If you want to get a gunloon's cognitive dissonance to go berzerk--just mention Meleanie Hain.
But, there's a big difference between Meleanie and the other victims of gun violence. First off, Meleanie made it quite clear that she was not a victim. Her screen name on the gun blogs was "shefearsnothing" since she knew deep in her heart that her gun would protect her from whatever evil was out there.
So, when the gun bloggers like Linoge and Weer'd Beard say that I am a ghoul for talking about her death, they need to remember there's a big difference between japete's sister and Meleanie. Japete's sister was one of "those murderers, rapists, thieves, muggers, robbers, home-invaders, and other scumbags" who make up the bulk of the victims of firearms.
We can't put Meleanie into that category--can we?
Nope, Meleanie was one of the gunloons' own. The woman who proudly openly toted her gun while making other people uncomfortable. Someone complained and her carry permit was revoked. Meleanie sued the sheriff for violating her "Second Amendment" rights and had the permit reinstated.
Even Judge Robert Eby questioned whether Hain showed good judgment by ignoring other parents’ safety concerns when he restored her licence.
Yeah, her death could have been prevented, but it was so funny reading how it was "inevitable" the she would have died the way she did in the gun blogs. They just couldn't have dealt with the fact that her husband could have had his guns taken from him once she got a restraining order.
Would she be dead if there were not firearms in her house?
She wasn’t killed with a flyswatter, mousetrap, pencil sharpener, piece of paper, cross bow, knife, brass knuckles, axe, machete, chain saw, stapler, toothbrush, or frying pan.
SHE WAS KILLED BY A GUN. NOT ONLY THAT, IT WAS A GUN THEY HAD FOR “SELF-PROTECTION”.
But it didn’t work that way…Did it?
Instead of being one of those anecdotes that the gun cretins like to use to show that defensive gun use happens more frequently than incidents where the gun owner is injured or killed, Their poster child, Melanie Hain is DEAD from having a gun in the house. Now, She is a valid number in the statistic of people killed by handguns in the United States.
Of course, what’s the best way to memorialize a victim of deadly gun violence? What’s the best way to raise money for orphans of a horrific murder-suicide involving a 9 mm. automatic handgun and a shotgun?
Why, get the whole gang together down at the gun store and shoot off a bunch of guns, of course!
So, when people like Weer’d Beard say they don't like the term "gun violence"--don't remind them of Meleanie Hain.
Because she wasn't "those murderers, rapists, thieves, muggers, robbers, home-invaders, and other scumbags".
No, she was another gunloon.
Now, let's watch the gunloon cognitive dissonance berzerk in the comments.
Perhaps you'd like to name the conclusion that we're supposed to draw here. Have I ever said that a firearm is a magic object that protects me from all danger? I have said that a firearm is a tool that when used properly can offer a measure of safety.
ReplyDeleteYour flaw here is that you insist on perfection. You want total safety or a total ban. In the real world, we know that life is more complex than that. We accept that freedom has costs because we know that it has great rewards as well.
But do let me know how this comment involves any cognitive dissonance.
GC writes:Your flaw here is that you insist on perfection. You want total safety or a total ban. In the real world, we know that life is more complex than that. We accept that freedom has costs because we know that it has great rewards as well.
ReplyDeleteThat is inaccurate.
It is obvious that where there are fewer guns there are far fewer gun-related crimes, particularly far fewer gun related deaths and injuries and threats.
There is no substantive indication that when firearms are removed, reduced in number, or restricted other weapons some substituted for ALL of those crimes, Statistically there are relatively few, and the weapons are less lethal. It does not produce perfection, but it produces dramatic improvement, particularly in keeping firearms OUT of the hands of criminals, and other prohibited individuals.
Whereas there seems to be no level of gun crime and gun violence which is too high for you to accept in exchange for having your little fetish item.
