Tuesday, June 12, 2012

"The Kindness of America" Meets the Vicious Insanity of American Gun Culture

We see the out of date 18th century 'right' to bear arms in a milita, and the common law tradition of self defense (in the larger context of the duty to retreat that is found in common law world wide - except here) distorted so as to viciously violate the right recognized world wide of a person to be safe.

I wouldn't be at all surprised if the shooter is a gun nut, who is absolutely certain his penis, testicles and y-chromosomes are less important to his masculine gender identification than his firearm.

I'd bet with equal confidence that he carries it with him for that all important feeble excuse that he needs it for self defense...........excpet that isn't the reality of how guns are used by gun nuts like this one.  Quite the opposite.

Or maybe he just has a problem with geography and keeping up with current events; South Dakota is after all right next door to Montana.... where gun nuts tried, perhaps tongue in cheek, to mandate gun ownership (unless you were a LEGAL immigrant - because right wing gun nuts tend to be paranoid and delusional).  We can't trust those newer citizens with the full bill of rights; we have to ease them into those potent freedoms.

The irony of this pointless, mindless act of gun nut violence is of course the Title of the work of the author who was shot...

From MSNBC.com:
Hitchhiker writing 'The Kindness of America' memoir shot by motorist in Montana
A West Virginia man who was hitchhiking across the United States and writing a memoir titled “The Kindness of America” was shot by a motorist in a random attack in northeastern Montana, authorities say.
Valley County Sheriff Glen Meier said Raymond Dolin, 39, was sitting on his backpack on the side of U.S. Highway 2 west of Glasgow about 6 p.m. Saturday when a man drove up in a pickup, rolled down his window, shot him in the arm and drove off.
“He was preparing to eat his meal when the truck pulled in and he thought ‘hey, here’s a ride’ and jumped up to walk over to the driver,” Meier told msnbc.com on Monday. “When he got closer he saw the gun and as he was starting to walk back, the guy pulled the trigger.”
Dolin was struck in the upper arm. Meier said Dolin was able to flag down another motorist and was taken to the hospital in Glasgow with non-life-threatening injuries. Hospital officials refused comment for an update on Dolin’s condition.
Meier said authorities arrested a suspect in Culbertson, about 100 miles east of Glasgow, about four hours after the shooting. Glasgow is community of about 3,100 residents.
Charles Lloyd Danielson III, 52, of Washington state, was jailed in Roosevelt County on suspicion of felony assault with a weapon and driving under the influence, Meier said.
Danielson had been in the area looking for work, Meier said.
“This is unusual for our community or any community," Meier told msnbc.com, adding "for two people from opposite ends of the nation to end up here and this to happen – it’s totally random.”

Yeah, well maybe they don't get a lot of people from other places in their community, but random gun violence appears to be pretty common in the U.S.  It happens every day in this country, a reality of our violent gun culture.


  1. We really ought not be surprised.

    Every gunloon harbors the fantasy of shooting someone; this gunloon merely acted on his dream. He saw an opportunity, he was out in the middle of nowhere and figured he could act on his fantasy.

  2. People seem to forget the word "militia."
    I suppose if one joins the service, they have the right to buy and bear arms. Today, that would be less than 1% of Americans.

  3. Gunloons tend to use "militia" to connote service and expertise.

    But this is a gross misunderstanding.

    If I buy a baseball glove, it doesn't make me Ryan Braun. It does not even imply that I know a baseball from a turnip. Yet, gunloons believe purchasing a firearm makes them a soldier.

  4. Jadegold and Anonymous here are full of nonsense, unless they can provide a concise definition of "gunloon" that is in any way reasonable. To Jadegold, a gunloon is anyone who owns a gun. I do think that whoever did this shooting is both a criminal and an arsehole and deserves to spend a long time in prison. But as I continually remind the gun control side, these incidents represent less than one percent of the total gun owners in this country.

    But to address the other point in the comments, no, I don't think that I'm a soldier. I'm simply an American citizen and a human being who exercises his rights. I'm not out shooting anyone. I have no desire to shoot anyone. I don't expect the gun control loons to believe me, but fortunately, that side matters less and less as time goes by, thanks to my side.

    1. Jadegold isn't full of nonsense; we have a good working definition of gun loon, and we have explained it to you endlessly. Apparently you have a flat learning curve, or you are willfully ignorant, refusing to learn and understand that definition.

      You do not reflect an honest definition of what Jadegold terms a gun loon.

