Wednesday, April 24, 2013
Newtown Families Leading the New Wave of Gun Control
I'd like to hear some of the pro-gun fellas respond to this. I'll bet you prove Jim Carrey right when he called you "cold-hearted bastards."
And your nasty responses to these people are understandable because you realize they represent exactly why your movement is doomed. Most family members of gun violence victims do what these people did - move strongly towards gun control. Multiply that by the hundreds of thousands each year who are touched in this way, led by the example of these Newtown folks, there's a tsunami coming.
What's your opinion? Please leave a comment.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
This is a prime example of why having a constitution that protects basic rights is essential. It's easy to get caught up in emotionalism, but let's remember that many in this country are having an emotional response against Muslims because of what two young men did. Neither is appropriate in a free society.
ReplyDeleteI do not minimalize the grief that these families feel. What happened in Newtown was horrific. But in the same way that we don't let persons serve on a jury when they have a connection to the case, we shouldn't make decisions about basic rights on the basis of what is said here.
In addition, though you repeatedly deny it, there are many people who saved their lives by using a firearm. Those people will likely be on my side.
I'm glad you said "many" and not "more." The "hundreds of thousands" I mentioned are the immediate friends and relatives of the 30,000 gun deaths each year. But, if you consider that there are a half-a-million violent gun crimes each year and calculate their friends and relatives, your paltry number of true DGUs can't hold a candle.
DeleteYou're movement is doomed.
You say that with the same gusto you used to tell us that our movement was doomed because the last election had showed that the NRA was a paper tiger.
DeleteDon't you imagine that friends of people who defend themselves will be more supportive of gun rights? Paltry, you say, but that's just denying reality.
DeleteOf course, once again, you pass over the main point of what I had to say. Are we to take it that you agree that it's silly to base public policy on emotionalism, or are you simply unable to incapable of answering that bit of logic?
Greg brings up an excellent point. In the jury selection process, lawyers like to dismiss anyone that can conceivably have an emotional attachment to the case. We recognize that emotions cloud judgement and can lead to bad decisions. Kudos, Greg. That's the first I heard that point, and it's a good one.
DeleteMike - if we should listen to the Newtown people that are in favor of new gun laws, should we also listen to anyone in Boston that is in favor or stricter immigration laws after the bombings by two immigrants? Seems like the Democrats are screaming bloody murder over any attempt to use the Boston bombings as a reason to look into proposed immigration reforms and change them to address security issues.
DeleteThanks, TS.
DeleteOr Anonymous, how about we listen to the people surveyed in Boston recently, a majority of whom said they wanted a gun to defend themselves?
DeleteExactly what do you think we're going to say that will "prove Jim Carrey right"?
ReplyDeleteWe're human beings. We empathize with these people, as we do with everyone who loses family members. We just disagree about what to do. Jesse's dad said that background checks would have stopped this. They wouldn't have--they didn't. Lanza tried to buy a gun and was denied at the background check stage. He then got his gun anyway--not from some private sale, but through the "shoot your mom in the face and steal her guns" loophole. Nothing that was on the table could have stopped this.
As Soto's sister noted with regards to Boston, some people are evil. The fact is, they will always find ways to do horrible things.
We already have lots of gun laws that you have acknowledged infringe on our Second Amendment rights, and these haven't helped the situation. Now, you say that you only want to infringe on our rights "a little bit more"--though you acknowledge that this "little bit more" would mean that half of us would lose our guns. Your definition of "a little bit" needs work.
The best thing that we can do is to try to improve our society in general and our treatment of the mentally ill, and to work on better ways to stop maniacs--to minimize their carnage and to bring them down quickly. Newtown had security measures in place, but they weren't enough--we should see how we can improve them. Offices and factories should come up with their own plans. People should spend a little bit of time learning how to deal with these situations. First aid learning isn't a bad idea--it saved a lot of lives in Boston.
And yes, if more people choose to be armed for their own defense, that can help bring down maniacs in some of these events as well. At the Appalachian School of Law, it was law students who got their guns from their cars and stopped the shooter. Yes, at least a couple of them had law enforcement backgrounds, but they were acting as private citizens, and they stopped the bloodbath cold. Something that wasn't in the news reports, but that I've learned from students who were there at the time is that the shooter had a kill list, and he only got part way through it before he was stopped. More lives would have been lost without that quick response.
I mourn their loss, but I'm not stupid enough to believe that their loss provides them with any authority to infringe on that which shall not be infringed.
ReplyDeleteI know you (idiotically) push the bizarre claim that pointing out a that the current proposed gun laws would have done nothing to prevent the incident prompting the "surrender your rights for the children!" shriek du jour is "the gun lobby's dumbest argument", but you simultaneously claim that the very people doing the shrieking (families of Newton victims, in this case) have some special authority, by virtue of their loss, to push gun laws that would have done nothing to prevent, or even mitigate, that loss. That's not just bullshit--it's stupidly obvious bullshit.
