sort of treaty with the cops that allows gun play to escalate and set the tone of the neighborhood.

    Meanwhile, the liberals insist on setting their benchmark at tragedies like Newtown, Columbine, Virginia Tech, and so forth. At the same time, the TSA treats everyone (or some random number of “everyone”) as a potential terrorist. Actual profiling is verboten.

    The Gabby Giffords shooter, the Newtown guy, the movie theater killer, the college student on a rampage were all mental cases of one sort or another. Equating them in any way with the millions of people who range from gun enthusiasts to people worried about home protection is just nuts.

    Liberals always have to have a social justice and state “solution” to every tic and flaw. Meanwhile, conservatives are arming up and beginning to celebrate the homeowner who blows a hole in the intruder who invades his castle.

    The clown car newspaper in New York that posted the names and addresses of all the gun permit holders using an interactive map on the web is an example of liberal derangement equivalent to the strange voices in the head of the Newtown shooter. The newspaper and the shooter were each acting out some sort of sick vengeance ritual. If there is such a thing as “hate” motivation as is presumed in the concept of “hate crimes,” the minds behind the newspaper’s action were bubbling over with hate motivation.

    Maybe a person has an impulse to curse the rock he tripped over. But when he goes full bore crazy over outlawing rocks, it is time for sensible people to take a long, deep breath.

    I invite each and every liberal reading this comment to look at the four sources I have listed as the source of guns used in crime and offer a workable solution to each method. I would also be interested in whether the liberal would be comfortable in having suspected bad guys profiled. If the liberal would permit such profiling, how does this differ from profiling illegal aliens or possible terrorists boarding airplanes?

    Comment by heliotrope — February 24, 2013 @ 10:59 am - February 24, 2013

  34. heliotrope,

    As of yet I have no knowledge of a boy delivering his sister to gang members for a gangbang. But n the neighboring municipal, Soyapango, a teen age boy invited his girl friend to a party, for which she asked her mother´s permission. The boyfriend and his took the girl into the woods and when she asked, ¨Where´s the party.¨he said, ¨ You´re the party.¨He his friend and five gang members all took advantage of her. The boy friend took off but the gang proceded to slice and stab her and buried her in a shallow grave. There was another case of a school girl who was friendly with gang members. They took her off to secluded place. She agreed to have sex with them as long as they wouldn´t hurt or kill her. They took their please but didn´t keep their word. She was also stabbed and stoned. My ex-lover entered the police academy. We ended our relationship a couple of months into h is training. Four months befor graduation on a weekend while drunk he got involved with a couple gangbangers and went to a deserted spot where he was stoned to death and buried in a shallow grave.

    As for Viet Nam, one of the favorites of kids was to carry a grenade in the pointed straw hats they wore, When they had an opportunity to kill or injure GI´s, the take it out of their hat pull the pin and toss it. Fortunately what happened to a friend waws he lost a testicle.

    You are right that all the shooters were mentla cases. In my letter to Senator Feinstein I suggested that the shootings aren´t a gun issue but a mental health issue and that is what needs our legilators need to look into. More mental hospitals and less believing that taking meds will make them safe and sane. Often the meds have secondary effects so they stop taking them. Who is there to monitor them to see that they take their meds? Many families can´t. In Lanz´s case his mother was at the point of having him committed. For that she paid with her life in anticipation of his shooting spree.

    Comment by Roberto — February 24, 2013 @ 4:40 pm - February 24, 2013

  35. [...] Law of Unintended Consequences, Gun Control Edition [...]

    Pingback by GayPatriot » Social Liberalism: Going Too Far — February 24, 2013 @ 11:57 pm - February 24, 2013

  36. Roberto,

    We complement one another’s points. What else can we do but to enact legislation that recognizes gang membership is an avowed consent to criminal activity and the dedication to upending domestic tranquility which automatically makes the game member an outlaw and persona non grata and orders him to be apprehended on sight.

    I can foresee a trial in which the “defendant” convinces the jury that his tattoo and association with gang activity is an innocent misunderstanding. If he gets off, I suggest that the word go out that he identified all manner of gang information while in custody.

    I understand this turns our assumptions of “justice” on its head, but I do not see how else to deal with terrorists.

    Comment by heliotrope — February 25, 2013 @ 1:25 pm - February 25, 2013

  37. Kurt,

    Yes, you correctly identified this Ignatius.

    Comment by Ignatius — February 25, 2013 @ 3:59 pm - February 25, 2013

  38. Iggy, I always knew there were two of you! :-)

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — March 4, 2013 @ 9:53 am - March 4, 2013

Leave a comment

Line and paragraph breaks automatic, e-mail address never displayed, HTML allowed: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>

**Note: Your first comment is held for moderation. Avoid profanity, avoid personal attacks on fellow commenters, and avoid complaining about personal attacks (even on you). Feel free to disagree with anyone, but focus on their ideas; give us the information that you think they overlooked.**


Live preview of comment

Close this window.

0.257 Powered by Wordpress