Friday, September 19, 2014
Doofus Of The Day #788
Today's award goes to North Carolinians Against Gun Violence. This anti-gun group appears to regard all victims of shootings as 'victims' to be exploited for propaganda purposes. That's all very well, until one of them turns out to be a real bad-ass felon with a criminal record, who was shot while engaged in what appears to be yet another offense. Read all the details at 'An NC Gun Blog'.
Just goes to show . . . propaganda has to be well thought out - otherwise it can (and often does) backfire on those trying to use it to manipulate public opinion.
Peter
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
21 comments:
Peter,
The weapon pictured in "The NC Gun Blog" should never be allowed to be sold to Joe Public. It is a military weapon designed for one thing only...killing people.
It is not a sport gun, a hunting gun, or a have-fun-at-the-shooting range gun.
These weapons need to be banned.
Oh, Peter, you've got your very own anti-rights troll. How adorable...
@Shrimp,
I know your'd like to label me with the offensive name "troll".
It's not going to work my friend.
I'm just an ordinary American like you, but one whose moral compass can't abide by the violence resulting from unfettered gun ownership.
Ones rights in a true democratic society are supposed to be granted by the will of the majority. The majority decides what is a "right". Unfortunately, we do not live in a true democracy.
By will of the majority, in 1994,the right for Joe Public to own Assault Weapons was prohibited by the Federal Assault Weapons Ban, a subsection of the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994. As you know, this was a Federal Law that included a prohibition on the manufacture for civilian use of certain semi-automatic firearms it defined as "assault weapons".
The 10-year ban was passed by the U.S. Congress in 1994, and was signed into law by President Bill Clinton. The Act expired in 2004, per its sunset provision.
Attempts to renew the ban were not successful because the democratic process was corrupted by the gun lobby buying off our paid-for and spineless politicians.
A majority of Americans would like to see the Law reenacted.
@Dennis,
You completely misunderstand the entire concept of human rights. Governments do not give you rights. Voting majorities do not give you rights. Religions do not give you rights.
You are BORN with rights. No one can give you something you already have.
The idea that a voting majority can remove your right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness is utterly and completely wrong.
What you are describing is "The tyranny of the majority" and the US Constitution was designed to prevent that from happening.
Of course, the Constitution is not exactly the law of the land anymore.
@Dennis:
1. D-Squared is absolutely correct about the origin of 'rights' as understood by the framers of our Constitution. That document does not 'grant' rights: it recognizes pre-existing rights. That fact was settled long ago. The fact that you may disagree with that perspective does not change its legal reality.
2. You're confusing the appearance of a weapon (or anything else) with its function. I have, for example, a couple of Mossberg 500 shotguns. Coming straight from the factory, they look like this:
http://preview.tinyurl.com/muaz5jz
Mossberg modifies the same shotgun by adding various accessories, then sells it in its Law Enforcement catalog looking like this:
http://preview.tinyurl.com/nu5bacv
Please understand that the shotgun in both pictures is IDENTICAL. It's only the accessories that change its appearance. The same shotgun in both civilian and LE garb can fire precisely the same ammunition and be used for precisely the same purposes.
The same applies to the rifle to which you object. That particular example is 'gussied up' with all sorts of accessories; but there are plenty of standard semi-auto rifles firing much more powerful rounds that are used in hunting and competition any day of the year. The appearance of a gun has nothing to do with its lethality.
(Another example, if you like: a kid who buys an old Honda Civic and kits it out with a spoiler, low-ride tires, a booming exhaust, etc. It's still a rice-burner, no matter what it looks like on the outside, and will have performance no better - frequently much worse - than a newer car of the same model.)
Reality is a funny thing. It's not altered by perceptions. The fact that someone may 'think' or 'feel' that something is that way doesn't mean that it really IS that way.
@Dennis: Another fundamental mistake in your mindset is that you argue that things should be banned - be they certain types or models of guns, or knives, or whatever. A thinghas no moral volition, no ability to harm anyone. If I put a rifle, or handgun, or knife, or sword, or whatever, on a table and leave it there, it will do nothing. It can't do anything. It's a thing, not a person.
The responsibility for crimes and other evil acts committed with firearms (or vehicles, or knives, or whatever) rests upon the individual(s) concerned, not the tools they used. That's why we don't charge cars with DUI, but their drivers. That's why we don't charge a gun with murder, but the person who used it.
