That is why people who tell us they are safe, that they should have firearms, that they NEED firearms, that they know when it is legal and appropriate to USE firearms are clearly NOT the best judges of any of those things. Our news media is full, daily, of examples of the worst cases of the opposite of those things being true. It is why we have the terrible record, per our statistics of gun violence, in contrast to other free and civilized, developed countries of the world, places where those people are both free, and safe from the violence of people with guns.
And these people wonder why we don't TRUST them? Because of the daily examples that far too many of the people with guns do bad things with them, emotional things, delusional things.
Angry things.
But the pro-gunners want us to trust gun owners.
I don't, many people don't. And the facts, the statistics on gun violence, and the occurrence of incidents like this so frequently demonstrates we should not.
From MSNBC.com:
Mo. officials: Ex-deputy shot ex-wife, boyfriend
JEFFERSON CITY, Mo.-- Authorities in Missouri say a former sheriff's deputy is suspected of killing his ex-wife and her new boyfriend before leading officers on a high-speed chase that ended with a shootout at an upscale hotel hosting a Christmas party.
The Missouri State Highway Patrol on Sunday identified the murder victims as 32-year-old Annette Durham, of Salem, and 39-year-old Steven Strotkamp.
The suspected shooter — former Dent County Sheriff's Deputy Marvin Rice — was in fair at a Columbia hospital after being wounded in the shootout.
Rice was captured at the Capitol Plaza Hotel in Jefferson City, where about 500 doctors, nurses and their families had gathered for a Christmas party. Among the hotel's other guests were members of a youth hockey team. No guests were injured.
There are millions of people who believe themselves to be safe drivers, but we see reports almost every night about car wrecks, often induced by chemicals. We should ban cars.
ReplyDeleteThat's the argument that you're making. But there are a hundred or so million gun owners who have hundreds of millions of guns in this country. And yet the vast majority of us hurt no one with our guns.
Besides, this was a former law enforcement officer. Why former? I don't know. But he's exactly the type of person who's supposed to be an acceptable owner and user of firearms. Given all the stories that we hear, we don't we disarm the police?
" But he's exactly the type of person who's supposed to be an acceptable owner and user of firearms. Given all the stories that we hear, we don't we disarm the police?"
ReplyDeleteGreg Camp:
Once again you wring your hands about the cops having bad apples in their ranks. We already know this, moron. The distribution of assholes with chips on their shoulders is probably somewhat above average in the ranks of policing agencies, just like it is amongst gunzloonz.
The fact that someone wears a badge or works for the gummint does not = we really loves us some cops. You keep building that strawman and it makes you look like a fucking clown.
I'll bet if you had been there you would whipped out the ol' 1911 and blown that guy to kingdom come, wuntcha? I can see it now, cops and EMT's arrive to find not one or two but 20 or 30 dead and wounded people at Christmas party because some strapped citizens who KNEW what they were doing shot other strapped citizens who KNEW what THEY were doing because, well, in the heat of thre moment, shit happens.
Oh, almost forgot.
ReplyDelete"We don't we disarm the police?".
Why don't we send firement out to fight fires with wet blankets and garden hoses? Because most fires require better tools.
You want to see cop shootings go through the roof (something tells me you'd be okay with that)? Send unarmed cops out into the street and there will be a lot of funerals for cops. The cops wear their guns OUTSIDE THEIR SHIRTS and people still shoot a bunch of them every year, dumbass. You really are too stupid to think this shit through.
"There are millions of people who believe themselves to be safe drivers, but we see reports almost every night about car wrecks, often induced by chemicals. We should ban cars."
ReplyDeleteAnother one your gunzloonz bullshit analogies.
We REGULATE both vehicles and drivers to varying degrees. We require that drivers be insured to indemnify themselves and others against financial loss. We throw dangerous drivers (repeat DUI offender, carjackers, GTA offenders among others) in jail, some of them for lengthy periods--even if nobody is killed or injured when they commit their crimes.
