Josh Horwitz wrote a wonderful article on Huffington Post which included a little story which Laci had posted about last month.
Josh draws the obvious conclusions that too many unfit gun owners are carrying guns with little chance of being identified until they do something newsworthy.His name was Landon Jorgensen. Jorgensen lived the NRA's credo to the hilt. He carried a gun on his person at all times, even while inside his own home ("I'll keep that [shit] on me so that I'm prepared no matter what."). He refused to go to gun shows because of the requirement for attendees to unload their firearms before entering. When discussing private property where guns are prohibited, he remarked, "If you remain concealed anyway, how will they ever know?" And he frequented ConcealedCarryForum.com to encourage others to utilize permissive concealed carry laws in order to protect the "sheep" in their communities from crime.
But this proud NRA "sheepdog" turned out to be a wolf. On March 21, 2012 he turned his guns on his 25-year-old girlfriend, Adria Jordan Parker, and her five-year-old daughter, Eliza Kate Parker, before taking his own life.
What's your opinion? Please leave a comment.
Mikeb, as harsh as it is to say it, incidents like this one represent a small percentage of legal gun owners. But if you want to ban dangerous objects because a small number of their users go wrong, alcohol ought to be your target, followed by cigarettes.
ReplyDeleteGoddammit Greg, I don't want to ban anything. Please stop saying that.
ReplyDeleteI want higher qualifications for you gun owners which would leave some of the worst cases without legal guns. We have enough trouble with the criminals, we don't need to make it easy for the hidden criminals and time bombs to have guns too.
mikeb, you should drop the psycho testing and start advocating for DNA testing.
DeleteResearchers ID Genes That May Determine Mental Illness
I did say if, Mikeb. The point is that alcohol and tobacco kill a lot more than guns do.
DeleteThat's not the point on this blog. We're talking about guns.
DeleteSo deaths aren't what actually matter to you?
DeleteMikeB: “Goddammit Greg, I don't want to ban anything.”
DeleteGood, but what do you really mean by that? You don’t want to ban “assault weapons”? You don’t want to ban magazines that hold more than 10 rounds? I know you have said these issues are not as important as licensing and registration, but I always thought that was you prioritizing.
TS, some things are restrictions and some things are bans. When you guys use the word "ban," you sometimes mean outlawing civilian ownership of firearms, and then other times you mean prohibiting a particular gun or activity. When Greg said this,
Delete"But if you want to ban dangerous objects because a small number of their users go wrong, alcohol ought to be your target, followed by cigarettes."
he was referring to that fantasy you guys love so much of total bans accompanied by confiscations for the non-compliant.
Mmmmm... what's wrong with banning guns?
ReplyDeleteLots of things are banned and nobody complains about it - like atomic bombs, ICBMs, etc.
Greg, your argument is pathetic: people do not get killed by the alcohol or cigarettes ingested/smoked by other people. But they get killed by other people shooting guns at them.
people do not get killed by the alcohol or cigarettes ingested/smoked by other people.
DeleteUh, yeah right.
In 2009, there were 10,839 fatalities in crashes involving a driver with a BAC of .08 or higher – 32 percent of total traffic fatalities for the year. Source
I guess you've never heard of second hand smoke causing cancer, either.
WhyNot, when you can name a legitimate use that I would have for a nuclear bomb, I'll consider private ownership. Of course, while we're banning things, let's consider speech. After all, free speech allows people to make idiotic comments about how alcohol and tobacco only kill their immediate users.
DeleteWhy not accept personal responsibility for all things that have legitimate uses for individuals?
What we do not know for sure: That Jorgensen was in any way connected with the NRA.
ReplyDeleteWhat we do know for certain: Horwitz is a confirmed Asshat.
asshat = one who disagrees with us.
DeleteAs long as you recognize that this statement goes both ways, Mikeb.
Deletemikeb302000:
ReplyDeleteHave you seen this peice:
http://csgv3.blogspot.com/2012/04/landon-was-one-of-good-guys.html
it's probably nothing but a nefariously crafted tissue of lies about an OLAGO who was a really, Really, REALLY good guy and just had about allatheshit he could handle from teh bitches in his life.