By trying to ban things, you're completely missing the point. If someone can't get his hands on Thing A, he'll use Thing B. The Rwanda massacres of 1994 (the ghastly aftermath of which I saw at first hand as part of the relief effort) were largely not committed with firearms at all, but with agricultural implements - hoes, machetes, flails, scythes, etc. Between half a million and a million people died. We'll never know the total for sure. Banning guns wouldn't have begun to stop that crime.
Banning guns here won't stop crime either. For a start, there are tens of millions floating around that won't be handed in, because criminals already disregard the law: they're not going to start obeying it to hand in the tools of their trade. It's also far too easy to make your own firearms, or steal them. The drug cartels in Mexico are largely armed with weapons stolen from military arsenals in Central and South America (and don't believe the propaganda that they're largely armed with guns from the civilian market in the USA - that's a lie.) If you want to solve the 'gun crime' problem, you're going to have to solve the 'crime' problem first, because that will automatically take care of the 'gun' part. Dealing with guns alone won't deal with crime, and criminals will instantly find other instruments with which to commit their offenses.
Emotion has no place in this argument. Logic and facts do. As a retired law enforcement officer and prison chaplain, I know whereof I speak.
Hi Peter,
Natural and legal rights are two types of rights. Legal rights are those bestowed onto a person by a given legal system. Natural rights are those not contingent upon the laws, customs, or beliefs of any particular culture or government, and therefore universal and inalienable (i.e., cannot be sold, transferred, or removed).
I agree that you have a natural, or born, right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.
However, the right for a civilian to own a weapon is legal right. Currently, our laws say that you, as a civilian, have the right to possess, a GLOCK 9mm for example, but you do not have the right to possess a Rocket Propelled Grenade (RPG), or a man-portable recoilless antitank rocket launcher.
I would like to see the Assault Weapon Ban reinstated to take away a civilians legal right the types of weapons described in the 1994 Law.
PS I believe that every US citizen has the right equal Health Care, irrespective of their financial status.
@ Dennis--
This will be my last response to you. Much like wrestling with pigs, or playing chess with a pigeon, there isn't any point in arguing with trolls for those of us not the troll. The pig enjoys getting dirty, and the pigeon just knocks down pieces and craps all over the board and then struts around as though he accomplished something.
If you don't like being called a troll, don't be a troll.
You might be an ordinary American, but you have no clue what in the hell you are talking about.
Rights are never granted. Rights cannot be given, nor taken. Your rights might be violated by others, but no one can take your rights away, certainly not by voting as a majority.
As mentioned above by D-Square, your rights are inalienable, because you are born with them. You have the right to life. You have the right to defend that life. You have the right to an opinion, and the right to express that opinion. You have the right to worship any God, or no god at all.
The fact that you believe it unfortunate that we do not live in a democracy is proof that you do not understand history, or paid very little attention while you were in school. A democracy was never the intention of this country's founders. In fact, they worked very hard to make sure that we didn't end up with a democracy, because they knew it was folly.
Firearms are not designed to kill people. If they were, the manufacturers have done a piss poor job, and all mine are defective, because none of mine have ever killed anyone. Firearms are designed to expel bullets at rapid speed. The fact that some people misuse them to kill does not make it a design feature. The fact that it can be used to kill does not make it a design feature.
I'm really curious about something. You really seem to believe that the NRA (about 4.5 million members) controls Congress. You seem to believe the gun manufacturers and gun lobbyists control Washington. How?
The numbers simply don't add up. This isn't some giant conglomeration that brings in billions of dollars every year. Bloomberg could purchase EVERY gun manufacturer in the United States today, with his pocket change. He'd still be a billionaire, and the gun manufacturers would then be his to do as he wished.
Seriously, go look it up. Ruger, Smith & Wesson, Remington, Winchester, Browning, Colt, etc. Add up all their prospective values. Bloomberg could own them outright tomorrow, if he wanted to, and he'd still be one of the wealthiest billionaires in the world. This relatively small group of manufacturers controls DC, huh? What's in your Koolaid, besides equal doses of vodka and crazy?
The reason the NRA is successful is that the majority of Americans agree with them. That's their secret. They don't have some ultra large bankroll, they aren't some ubergross industry that is capable of that kind of control.
Wake up. Stop trolling.
Have a nice life.
Hi again Peter,
Didn't see you post at 5.32pm..sorry.
