Mark Kelly, as a veteran of the Gulf War, is not by any stretch phobic about guns, neither is former Congresswoman Giffords. Jeff Cooper is not qualified to coin a valid term or identify a phobia.
You make the grave logical error in assuming that because someone wants to limit something that is a major killer of Americans, they must be phobic or fearful. That is not even remotely true.
In twenty years of war in Viet Nam, we lost 58,000 soldiers. In two years in the U.S. we had more losses than that among our civilians, killing themselves or each other, and that doesn't count those who were only wounded but survived. Since Sandy Hook, more than 400 people have been killed, including an additional number of children.
Sawyer, Giffords and Kelly are reasonable, heroic, highly respected authorities who also happen to be gun-onwing people.
They are making an intelligent response to a problem with gun violence.
You are not, you just come across as a smirking drooling idiot who uses words without understanding them. Unlike the people in the video, you just look stupid.
So Thomas, do you consider former general and former commander of the joint special operations command, Stanley McChrystal, to be a hoplophobe?
He agrees with Gifford and Kelly and Sawyer, and so many other military experts - the overwhelming majority - that we should not have military style weapons, like assault style rifles, in the hands of civlians, ditto expanded capacity magazines.
Would you call him anti-freedom, or un-patriotic?
I suppose you might; you do make up a lot of stuff, and believe a lot of incorrect information.
But it doesn't make your observations credible or persuasive.
Here are the figures I was looking for; that crap claim that baseball bats killed more people than guns/ guns are just the same inanimate objects as hammers, baseball bats, screwdrivers, spoons......etc.
Not so.
According to the CDC, in 2010 there were only 912 total deaths from blunt force trauma (all causes). In the same year, 31,672 Americans were killed with firearms.
There is a legitimate reason to further restrict and regulate guns.
No one is afraid of guns- so long as they are in the hands of the appropriate State entities entrusted with their use (and your safety).
Dog Gone is correct in illuminating the principal fault of the internet in that it endows computer-trained simian "rednecks" who have little to contribute to an intelligent discussion, with the same medium of communication as such forums provide to sensible beings. Such is the cause of these discussions so frequently being hijacked by primitive Americans, who use this blog as a means to promote their depraved goals.
Dog Gone, would that be the same Stanley McChrystal who was forced to resign for making ill-advised statements about the political leadership responsible for Afghanistan?
But I had a look at the website put up by Giffords and Kelly. It didn't offer any proposals as of yesterday. Are we just supposed to trust them to pick the right ideas? I prefer to see the details before I support something.
Here are the figures I was looking for; that crap claim that baseball bats killed more people than guns/ guns are just the same inanimate objects as hammers, baseball bats, screwdrivers, spoons......etc.
Not so.
According to the CDC, in 2010 there were only 912 total deaths from blunt force trauma (all causes). In the same year, 31,672 Americans were killed with firearms.
Oh Doggone can that pretty little head of yours ever pay attention....
That statement that you misrepresent is the fallacy of regulating evil black rifles because of tragedy not firearms homicides in total... since you cannot keep people form killing themselves.
50% more people are regularly beaten to death as opposed to being shot to death with an evil assault rifle, you know those evil instruments of war that General McCrystal whines about.
Rifles homicides
'06-438 '07-453 '08-380 '09-351 '10-358
Blunt objects homicides (clubs, hammers, etc.)
'06-618 '07-647 '08-603 '09-623 '10-540
Now you take your pretty little non-attention paying 157-IQ self and go sit down....
There are guidelines and requirements for identifying a phobia; so far no one has done so with firearms because antipathy for them is not actually a phobia.
Phobias are unreasonable anxiety or fear; that is not the case. Well grounded concerns about the way that some guns are used, and about certain kinds of guns and accessories is quite reasonable, not phobic.
No need to go sit down; the kinds of blunt trauma are not well defined other than blunt trauma.
The majority of murders and suicides and accidents are from handguns; that doesn't change the fact that certain kinds of problem shootings, especially mass shootings, but also attacks on law enforcement, certain kinds of drug trafficking use, etc. are specific to assault style rifles. The total numbers of that kind of use don't need to be any higher than they are now for it to be legitimate to ban them.
As McChrystal and so many many many others have already pointed out; it has nothing whatsoever to do with looks; it has everything to do with military style rifles not belonging in civilian hands.
Dog gone: “…it has nothing whatsoever to do with looks; it has everything to do with military style rifles not belonging in civilian hands.”