      You have a very narrow world view Greg; if you look at the wide wide world, it extends way beyond the United States. While our current gun culture is an aberration, a sort of mental illness that has a serious disconnect between reality and fantasy - with the gun loons being those most obsessed with the fantasy / fetishh relationship -- (true to the original use of loon or lunatic). It is only a matter of time until the U.S. becomes more sophisticated and cosmopolitan, instead of resisting the same trends that have directed the rest of the world towards civilizatoin and away from an armed society.

      You are on the wrong side of history on this one Greg. You're just whistling in the dark, which suggests to me on some level you already know that.

    2. 1. I've never seen any of you offer a concise defintion of your term, gun loon.

      2. I don't treat guns as a fetish object, and I know no one who does, except people on your side.

      3. America has the right to go its own way, as we have done since our beginning. You choose an arbitrary defintion of what is sophisticated (sophistry, perhaps?) and then decide that we don't meet it. What you fail to understand is that we don't care.

  5. Greggy is full of nonsense, unless he can provide conclusive proof he doesn't harbor fantasies of shooting people.

    Of course, his side is losing as fewer people own guns.

    1. What standard of proof do you operate with? I tell you that I don't harbor such fantasies. What else would satisfy you? Or do you really believe that anyone who owns a gun has that desire? Please, do commit yourself to a stand. Is that what you believe?

      I take it that you haven't seen the Gallup poll recently that claims that about half of American households have a gun? Numbers are obviously not something that you understand, either.

    2. Your own statements GC about how you carry because you intend to shoot the bad guys.

      I know you gun loonz like to pretend the bad guys are not people, but they are, legally and morally.

    3. How shocking that Dog Gone can't understand the difference between carrying for self defense and carrying with the intent to cause harm. I go out with no intention to shoot anyone. It's a good day when I come home having not fired a shot in anger. But I'm ready if the need arises. That's the difference.

    4. Oh but you do harbor such fantasies, Greg. You've told us as much. You're opinion of when lethal force is appropriate has been made very clear and it makes you part of the problem.

    5. Greg goes out every day prepared to use his firearm to shoot someone.

      I don't.

      Therefore Greg is looking for a chance to shoot someone by never venturing far from his gun, despite every indication that the appropriate and reasonable opportunity to do so is steadily diminishing.

      That is an unreasonable and unreasoning/ emotional desire to use a firearm in the face of a clear, logical lack of occasion to do so. It also represents by your actions Greg that you choose to be a vigilante, taking the law into your own hands, instead of allowing law enforcement to do their job.

      Your actions in choosing to carry a firearm not a phone tell us more about you than your protestations, which aren't very persuasive.

    6. When I wear my seatbelt, am I looking to cause a wreck? Because I have a fire extinguisher in my kitchen, am I looking to cause a fire? Being prepared does not equate to anticipating with glee or to harboring fantasies.

      Dog Gone, law enforcement does good work, but they can't be everywhere all the time. While you were gone, I told Mikeb an account of a distant relative who tried to run from thugs who eventually caught him and nearly killed him. He lives in a gun-control state. There were no cops available to save him. A concealed handgun might have done so.

      Are you volunteering to act as bodyguard for all of us?

    7. No. I'm telling you you don't need or merit a bodyguard because there isn't a real threat that justifies you needing that kind of protection.

      Further, you pose a greater threat than the one you are carrying to defend against.

    8. I forgot to mention that seat belts are passive defenses that are automatic and do not rely on your judgment to be legal or effective. They don't kill anyone.

      Guns are the opposite. They are only used to kill other people, and they are not passive OR automatic.

    9. Dog Gone wrote, "... you don't need or merit a bodyguard because there isn't a real threat that justifies you needing that kind of protection [a firearm]."

      So the 40+ million people in our nation who were victims of violent crime over the last 20 years doesn't indicate a real threat to you? That doesn't indicate that law enforcement is wholly incapable of protecting anyone?

      I have posted hard numbers from FBI Uniform Crime Reports for areas like Baltimore, Maryland, that show a family of four has about a 1 in 2 chance of at least one family member being a victim of violent crime over the course of 10 years. That isn't a real threat for you?

      Please quantify your definition of how much threat justifies "that kind of protection" (a person legally carrying a handgun)?

  6. America has the highest death by gunshot rate in the world, by far.
    Nothing new. The "Wild West" and street murders have a long history in America.
    There are 300 million private guns in America, even though guns are no longer necessary to put food on our tables, or protect us from invasion.
    Around the world, America does have a "gunloon" reputation earned by the above facts.
    American foreign policy to most countries and groups, is based on arm sales. Sales that always came back and killed our own soldiers.
    America is a violent society and guns are their weapon of choice.
    If you are a responsible gun owner and understand the dangers; than you know, some people should never be allowed to own a gun.