The two are not equivalent and you're a shithead who doesn't understand the difference between them.
Given all the stories that we hear, we don't we disarm the police?
ReplyDeleteBecause we expect something more from police in the course of doing their job. They don't usually get the option of retreat, the way we expect of civilians.
This guy was not a law enforcement at the time of this incident; maybe because he didn't measure up to the job.
So no, he doesn't necessarily 'measure up' to what we expect from law enforcement as gun carriers.
You so delight us by continuing to dodge answering the challenge I put to you earlier, while simultaneously displaying your failure at critical thinking -AGAIN.
Dog Gone,
ReplyDeleteWhat am I dodging? I've answered your questions, while you have not answered mine. I can't help it if you don't like my answers.
Democommie,
Regulation of cars isn't the point here. The topic in the article was a group of people who claim to be safe. I'm discussing the safety of another group. And your statement about regulation shows that it doesn't make anyone safer.
I'm not the one who wants to disarm cops. I'm using your logic. You and others tell us that a few bad apples is enough to justify disarming every person in the group. If that's the case, cops should be disarmed.
GC writes:
ReplyDeleteog Gone,
What am I dodging? I've answered your questions, while you have not answered mine. I can't help it if you don't like my answers.
You have failed to provide credible answers. It's not about 'liking'; it is about you FAILING. You can try to squirm out of it, but it doesn't succeed. wiggle wiggle wiggle? NOPE!
I DO provide those answers and sources, I do so consistently. And even my adversaries here who do not share my point of view will, I think, confirm that and have done so in the past.
And I've previously provided those answers here that you've requested, They're just not convenient for you.
Aw, you're lazy AND a failure at reason and research? That's too bad for you.
Not so much for me.
Waiting to watch you do more of your whiny 'wiggle wiggle wiggle'. AGAIN.
"And your statement about regulation shows that it doesn't make anyone safer."
ReplyDeleteHow on earth did you ever graduate HS, never mind get an advanced degree. You are a PhD, yes? That goofy hat of yours doesn't look that snug but something's cutting off the blood supply to your squash.
Without regulation of vehicles and drivers, the carnage on the highways would be biblical in proportion. And that's not even factoring in advances in trauma treatment, life flights and all of the other ways in which fatalities are prevented in situations that would have meant certain death in earlier times.
You really have no fucking knowledge about what you're saying.
This:
ReplyDelete"You and others tell us that a few bad apples is enough to justify disarming every person in the group."
is another one of your FUCKING LIES, YOU FUCKING LIAR.
Not one of the five posters on this blog espouses that belief. That you're too stupid to understand that we actually DO know what we say in our comments is your problem.
Every time you put a lie like that in one of your comments it makes you look like more of a fool.
You're a pathetic liar.
Democommie,
ReplyDeleteDoes 300 or so gun crimes committed in four years justify cancelling a shall-issue licensing system? I've seen that argument made by your side. Three hundred out of six million. Well, there are under a million police officers in this country, and we see stories about abuses and stupidity on the part of cops from time to time. Their numbers look worse than ours.
Dog Gone,
But you won't offer a link. I've used the search function, but no results came up. Perhaps you didn't put a tag on the article? You keep calling those of us with carry licenses scared and stupid, but you're one of us. We'd like an explanation.
What question specifically do you believe that I haven't answered? I've given you answers. I've explained my reasoning. I've explained our differences in values. Naturally, it's not good enough for you. People who believe themselves to be superior often fall into the trap of believing in themselves too much.
First of all, clearly from the volume of articles posted here, 300 is an inaccurately low number.
ReplyDeleteOr can you prove to me that incidents - accidents, homicides and suicides by CCW are accurately recorded somewhere?
Clearly, they are not tracked, except anecdotally. There is currently no mandate for that information to be tracked in crime reports, or any FBI, Bureau of Justice statistics et..
Maybe we should agree that should be tracked. Oh, but wait, of course your side and the NRA would oppose that wouldn't you, because you DON'T WANT people to find out how many more there really are, do you?