You just said it again. You said it has nothing to do with looks, but again said they should be banned because their style is military. What exactly do you mean by “style” in this context? What does that word mean to you? What is the difference between these two statements?
1) That gun has a military appearance. 2) That gun has a military style.
A similar policy to the Senate Bill that is frequently the subject of our discussion was instituted by the (rather Conservative) Howard Government in Australia. In accordance with the proposals of the Prime Minister (and Presidential Medal of Freedom recipient) John Howard, all Australian States adopted measures requiring the licencing and registration of all firearms and the (almost total) prohibition of semiautomatic and pump action rifles and shotguns, and the requirement for the demonstration of a legitimate reason (for shotguns and rimfire rifles) or a genuine need (for centerfire rifles and all handguns) for the issuance of a licence. Due to weapons amnesties, there have been few instances of armed insubordination.
The primary goal of State of previous Federal "Assault Weapon" legislation is to restrict the features that actually contribute to the inherent lethality of a firearm, such as a larger capacity detachable magazine or (already restricted) genuine machineguns. Although the main goal is to simply reduce the damage that a single armed civilian may cause, the opportunity presents itself to extend the prohibition to encompass the most amount of firearms that is politically feasible. Therefore instead of merely banning magazines it is possible under certain political conditions to extend a prohibition to include other features which are not inherently dangerous such as collapsible stocks, bayonet lugs, and pistol and thumb-hole grips in order for the ban to affect the maximum amount of firearms possible.
As there is substantial public sentiment for the regulation of "assault weapons" (a mandate to "do something about those black and scary machinegun lookalikes") prohibitions on such can be freely discussed and enacted without fear of any serious political repercussion. Due to the public's ignorance on the meaning of "semiautomatic", "assault weapon" or "military style semiautomatic" the opportunity presents itself for such terms may be applied to many varieties of firearms, in order to catch as many weapons under one ban as possible.
No, confederate, you are the troll here. You appear only to fling ad hominem point out some minor detail in my writing as a substitute for a legitimate argument against my premise. You have no facts, no real solutions, and no other way of justifying such a simian idea as "individualism".
Dog Gone, this debate is exactly over cosmetics. All semiautomatic rifles function in basically the same way. There are variations across different designs, but they all fire and reload and require another pull of the trigger to fire again. Arguing about caliber or magazines or bayonet lugs is only an attempt to obscure the facts.
Or consider this. The rifle that many deer hunters use--a bolt actions--is functionally identical to military rifles used even to this day. Standard deer cartridges will defeat most body armor and are much more powerful than what was used in Newtown.
Your side refuses to answer these points. When you won't explain how the weapons that you want to ban are functionally any different from those that you claim not to want to ban, it makes it hard for us to believe you.
I do not specifically deny the existence of an "individual" right to free expression. I rather question the legitimacy of the concept "individual rights" (as a wholly inclusive concept) do to the lack of any true concept of individuality. As there is no such thing as an "individual", how can We grant them rights?
E.N. hit the nail on the head. The point of these proposals is to ban the most amount of guns that is politically feasible today by praying on public ignorance with campaigns of deception. Well said.
Greg, this world has seven billion copies of you. I could could probably buy and send to you an exact replica of yourself.
You cannot eat alone, you cannot speak alone, you cannot enjoy the pleasures of life alone, and you will die if left alone. Your existence is dependent on the collectives willingness to feed, clothe, house, and protect you. Therefore you are not an individual, but a unit of a worldwide hive.
E.N., what am I thinking right now? If you can't answer that, you're showing that my thoughts are my own. That's one essential element of individualism.
The fact that society adds to my enjoyment of life doesn't mean that we are the Borg. I participate in society, but I do so as myself. The left yammers about diversity, except when it really matters, but there aren't seven billion copies of me. It's the subtle differences in DNA that make each of us genetically unique. More than that, the differences in our life experiences and our thoughts are fundamentally important. Those differences make up the vast diversity of human society. It's from those differences that new answers and new ideas arise.
You would limit that, ultimately crushing it into uniformity. That's why we are enemies.
Although it is nearly impossible to make such a prediction from my remote location, with knowledge of the life events which dictate your thought processes it would be possible to determine exactly what you are thinking.
"More than that, the differences in our life experiences and our thoughts are fundamentally important. Those differences make up the vast diversity of human society. It's from those differences that new answers and new ideas arise."