You want your 'right', which you failed to show IS a right, at the expense of the well being of a large number of people who comprise those statistics, in spite of the clear evidence that fewer guns and more restrictive gun ownership would do far more to reduce if not entirely eliminate categories of victim statistics.
For example, I did not find a single law enforcement officer death from gun violence in the UK in 2011.
As of 2010, the UK had a population of approximately 62,300,000.
You could add the populations of quite a few states together to get a similar number, and we would have a whole lot more deaths of law enforcement officers in those several states, or that region, than an entire country, and the UK is not by any stretch the lowest in gun violence stats, but they are far lower than we are.
So NO, we don't expect perfection. We're just hugely unpersuaded that you are safe or pragmatic or reasonable.
You demonstrate otherwise in your comments far too often, particularly in when you fail to observe that a situation in a news article is NOT a safe or appropriate one for defensive gun fire. You demonstrate that when you make assumptions about strangers in your firearm dealings. You demonstrate that when you fail to secure your firearm safely, and fail routinely to have it in your ACTIVE control.
You demonstrate that every time you have a greater fear of long-proven diagnostic testing for dangerous insanity, not just ineffective thinking, that is greater than an objective appreciation of the demonstrable dangers of paranoid schizophrenics who shoot multiple people - like Loughner, like Breivik.
You would rather see them have easy access to firearms and kill people, than even try to find a way to screen them out. They are incapable of safely owning a firearm because of what is seriously wrong with them BEFORE they shoot anyone. The wrongness is already there; the only question is how best to deal with it.
The same is true of drug testing. It is done in the business world routinely. It is done in public law enforcement and private security routinely as a safeguard for gun carry. It is already illegal to use the drugs which put someone in the prohibited category. The only question is to allow more damage from those illegal actions, or less, in trying drug testing.
So please, don't tell me how rational your are. You are not.
Don't tell me how safe you are. You are not.
And most of all, don't try to tell us you give a damn, because clearly you don't care who gets hurt so long as you can hang on to your fetish object, even if it is unlikely to keep you safe --- as this post clearly shows a firearm did not protect this woman, for all her boasting.
Somebody already did the research for you if you want to see how people resort to other methods of violence if firearms aren't available.
Deletehttp://www.garymauser.net/pdf/KatesMauserHJPP.pdf
Please see page 652. There is a list of European countries, comparing their firearms prevalence with their homicide rate. If you'd like to do the regression plotting yourself, there's technically a negative correlation, though it's incredibly weak and wouldn't imply causation in either way. I'm not going to make the argument that it's because people aren't using guns to defend themselves; merely that the people who want to murder find a way.
Somebody already did the research for you if you want to see how people resort to other methods of violence if firearms aren't available.
Deletehttp://www.garymauser.net/pdf/KatesMauserHJPP.pdf
Please see page 652. There is a list of European countries, comparing their firearms prevalence with their homicide rate. If you'd like to do the regression plotting yourself, there's technically a negative correlation, though it's incredibly weak and wouldn't imply causation in either way. I'm not going to make the argument that it's because people aren't using guns to defend themselves; merely that the people who want to murder find a way.
Greg, you may not have explicitly have said it, but your actions and other comments point to you having a belief that a gun will protect you from all danger.
ReplyDeleteAdditionally, you believe that you, as a good guy, won't be harmed.
NO, I don't insist on perfection, but I do insist on your having a realistic attitude toward the subject.
Instead, greg, you have fallen for the romance of the gun--which is far from its reality.
And, pretty much every comment you make shows that you are unable to comprehend what I have written in fairly simple English, which even an idiot should understand, yet you don't, greg.
Quite frankly, greg, your comment nets you a failing grade in English comprehension.
You once again demonstrate that you did not understand what I said and have failed to show any ability to comprehend what I have said.
Dog Gone,
ReplyDeleteHow did any of your comment respond to the quotation from mine?
Regarding your assertion about my safety, though, you have no evidence that I'm unsafe. You do like to make claims based on your biases, despite your statements that you use evidence and good reasoning.