I realize that people can kill with agricultural implements - hoes, machetes, flails, scythes, etc. (BTW,I never understood why an all powerful god could permit such acts.)
However, hoes, machetes, flails, and scythes have other purposes, and were created to help us in our daily lives.
Guns have no other purpose than to kill. I don't believe in killing any person, or any animal. Isn't Thou shall not Kill one of the Christian Ten Commandments?
Besides it takes true conviction and guts to kill with a hoe, machete, flail, or scythe. Any coward, physco, temporarily deranged person, can pull the trigger of a gun.It's too easy. Hence, the crazed amount of gun deaths one reads about everyday in the newspaper.
The number of gun deaths is directly proportional to the number of guns per capita.
As a civil Society, it is our moral imperative to use the law to limit the number of guns available to our citizenry?
What do you think of the ideas I have expressed on one of your other blogs about requiring gun Registration, and Licensing of gun owners?
Shrimp,
No need to get so riled up Champ!
Besides, being so insulting and nasty does not fit the image posted on this blog of "the American gun culture- I have never met a more intelligent, well read , patriotic and generous bunch of folks. They well understand the lessons of history and the reason to bear arms. These are real people by the way, not the strawmen yahoo's erected by the propaganda artists on the left"
How do you know I'm on the left? I could be a right-wing nut job!
"Rights are never granted. Rights cannot be given, nor taken"...if this so why do you not have the right to own a Rocket Propelled Grenade, or fly an airplane without a license, or the right run a stop sign?
Owning a gun is a legal right.
Respectfully.
Shrimp,
"I'm really curious about something. You really seem to believe that the NRA (about 4.5 million members) controls Congress. You seem to believe the gun manufacturers and gun lobbyists control Washington. How?"
There are approx. 500 senators and representatives. You have only pay-off 51%, that's 255. Of these 255, you probably don't have to bribe half of them, as threy are already gun supporters. That leaves 125 to bribe.
Say, $5,000 campaign contribution to each one. That's $625,000. Chickenfeed to the NRA, all the other gun lobbies, Ruger, Smith & Wesson, Remington, Winchester, Browning, Colt, etc
Gun deaths are definitely not directly proportional to the number of guns per capita. Back up your assertion with proof, Dennis.
My proof is from 'More Guns, Less Crime' by Lott. He has proven that every time the gun laws of an area are relaxed, crime diminishes. I have seen this first-hand in Arizona. We free Arizonans don't need permits to own, carry or carry concealed firearms. Since that law was passed, crime here has diminished, in spite of population growth and firearm purchases.
You see, criminals aren't worried about breaking laws. Law-abiding citizens are, and so gun laws disarm the law-abiding, not the lawless.
So, Dennis, are you a vegetarian? Or do you let others do the killing for you?
By the way, the Ten Commandments are Jewish, not Christian, and Thou shalt not kill is actually closer to You shall not murder, in the original Greek bibles. Translation error.
Dennis, my family has owned guns for 100 years. I still own all of them. The entire collection has killed fewer people than Ted Kennedy's Oldsmobile. Since you won't believe any facts given to you here, go check out FBI's Uniform Crime Reporting stats. Violent crime has gone down, as gun ownership and CCW has gone up. But you won't believe it, cuz it doesn't fit your "feelings".( don't bother you w/ facts, your mind's already made up). Therefore, you can be ignored. Bye.
rweel and JohninMD,
Gun deaths are directly proportional to the number of guns per capita. Back up your assertion with proof"
A few minutes on the internet.
Guns owned per 100 people
USA = 90(!) holy shit!
Canada = 45.7
New Zealand = 22.6.
Firearm related deaths per 100,000
USA = 3.6
Canada = 0.5
New Zealand = 0.26
"Violent crime has gone down, as gun ownership and CCW has gone up"
Rubbish...Crime is trending down no matter how many crazies pack heat! More CCW being the reason for decreasing crime is only in the mind of gun nuts.
Criminologists point to a variety of factors for the continuing decline in overall violence. They cite a more settled crack cocaine market, an increase in incarcerations, an aging population, data-driven policing, and changes in technology that include a big increase in surveillance cameras.
Hi Peter,
Thinking about killing with hoes, machetes, baseball bats, kitchen Knives etc.