No, It is from people like me. The future is dictated to suit the problems which manifest in the current situation. Most cultures are actually quite similar with almost everything being held constant between them (with some notable exceptions whose uniqueness may be derived from their geographical isolation) and most differences that we may perceive to denote a particular culture arise from the perspective of the observer. If one where to observe a phenomenon occurring in a particular culture, you could reliably find an equivalent phenomenon pertaining to another culture.
Homosapiens are merely an indistinct segment in an inevitable progression which extends beyond the horizon of my prediction. The purpose of "We" is merely to thrive at which one would languish. Uniformity will give way to a greater concept that evades your consciousness.
"So Thomas, do you consider former general and former commander of the joint special operations command, Stanley McChrystal, to be a hoplophobe?"
Absolutely, he is most likely looking to advance his political career .... he fears weapons in the hands of the US civilian population.....
Would you call him anti-freedom, or un-patriotic?
YOU BETCHA..... SMcC is on the strategic advisory board of Knowledge International, a "licensed arms dealer" whose parent company is EAI, a business "very close" to the United Arab Emirates government.
Ridiculous. Whatever else you can say about him, he knows guns, and has shown no evidence that he is either unpatriotic or a hoplophobe.
The more rational explanation is that we have had more than 410 people shot, including 3 members of law enforcement shot with a stolen gun from a lax gun law state.
That comes down to 18 people a day, an unacceptable number of dead Americans, killed by Americans.
From the recent 60 minutes interview I saw, he doesn't seem to have any political ambitions.
You lose. There are far to many people across the political spectrum, including many many many who you cannot explain away as hoplophobes who are in favor of more gun regulation, because it works.
We haven't lost yet, Dog Gone. Notice how even now, the subject is getting mired in talk? And that doesn't take into consideration the vast areas of this nation that won't accept the laws that New York and Illinois are discussing.
But do continue buying what McChrystal says. You have to wonder if Obama will listen, considering the things that the general said about the president and his administration.
Greg, you've got blinders on. While the hash out the big AWB, many states are going to tighten up. Not just NY and IL, but even Virgina. I wrote about it today.
You lose. There are far to many people across the political spectrum, including many many many who you cannot explain away as hoplophobes who are in favor of more gun regulation, because it works.
Right, please go and bring back the results from... Mexico, South Africa,
Venezuela where, civilians are not allowed to possess machine guns, sub-machine guns, carbines, pistols and revolvers, be they automatic or semi-automatic. Civilians are only authorized to hold .22 rifles and shotguns.
In Venezuela, private possession of fully automatic weapons is prohibited
In Venezuela, private possession of semi-automatic assault weapons is prohibited
In Venezuela, private possession of handguns (pistols and revolvers) is prohibited
Hugo Chevez's peaceful ole Venezuela with more than 21,600 murders in 2012 up from 8-9,000 when he took power.... and started clamping down on guns.
Those murders are not the direct concern of Mr. Chavez. Because of the arms legislation his Government has imposed, he will die from cancer instead of a bullet.
Yes, along with the other despicable (or simply misguided) tenants of "libertarian" (or decentralized) Socialism. Much like the modern Cuban regime, he often serves to bastardize the goal of collectivism.
Sawyer is on record against guns, and the other two want us all to be reasonable. More "I believe in the Second Amendment, but..." we don't need.
ReplyDeleteYou just have such a problem with factual people.
DeleteThe overwhelming number of people, poll after poll, including gun owners and NRA members want the same thing.
You're the one lagging way way way behind the curve; try to catch up.
There's no point in catching up to people who are going in the wrong direction.
DeleteLook at the hoplophobes dragging out poor Giffords, how pathetic.
ReplyDeleteHoplophobes is a made up word, not a real term.
DeleteMark Kelly, as a veteran of the Gulf War, is not by any stretch phobic about guns, neither is former Congresswoman Giffords. Jeff Cooper is not qualified to coin a valid term or identify a phobia.
You make the grave logical error in assuming that because someone wants to limit something that is a major killer of Americans, they must be phobic or fearful. That is not even remotely true.
In twenty years of war in Viet Nam, we lost 58,000 soldiers. In two years in the U.S. we had more losses than that among our civilians, killing themselves or each other, and that doesn't count those who were only wounded but survived. Since Sandy Hook, more than 400 people have been killed, including an additional number of children.
Sawyer, Giffords and Kelly are reasonable, heroic, highly respected authorities who also happen to be gun-onwing people.