Laci the Dog,
ReplyDeleteQuite the contrary:
1. I've never made claims that a firearm will protect me from all danger, nor do I believe that I am impervious to being harmed by one. I am careful in how I use mine precisely because I understand the danger. What I don't accept is that danger by itself is enough to get rid of firearms.
2. You make exaggerated statements in this article, and yet you expect me to reach your conclusions about them? That's not how it works. Reading comprehension doesn't mean that everyone must come to the same interpretation that you form. We're aware that firearms aren't perfect. Your article here isn't a revelation to us. This event and other events are lessons to learn from, lessons about preparedness and awareness.
3. Your apparent claim is that because this event occured, no one should have a gun. Was there something else that I was supposed to conclude? Of course, I don't agree with you, so I've committed the error in reasoning of not lapping up Laci's opinions.
4. What exactly are you saying by listing murderers, rapists, etc.? I don't know anyone who claims that they are the only people who get shot. I certainly have never said that.
5. Finally, you remind me of the wackos who blither on about lights that they see in the sky and expect their listeners to understand that it's all a government conspiracy to control our thoughts. If you're going to make crazy or assinine claims, you have to connect the dots better.
So why don't the gunz guyz light a candle for her? Because, even when it's one of their own, they don't want to admit that the death of an innocent might have been due to the lethal weapon they adore and its availability to those who would abuse it. They have little sympathy for others, only a selfish desire to save their own skin and fetish at the cost of society.
ReplyDeleteHaving a gun didn't help her, just like it doesn't help so many other gun owners. Her hubby obviously knew she was armed, and it STILL didn't stop him from gunning for her. But that won't stop them from exclaiming, far and loud, that having a gun is the answer to their paranoia of being attacked.
Meleanie's case is a good one for illustrating what we're always talking about. Guns do more harm than good.
ReplyDeleteBaldr Odinson,
ReplyDeleteIt's good to have you around to express Laci's undrawn conclusions. I'll answer them now:
1. I, at least, don't object to lighting candles, by itself, but that, by itself, doesn't accomplish anything.
2. There's nothing to admit here. Guns can be misused. That is not a sufficient argument to ban them. (Your side is reticent about revealing your ultimate goals, but we all know what you want.)
3. Guns can be used for self protection. That doesn't mean that a gun owner will always succeed. As I said before, you insist that we must have a record of perfect success, or you conclude that we're total failures. Dog Gone would accuse you of forming a false dichotomy if she were intellectually honest.
4. In addition, guns can be used responsibly, even if they are never used for self defense. Millions of gun owners never do anything wrong with their guns. There are hundreds of millions of guns in this country. Even if one hundred thousand of them are used badly, that's still less than 0.1 percent.
5. You're looking like Democommie with your spelling and Dog Gone with your fetish comment. That's not good company, in case you missed my point.
in case you missed my point.
ReplyDeleteThe only point you consistently make is that you are an intellectually dishonest asswipe, Greg.
Writing vitriol is a terrible way to argue. Screaming "assholes" and "gunloons" just makes it look like you can't actually create an argument, and just have to insult others. Besides, if you like case studies as evidence, I can certainly find you some examples of people using guns responsibly and defensively.
DeleteMan stops crazy guy on stabbing spree with concealed weapon:
http://www.abc4.com/content/news/top_stories/story/conceal-and-carry-stabbing-salt-lake-city-smiths/NDNrL1gxeE2rsRhrWCM9dQ.cspx
Woman shoots home invader seeking out her and her kids:
http://abcnews.go.com/US/georgia-mom-hiding-kids-shoots-intruder/story?id=18164812
And if you'd like to read about a potential mass shooting averted with zero shots fired:
http://www.goupstate.com/article/20120325/ARTICLES/120329781/1112?template=printart
Just several among many that happen each year.
Please, call me an asswipe or whatever.
Laci the Dog,
ReplyDeleteDid you really expect our side to play your game when you call us assholes in the title?