From Gunstats.org "the percentage of homicides that are committed with a gun account for the overwhelming majority of total homicides. This statistic absolutely debunks any myths you may have heard regarding the number of murders committed with a baseball bat (for instance) is greater than the number committed with a gun. Gun related homicides has accounted for more than 2/3 of all homicides each year since 2006. No other weapon is even close to this number. This may be surprisingly high to some people and could possibly hinder the argument that “murderers will murder regardless of the weapon” or “where there’s a will there’s a way”. While that may or may not be true, the statistics show that the weapon of choice for a murder is plain and simple a firearm"
To use your word, rubbish.
You are taking different people, different cultures, and cherry-picking the results. I am taking the same people, the same area before and after law changes.
Say, I can cherry-pick results too!
Guns owned per 100 people
USA = 90
Mexico = 15
South Africa = 12.7
Firearm related deaths per 100,000
USA = 3.6
Mexico = 10.0
South Africa = 17.0
By the way, take those high gun law cities such as Chicago, New York, D.C., Philadelphia, et al, out of the data set and the rest of the US drops down to 0.6 firearm deaths per 100k.
Now, as to those variety of factors, you're spewing more rubbish. Those are long-term factors, as opposed to an obvious change in two years.
Take Detroit (please). Detroit recently has changed their gun laws and has a chief of police encouraging self-defense. Crime has dropped over 10% in the year after this change.
Tell you what, Dennis. Why don't you put a large sign on your residence proclaiming that this is a gun free zone?
I'm sorry, but I had to chuckle (a bit upset he seems to have given up – I was enjoying the exasperated 'explaining the obvious to an idiot' tone of the 'conversation').
Oh we have our, similar, share of hoplophobic idiots over here too, but surprisingly it's not as common a thing as you'd think (excluding the usual MSM, lefty bureaucrats and politicians that is). I'd just never been present when an American new-puritan was babbling his 'best'.
I was so looking forward to pointing the UK out as a perfect example of how banning firearms (well handguns and stringent limitations on long guns) has worked out to actually both increase the rates of murder 'with many and sundry objects', as well as with .. shock/horror those nasty gun things (criminals do unaccountably seem to ignore laws don't they?). Here as there the real correlation is not with inanimate objects but with the race/culture of those in an area.
Incidentally, on smoking and vaping, a site I occasionally read has visited the very mindset of such people – quite well described I thought.
http://dickpuddlecote.blogspot.co.uk/2014/09/youre-daft-because-youre-not-like-us.html
Be 'very' glad you have a written constitution and that particular Amendment, it's the only thing keeping them in check (at least on this one issue).
Hi tweell,
Yep, you're right...we have a cultural problem with guns. As does Mexico and South Africa by the looks. I've been trying to explain to you all day that we have a gun problem.
I'd like to think that our culture could evolve for the better. After all, are we not the "Exceptional Country"? Are you for improving our society, or do you want to just stay stuck in the 1980's?
By the way I am 70. Have traveled all over the World. Rode my motorcycle the length of South America, construction worker in Alaska, Rode Turkey and Iran, Lived in Italy, The UK, and Norway.
I've never had a gun, or needed one! My defense is one of caution and cunning. I don't look for trouble.
I'd be happy to erect your sign! I know that the statistics clearly illustrate that if you armed, you are more likely to be shot with probably with your own weapon by an intruder.
Happily, we live in Washington State where you need permits to own, carry or carry concealed firearms. We have very little gun homicide in our area. Maybe the Arizona and Detroit lawmakers will learn from us.
Able,
Thanks for labeling me a hoplophobic idiot, as in having an aversion towards guns. Very charitable of you, but not too classy.
How do you know I am hoplophobic, an idiot, or a American new-puritan? Your post to this blog does not dispel the fact that you might not be too bright either, but I will be polite and not call you an idiot.
What makes America great is that we are always looking to improve our society. Addressing our blindness to our debilitating gun culture is part of a healthy debate.
The Constitution is a living document that has been revised many times over the years. Revisiting the 2nd Amendment, written in different times, and under different circumstances, is well overdue.
Hate to tell you this, Dennis, but I am sure your cognitive dissonance will deflect- when a small group of inner city gangsters are subtracted from our "gun violence" statistics, we are on par with Canada, and most of the western european countries.
check those pesky FBI stats.
Hmm, I guess if a majority of the total population decide that a minority, say, perhaps black people, don't have the right not to be enslaved... I guess that would be hunky-dory since that's the majority's decision? That's an interesting legal theory, all right.
Post a Comment