And your nasty responses to these people are understandable because you realize they represent exactly why your movement is doomed. Most family members of gun violence victims do what these people did - move strongly towards gun control. Multiply that by the hundreds of thousands each year who are touched in this way, led by the example of these Newtown folks, there's a tsunami coming.
Oh, please, idiot. The number of privately owned guns continues to soar, while the "gun violence" rates continue their very long downward trend. If there's a "tsunami," we've already weathered it.
You lose, Mikeb, along with the other domestic enemies trying to leverage their sorrow into power over Americans' Constitutionally guaranteed, fundamental human rights.
Get used to it.
And your nasty responses to these people are understandable because you realize they represent exactly why your movement is doomed. Most family members of gun violence victims do what these people did - move strongly towards gun control. Multiply that by the hundreds of thousands each year who are touched in this way, led by the example of these Newtown folks, there's a tsunami coming.
ReplyDeleteLet's explore this again, shall we?
Let's examine it in light of the new revelation that "gun violence" is continuing it's long, dramatic, plummeting decline. Let's simultaneously keep in mind that this is going on while the number of privately owned guns continues to soar--and that the meteoric rise (yeah, I know it's a dumb expression, as meteors don't rise--I didn't invent the expression, though) is to a very large degree driven by demand for so-called "assault weapons" and handguns that accommodate "high capacity" magazines.
Your side is running low on victims to exploit, Mikeb. That's one of the problems with being on the side that benefits from "gun violence" (the disgusting moral bankruptcy inherent to such a position being another of the problems). Your victim shortage has become such a crisis that now your side is (hilariously, if it were not so disgustingly, contemptibly, despicably exploitative) blaming the NRA for bombings.
Our "movement is doomed"? Keep telling yourself that. Your side has managed so far to hoodwink the public into thinking that "gun violence" is up, rather than dramatically down--but that won't last. When it ends, watch support for forcible citizen disarmament wither and die, and watch freedom truly take wing.
Oops: . . . continuing it's long, dramatic, plummeting decline.
ReplyDeleteShould have been "its," of course. My apologies for any confusion stemming from my unfortunately imprecise wording.
First of all, Kurt, you oughta try to get over that hyper-vigilance on grammar and spelling. No one's keeping score, man.
ReplyDeleteSecondly, that which shall not be infringed does not exist. No right is absolute, in spite of your bizarre rhetoric to that effect.
Thirdly, the slightly and gradual declining of violence would be a severe and truly-significant decline if it weren't for the gun availability which, as you rightly point out, has steadily increased.
First of all, Kurt, you oughta try to get over that hyper-vigilance on grammar and spelling. No one's keeping score, man.
ReplyDeleteI've tried to explain to you (although even that comment apparently caused you such emotional pain that you found censorship to be necessary) why I feel a moral obligation to strive for decent linguistic mechanics. Gun rights advocates, you've probably noticed, tend to be intensely moral people--perhaps even altruistic people--so it's not at all a trivial concern for me, even if it is for you.
Secondly, that which shall not be infringed does not exist.
Shall not be infringed is right there in the text of the Constitution. You don't have to like it, but pretending it doesn't exist makes you appear even more foolish. I'm not sure you can easily afford that.
Thirdly, the slightly and gradual declining of violence . . .
Hmm . . . "slightly and gradual declining"--that would be the near-halving of murders committed with guns, over a period of less than 20 years (and non-fatal "gun violence" falling by more than two thirds over the same span)? We apparently define "slightly" quite differently. You know what, though? I bet that if the stats had moved in the opposite direction, so that gun homicides had nearly doubled (and non-fatal "gun violence" had more than tripled) over the same span, you and your ideological allies would be screaming it from the rooftops. Are you going to tell me I'm wrong about that?
. . . would be a severe and truly-significant decline . . .
So much for the "if it saves just one life" mantra, eh? Gun homicides cut nearly in half, and Mikeb says it's not "truly-significant."
. . . if it weren't for the gun availability . . .
Oops--you forgot to provide even a shred of evidence. Don't beat yourself up about it, though. We all get forgetful sometimes. I eagerly await that evidence, though!
Only you would turn hyper-self-conscious fear of making even the slightest mistake into a moral obligation because gun-rights people tend to be intensely moral people.
DeleteKeep slinging that bullshit, man. You're the best at it.
By all means disparage the importance I attach to morality if that helps you cling to your delusions of superiority.
DeleteCertainly you and your ideological allies will never be accused of an excess of morality.
Don't accuse me of being superior. You're the one who brought up your own high standard of morality, and let's not forget it was about your nit-picking spelling and grammar obsession. Not making typos is evidence of your morality, that was your claim. I can't stop laughing. Hahahahahahahaha
DeleteDon't accuse me of being superior.
DeleteOh, I promise I'll never accuse you of being superior, but I do from time to time feel the need to call you on your delusions of adequacy.
I can't stop laughing. Hahahahahahahaha
By all means, grab what joy you can find, wherever and whenever you can find it. Perhaps if you become less bitter and filled with rage, you will be able to successfully confront your bigoted hatred.