It's obvious, from Jordan's own comments that he was just a guy who wanted to PRESERVE lives wit teh gunz.
Why Not:
You are correct that Greg Camp's "argument" is pathetic, otoh, alcohol and cigarettes ARE the proximate causes of a lot of deaths every year, more in fact than gunz and illicit drugs combined. Of course there is the fact that gunz don't kill people, but KKKrazzeepants drunks and druggies, WIT TEH GUNZ, sure as fuck do.
That's a much more in depth article about the fine young man than I'd seen. Good stuff.
Delete"Uh, yeah right.
ReplyDeleteIn 2009, there were 10,839 fatalities in crashes involving a driver with a BAC of .08 or higher – 32 percent of total traffic fatalities for the year. Source
I guess you've never heard of second hand smoke causing cancer, either."
See, Why Not, this is what happens when you give the gunzloonz a little bit of an opening. The old "Cars are dangerous, too, but we don't want to BAN cars!!", is another one of their silly rebuttals.
Of course the fact that millions upon millions of people drive their cars every day without killing themselves--in settings that are completely outside their control might have something to do with the number of fatalities and injuries.
Second-hand smoke may or may not "kill" people (oddly enough, all of the gunzloonz that i've ever actually talked to about this are adamant that smoking and drinking are things that nobody should be able to regulate), it certainly doesn't have anything like the immediacy of a 9mm or .357 round to the body of a "non-user".
See, Why Not, this is what happens when you give the gunzloonz a little bit of an opening.
DeleteNo, when you spout crap and outright lie, you get slapped down with the truth.
How about the immediacy of a drunk driver who swings over into your lane?
DeleteDemocommie,
ReplyDeleteGood to see someone sane.
"alcohol and cigarettes ARE the proximate causes of a lot of deaths every year, more in fact than gunz and illicit drugs combined."
Of course, but ever since the smoking ban in all work and public places has been put into effect (and that's in nearly ALL western countries), the chances of killing someone else by fucking her/his lungs are exactly zero.
Whereas the chances of one of those wacko pro-gun addicts to kill someone else instantly, whether purposely or by accident, are significant.
What, exactly, are those chances? Let's see you spell out the mathematical analysis of my chances to kill someone because I carry a handgun legally. Are you aware that those who commit crimes with the guns that they are licensed to carry represent much less than one percent of the number of license holders? Please do tell us what "significant" means to you.
DeleteI love this country. The fact that we as Americans can take a family tragedy such as this, and use it to push forth an agenda sickens me.
ReplyDeleteRest Peacefully Adria and Eliza.
Does that really "sicken" you J.O.B.? I somehow doubt it. You and you friends are the ones who don't give a fuck about the victims of gun violence, so concerned you are with your own convenience.
DeleteSimple changes that wouldn't even inconvenience you all that much, and which certainly would not interfere with your owning and using guns, are too much for you to agree with even though they'd save lives.
So, forgive me if I think you're full of it with that "sicken" bullshit.
Mikeb, I won't call you a liar in your assertion, but I will say that you're wrong. It's not that we don't care about victims of gun violence. It's that we don't believe that your proposals will help and we don't believe that sacrificing rights is justified.
DeleteOf course you won't call me a liar, Greg, because you know the difference between lying and stating an opinion. It's my opinion that you guys care more for you own convenience than you do about people dying unnecessarily from guns.
DeleteSo nice of you to presume anything about me Mike. I don't ever recall criticizing any of your ideas. You got a lot of nerve claiming, on my behalf, what I do and do not care about. typical PILE behavior. I expect nothing less.
DeleteListen J.O.B., When I'm talkin' the Greg, and I say "you guys" if that doesn't apply to you, fine.
DeleteGreg,
ReplyDelete"Please do tell us what "significant" means to you."
I got the following stats from Wikipedia a few years ago (like 4 or 5):
Chances of being killed by a firearm in various selected countries:
Using USA as a reference:
- USA: 1
- UK and France: 1/40
- Australia: 1/30
- Japan: 1/200
These figures are adjusted to take into account the population size differences.
In other words, one has 30 times less chances of being killed by a gun in Oz land, 40 times less chances in France and UK, and 200 times less in Japan.