They are making an intelligent response to a problem with gun violence.
You are not, you just come across as a smirking drooling idiot who uses words without understanding them. Unlike the people in the video, you just look stupid.
So Thomas, do you consider former general and former commander of the joint special operations command, Stanley McChrystal, to be a hoplophobe?
DeleteHe agrees with Gifford and Kelly and Sawyer, and so many other military experts - the overwhelming majority - that we should not have military style weapons, like assault style rifles, in the hands of civlians, ditto expanded capacity magazines.
Would you call him anti-freedom, or un-patriotic?
I suppose you might; you do make up a lot of stuff, and believe a lot of incorrect information.
But it doesn't make your observations credible or persuasive.
Here are the figures I was looking for; that crap claim that baseball bats killed more people than guns/ guns are just the same inanimate objects as hammers, baseball bats, screwdrivers, spoons......etc.
DeleteNot so.
According to the CDC, in 2010 there were only 912 total deaths from blunt force trauma (all causes). In the same year, 31,672 Americans were killed with firearms.
There is a legitimate reason to further restrict and regulate guns.
No one is afraid of guns- so long as they are in the hands of the appropriate State entities entrusted with their use (and your safety).
DeleteDog Gone is correct in illuminating the principal fault of the internet in that it endows computer-trained simian "rednecks" who have little to contribute to an intelligent discussion, with the same medium of communication as such forums provide to sensible beings. Such is the cause of these discussions so frequently being hijacked by primitive Americans, who use this blog as a means to promote their depraved goals.
Dog gone: “…that we should not have military style weapons, like assault style rifles, in the hands of civlians…”
DeleteWhy did you just use the word “style” twice? Are you admitting that these are not actual military weapons, but they only look like them?
What does it mean to you if I say “this is a Louis Vuitton style handbag”?
Dog Gone, would that be the same Stanley McChrystal who was forced to resign for making ill-advised statements about the political leadership responsible for Afghanistan?
DeleteBut I had a look at the website put up by Giffords and Kelly. It didn't offer any proposals as of yesterday. Are we just supposed to trust them to pick the right ideas? I prefer to see the details before I support something.
Here are the figures I was looking for; that crap claim that baseball bats killed more people than guns/ guns are just the same inanimate objects as hammers, baseball bats, screwdrivers, spoons......etc.
DeleteNot so.
According to the CDC, in 2010 there were only 912 total deaths from blunt force trauma (all causes). In the same year, 31,672 Americans were killed with firearms.
Oh Doggone can that pretty little head of yours ever pay attention....
That statement that you misrepresent is the fallacy of regulating evil black rifles because of tragedy not firearms homicides in total... since you cannot keep people form killing themselves.
50% more people are regularly beaten to death as opposed to being shot to death with an evil assault rifle, you know those evil instruments of war that General McCrystal whines about.
Rifles homicides
'06-438 '07-453 '08-380 '09-351 '10-358
Blunt objects homicides (clubs, hammers, etc.)
'06-618 '07-647 '08-603 '09-623 '10-540
Now you take your pretty little non-attention paying 157-IQ self and go sit down....
Hoplophobes is a made up word, not a real term.
DeleteQuiz is a made up word as well, but you sure knew what I was talking about didn't you....
Whether psychiatry chooses to classify it as a phobia that is another matter....
There are guidelines and requirements for identifying a phobia; so far no one has done so with firearms because antipathy for them is not actually a phobia.
DeletePhobias are unreasonable anxiety or fear; that is not the case. Well grounded concerns about the way that some guns are used, and about certain kinds of guns and accessories is quite reasonable, not phobic.
You can't argue your way around the numbers.
No need to go sit down; the kinds of blunt trauma are not well defined other than blunt trauma.
DeleteThe majority of murders and suicides and accidents are from handguns; that doesn't change the fact that certain kinds of problem shootings, especially mass shootings, but also attacks on law enforcement, certain kinds of drug trafficking use, etc. are specific to assault style rifles. The total numbers of that kind of use don't need to be any higher than they are now for it to be legitimate to ban them.
As McChrystal and so many many many others have already pointed out; it has nothing whatsoever to do with looks; it has everything to do with military style rifles not belonging in civilian hands.
Dog gone: “…it has nothing whatsoever to do with looks; it has everything to do with military style rifles not belonging in civilian hands.”