What justifies a reworking of our current gun laws is all the deaths and injuries and guns that go from legal to illegal possession.
That includes all carry provisions.
If you don't have a specific reason that is better than 'I wanna' you should not be carrying. The remote chance you might be presented with an attack by an unknown random assailant is not a specific reason that justifies either open or concealed carry.
Clearly a lot of people who do bad things with guns should not have them - but under the rules and regs and laws you advocate,they get them, over and over and over.
THAT is what is wrong with what you like in guns.
Maybe we
Dog Gone,
ReplyDeleteClearly, three hundred is an inaccurately low number? On what do you base that assertion? It's not clear to me. Let me give you some help in critical thinking. Whenever someone says "clearly," that's a good place to look for flaws.
I used the number that the Violence Policy Center claims. That organization wants to find as many examples of licensees committing crimes as they can. If three hundred in four years is all that they can come up with, I'd say that clearly isn't the right word to use with regard to your assertions.
By the way, in shall-issue states, like Minnesota and Arkansas, "I wanna" is good enough.
"Does 300 or so gun crimes committed in four years justify cancelling a shall-issue licensing system? I've seen that argument made by your side. Three hundred out of six million. Well, there are under a million police officers in this country, and we see stories about abuses and stupidity on the part of cops from time to time. Their numbers look worse than ours."
ReplyDeleteThis has exactly nothing to do with this FUCKING LIE:
"You and others tell us that a few bad apples is enough to justify disarming every person in the group."
Prove that it's not a lie, you lying scumbag.
Democommie,
ReplyDeleteI really do doubt that you understand what the word, lie, means. I have read articles here talking about how someone with a gun committed a crime. The question is then asked as to whether the shooter had a carry license. The conclusion is then drawn that many fewer people should have such licenses. There you go.
Greg, You brought up cars and then when democommie handed your ass to you, you said regulation of cars is not the point. I repeat what demo said.
ReplyDelete"We REGULATE both vehicles and drivers to varying degrees. We require that drivers be insured to indemnify themselves and others against financial loss. We throw dangerous drivers (repeat DUI offender, carjackers, GTA offenders among others) in jail, some of them for lengthy periods--even if nobody is killed or injured when they commit their crimes."
If cars were regulated like guns are there'd be 100,000 or 200,000 car fatalities a year instead of 40,000.
The reverse works too. If guns were regulated like cars, instead of 30,000 deaths, there'd be 5,000 or less. It's simple math.
Greg Camp:
ReplyDeleteI don't know what a lie is?
This:
lie1 /laɪ/ Show Spelled [lahy] Show IPA noun, verb, lied, ly·ing.
noun
1. a false statement made with deliberate intent to deceive; an intentional untruth; a falsehood.
2. something intended or serving to convey a false impression; imposture: His flashy car was a lie that deceived no one.
3. an inaccurate or false statement.
is from here (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/lie)
and, I assure you that I didn't need to look it up to know what a lie is.
Your FUCKING LIE:
"You and others tell us that a few bad apples is enough to justify disarming every person in the group."
is a falsehood. That you persist in pushing it by using weasel words is not a surprise. It is also not a surprise that you suffer a near total disconnect from reality where your precious gunz are concerned. What does surprise me is that you are somehow able to remove the big hat and "gunbelt" and get yourself to school to teach.
Greg doesn't teach as much as he is dedicated to the propagation of ignorance.
ReplyDeleteHe is shown facts, yet he chooses fairy tales.
He cannot argue for shit.
If he allows his students to demonstrate the poor argumentative skills that he does, or--worse--passes them on to his students, then he really shouldn't claim to teach.
He is someone who perpetuates ignorance.
Mikeb302000,
ReplyDeleteThe point about guns and cars in relation to this article is that there are people who use both objects who believe themselves to be safe in doing so. The regulations of either object isn't in question.
I don't think that's the poinit, Greg. The point is the difference I pointed out in how strongly cars are regulated compared to guns.
ReplyDelete