Interestingly, ANY kind of gun (pistol, rifle, shotgun, Kalashinkov lol, etc) is extremely hard to get hold of in Australia, France and UK, and downright IMPOSSIBLE in Japan.
Surely ANY imbecile can draw the obvious conclusion, right?
Apparently, WhyNot can't draw good conclusions. There are several hundred million guns in this country and about a hundred million gun owners. There are millions of carry license holders. And yet, gun deaths per annum are around 30,000, or about one one hundredth of one percent of the total population. Many of those deaths are suicides, meaning that the person made a choice. We've debated endlessly about how the United States compares to other countries, but I'm still waiting for an explanation of how these numbers are sufficiently significant to justify major changes in law and policy.
Delete"No, when you spout crap and outright lie, you get slapped down with the truth."
ReplyDeleteWhat lies would those be, Billy?
"I love this country. The fact that we as Americans can take a family tragedy such as this, and use it to push forth an agenda sickens me.
Rest Peacefully Adria and Eliza."
Oh, gosh, you're right--that is just turble! The gunzloonz have never, EVER, used an incident like well
The VA Tech Massacere
The Binghamton Immigrant Center Massacere
The Columbine Massacere
The Oikos University Massacere
The Tuscon Massacere
and pretty much every mass shooting in the last 30 years, to pontificate and bloviate about how those things would have NEVER happened if people were armed to the teeth and we had no GFZ in an "armed and polite society.".
Is that the sort of thing that the gunzloonz never do?
demo sed:What lies would those be, Billy?
Deletewell, gee, granpaw, I dunno, maybe when whynot sez: people do not get killed by the alcohol or cigarettes ingested/smoked by other people.
Dem- Not speaking for anyone else but me. On that note, the fact that people are arguing about guns on a post written about a 25 year old Mother and her 5 year old Daughter being murdered, is to ME. Sickening.
ReplyDelete"Dem- Not speaking for anyone else but me. On that note, the fact that people are arguing about guns on a post written about a 25 year old Mother and her 5 year old Daughter being murdered, is to ME. Sickening."
ReplyDeleteWell, I'd have to know which post/thread you're talking about. I've seen at least four or five of them.
Billy sez;
"demo sed:What lies would those be, Billy?
well, gee, granpaw, I dunno, maybe when whynot sez: people do not get killed by the alcohol or cigarettes ingested/smoked by other people."
Oh, you were talking to someone else, Billy? cuz' I never actually said those things. I'm sure that Why Not can defend his/herself on the issue, but if you're talking to me well, FAIL x 1 for Billy.
Silly old man, I never attributed that to you. You're the one who engaged me when I made a comment to whynot.
DeleteBillyboy:
ReplyDeleteThis is yours?
"Bill BaldwinApr 17, 2012 06:18 AM
See, Why Not, this is what happens when you give the gunzloonz a little bit of an opening.
No, when you spout crap and outright lie, you get slapped down with the truth."
and you weren't replying to me? Well, then you're not just an idiot, you're a LIAR, just like your gunzloonpal, Greg Camp. Maybe you fellers can get a group therapy rate.
I can type out a hundred times for you, but I can't understand for you.
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDelete"I can type out a hundred times for you, but I can't understand for you."
ReplyDeleteDo you mean:
"I can type IT out a hundred times for you, but I can't understand IT for you.". ?
'cuz if that's what you mean, well, you're full of shit. You blockquoted something that I typed and replied to IT.
See, Billy, that's a problem that you share with your gunzloonzpal, Greg Camp. Herr Professur Camp often sez shit without addressing anyone in particular and then wonders why he's pointed to and laughed at. Sorry, what you really would need to do is gain a little understanding for yourself about how to write comments and to whom you need to address them.
There's a prolly a book out there, with a title like, "I din't used to could write no good, but then the intertoobz happens and so can yu." that will stand you in good stead. You're welcome.
I put a person's name at the head of my comments if I'm speaking to one in particular. Other times, when it's obvious that I'm addressing the author of the article (obvious to reasonable people, that is), I just make the comment. But mostly, when I don't put someone's name, I mean the comment to be to everyone reading here.
Delete