DeleteYou just said it again. You said it has nothing to do with looks, but again said they should be banned because their style is military. What exactly do you mean by “style” in this context? What does that word mean to you? What is the difference between these two statements?
1) That gun has a military appearance.
2) That gun has a military style.
A similar policy to the Senate Bill that is frequently the subject of our discussion was instituted by the (rather Conservative) Howard Government in Australia. In accordance with the proposals of the Prime Minister (and Presidential Medal of Freedom recipient) John Howard, all Australian States adopted measures requiring the licencing and registration of all firearms and the (almost total) prohibition of semiautomatic and pump action rifles and shotguns, and the requirement for the demonstration of a legitimate reason (for shotguns and rimfire rifles) or a genuine need (for centerfire rifles and all handguns) for the issuance of a licence. Due to weapons amnesties, there have been few instances of armed insubordination.
DeleteThe primary goal of State of previous Federal "Assault Weapon" legislation is to restrict the features that actually contribute to the inherent lethality of a firearm, such as a larger capacity detachable magazine or (already restricted) genuine machineguns. Although the main goal is to simply reduce the damage that a single armed civilian may cause, the opportunity presents itself to extend the prohibition to encompass the most amount of firearms that is politically feasible. Therefore instead of merely banning magazines it is possible under certain political conditions to extend a prohibition to include other features which are not inherently dangerous such as collapsible stocks, bayonet lugs, and pistol and thumb-hole grips in order for the ban to affect the maximum amount of firearms possible.
As there is substantial public sentiment for the regulation of "assault weapons" (a mandate to "do something about those black and scary machinegun lookalikes") prohibitions on such can be freely discussed and enacted without fear of any serious political repercussion. Due to the public's ignorance on the meaning of "semiautomatic", "assault weapon" or "military style semiautomatic" the opportunity presents itself for such terms may be applied to many varieties of firearms, in order to catch as many weapons under one ban as possible.
What's up, E.N.? Did copy and paste miss your usual next paragraph complete with its picture of a hunting gun that you hope to ban?
DeleteAt first, your trolling was mildly entertaining, but it is getting tired and repetitive. New material or off the stage!
No, confederate, you are the troll here. You appear only to fling ad hominem point out some minor detail in my writing as a substitute for a legitimate argument against my premise. You have no facts, no real solutions, and no other way of justifying such a simian idea as "individualism".
DeleteDog Gone, this debate is exactly over cosmetics. All semiautomatic rifles function in basically the same way. There are variations across different designs, but they all fire and reload and require another pull of the trigger to fire again. Arguing about caliber or magazines or bayonet lugs is only an attempt to obscure the facts.
DeleteOr consider this. The rifle that many deer hunters use--a bolt actions--is functionally identical to military rifles used even to this day. Standard deer cartridges will defeat most body armor and are much more powerful than what was used in Newtown.
Your side refuses to answer these points. When you won't explain how the weapons that you want to ban are functionally any different from those that you claim not to want to ban, it makes it hard for us to believe you.
E.N. continues to exercise his individual right to free expression, despite denying its existence.
DeleteI do not specifically deny the existence of an "individual" right to free expression. I rather question the legitimacy of the concept "individual rights" (as a wholly inclusive concept) do to the lack of any true concept of individuality. As there is no such thing as an "individual", how can We grant them rights?
DeleteE.N. hit the nail on the head. The point of these proposals is to ban the most amount of guns that is politically feasible today by praying on public ignorance with campaigns of deception. Well said.
DeleteE.N., I can't help you if you are incapable of understanding what an individual is. I know for a certainty, being one myself.
DeleteGreg, this world has seven billion copies of you. I could could probably buy and send to you an exact replica of yourself.
DeleteYou cannot eat alone, you cannot speak alone, you cannot enjoy the pleasures of life alone, and you will die if left alone. Your existence is dependent on the collectives willingness to feed, clothe, house, and protect you. Therefore you are not an individual, but a unit of a worldwide hive.
E.N., what am I thinking right now? If you can't answer that, you're showing that my thoughts are my own. That's one essential element of individualism.
DeleteThe fact that society adds to my enjoyment of life doesn't mean that we are the Borg. I participate in society, but I do so as myself. The left yammers about diversity, except when it really matters, but there aren't seven billion copies of me. It's the subtle differences in DNA that make each of us genetically unique. More than that, the differences in our life experiences and our thoughts are fundamentally important. Those differences make up the vast diversity of human society. It's from those differences that new answers and new ideas arise.
You would limit that, ultimately crushing it into uniformity. That's why we are enemies.
Greg:
Delete"E.N., what am I thinking right now?"
Although it is nearly impossible to make such a prediction from my remote location, with knowledge of the life events which dictate your thought processes it would be possible to determine exactly what you are thinking.
"More than that, the differences in our life experiences and our thoughts are fundamentally important. Those differences make up the vast diversity of human society. It's from those differences that new answers and new ideas arise."
No, It is from people like me. The future is dictated to suit the problems which manifest in the current situation. Most cultures are actually quite similar with almost everything being held constant between them (with some notable exceptions whose uniqueness may be derived from their geographical isolation) and most differences that we may perceive to denote a particular culture arise from the perspective of the observer. If one where to observe a phenomenon occurring in a particular culture, you could reliably find an equivalent phenomenon pertaining to another culture.
Homosapiens are merely an indistinct segment in an inevitable progression which extends beyond the horizon of my prediction. The purpose of "We" is merely to thrive at which one would languish. Uniformity will give way to a greater concept that evades your consciousness.
E.N., the more you talk, the more of a fool you look. FOAD.
Delete"So Thomas, do you consider former general and former commander of the joint special operations command, Stanley McChrystal, to be a hoplophobe?"
ReplyDeleteAbsolutely, he is most likely looking to advance his political career .... he fears weapons in the hands of the US civilian population.....
Would you call him anti-freedom, or un-patriotic?
YOU BETCHA..... SMcC is on the strategic advisory board of Knowledge International, a "licensed arms dealer" whose parent company is EAI, a business "very close" to the United Arab Emirates government.
http://www.defensenews.com/article/20121213/C4ISR01/312130004/McChrystal-Working-UAE-Owned-Arms-Brokerage
Ridiculous. Whatever else you can say about him, he knows guns, and has shown no evidence that he is either unpatriotic or a hoplophobe.
DeleteThe more rational explanation is that we have had more than 410 people shot, including 3 members of law enforcement shot with a stolen gun from a lax gun law state.
That comes down to 18 people a day, an unacceptable number of dead Americans, killed by Americans.
From the recent 60 minutes interview I saw, he doesn't seem to have any political ambitions.
You lose. There are far to many people across the political spectrum, including many many many who you cannot explain away as hoplophobes who are in favor of more gun regulation, because it works.
We haven't lost yet, Dog Gone. Notice how even now, the subject is getting mired in talk? And that doesn't take into consideration the vast areas of this nation that won't accept the laws that New York and Illinois are discussing.
DeleteBut do continue buying what McChrystal says. You have to wonder if Obama will listen, considering the things that the general said about the president and his administration.
Greg, you've got blinders on. While the hash out the big AWB, many states are going to tighten up. Not just NY and IL, but even Virgina. I wrote about it today.
DeleteYeah, I saw your article. Don't count on Virginia. Every state has a few control freaks, but Virginia as a whole supports gun rights.
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteYou lose. There are far to many people across the political spectrum, including many many many who you cannot explain away as hoplophobes who are in favor of more gun regulation, because it works.
ReplyDeleteRight, please go and bring back the results from...
Mexico,
South Africa,
Venezuela where, civilians are not allowed to possess machine guns, sub-machine guns, carbines, pistols and revolvers, be they automatic or semi-automatic. Civilians are only authorized to hold .22 rifles and shotguns.
In Venezuela, private possession of fully automatic weapons is prohibited
In Venezuela, private possession of semi-automatic assault weapons is prohibited
In Venezuela, private possession of handguns (pistols and revolvers) is prohibited
Hugo Chevez's peaceful ole Venezuela with more than 21,600 murders in 2012 up from 8-9,000 when he took power.... and started clamping down on guns.
If we had Hugo's problems we would have a raw number of murders of 256,000 in 2012....
ReplyDeleteThose murders are not the direct concern of Mr. Chavez. Because of the arms legislation his Government has imposed, he will die from cancer instead of a bullet.
DeleteEither way, and not soon enough--Chavez is a disgrace.
DeleteYes, along with the other despicable (or simply misguided) tenants of "libertarian" (or decentralized) Socialism. Much like the modern Cuban regime, he often serves to bastardize the goal of collectivism.
DeleteCollectivism is a bastard goal--true, that.
DeleteNot a goal, but an inevitable consequence of human existence.
Delete