    1. Anonymous, you are single-handedly redeeming the good name of anonymous commenters.

      Y'all come back now, y'hear?

  7. Anonymous, so what?

    There is full and proper attribution, and links to the site where it originated. We are not seeking in any way to make a profit from it in competition with the author, It falls under fair use, as I have used it as source material, on which I have elaborated and commented, as have others.

    Further, this can be regarded as a part of the larger content of this blog, like a sub chapter in a book. That puts the excerpted piece as a much smaller reference piece of many squarely in the realm of fair use.

    But a condition of my returning and Laci returning was the resumption of moderation. If you are attemptinf to intimidate or even just annoy me I can delete you for being a troll off topic.

    Consider this your warning.

    1. Since you posted the entire copyrighted work, I have no reason to click over to the creator's site. You are depriving them of ad revenue and traffic. They were very interested to learn the details of this.

    2. Mike - say it ain't so. You are going to let these two decide what is allowed conversation on your blog?

    3. Seriously get a life dude.

    4. Seriously, Mikeb? You're going to allow Laci and Dog Gone to delete comments that they don't like again? What happened to an open discussion?

    5. Dog Gone, please put the comment moderation back on. I would disallow any comments which are off-topic and obviously meant to disrupt. Use your discretion.

    6. I see. So now, if comments don't toe the party line, they're subject to deletion?

    7. Laci and I have reinstalled moderation, we have delete privileges, AND best of all, we've just added a little experiment -- no more anonymous comments.

      It should dramatically improve the level of discourse around here - and NO, we won't be deleting comments smiply because they don't fit a party line. We will be happy to publish substantive comments that disagree with us, we're just weeding out the drek.

    8. Anonymous - who can't remain anonymous anymore - wrote

      "AnonymousJune 12, 2012 9:38 PM
      Since you posted the entire copyrighted work, I have no reason to click over to the creator's site. You are depriving them of ad revenue and traffic. They were very interested to learn the details of this."

      You know they are interested how? Or did you just get some sort of robo-response.
      They can find us here anytime; we have our email contact posted at the top of the blog.

      We are depriving them of ad revenue or traffic HOW?

      Show me how anyone who is reading this content here would otherwise have read it there instead. That will be a very interesting proposition to demonstrate, much less definitively prove. If you can't establish that, you can't establish a loss of ad revenue.

      If on the other hand, I posit that anyone looking for future updates on this topic will now be directed to that site, INCREASING their traffic, which is perfectly plausible and/or that I have expanded the awareness of their site -- which I have -- then that would be the opposite of what you (not apparently THEY) claim.

      Further, it is still squarely in the realm of fair use law. I have a very good intellectual property attorney friend to back me up if I need it.

      Which is why I presume there has been absolutely NO contact whatsoever requesting it be taken down.

      You have an active little fantasy life, don't you?

  8. It was a random, violent, and illegal action. I hope law enforcement apprehends the criminal and prosecutes him to the fullest extent of the law.

    Dog Gone's rants are pathetic. She extrapolates the action of one armed person to everyone who owns firearms. So something like 1/3 of all adults in the U.S. are wackos that fantasize about shooting someone? After all, something like 1/3 of all adults in the U.S. own a firearm.

    Here is the real story. People like Dog Gone want to control various aspects of our lives and use armed police officers to use force -- up to and including deadly force -- to achieve compliance. Armed citizens like myself do not seek to control anyone else with force. Rather we seek to be left alone to live our lives. We only use force when absolutely necessary to defend our families, ourselves and within reason our property.

    1. So you would eliminate police forces in favor of armed citizens?

    2. I never said I would eliminate police forces. They have their place -- such as tracking down the criminal in this article.

      I favor a reduced police force with a more narrow focus and many more armed citizens. If something like one in four adults were responsibly armed, the violent crime rate would be almost nil ... like it is at gun ranges and police stations.

      Law enforcement officers enforce laws after the fact. They almost never prevent criminal attacks. They are not bodyguards and they do not provide personal security. That is up to the individual.

    3. It's the same kind of "reasoning" that led to Prohibition. A few people have problems with alcohol, so we must deny drink to everyone. Freedom is a true pain to control freaks.

    4. No Crunhy we don't want to control people's lives.

      However the rest of the civilized world does just fine without being armed and dangerous to each other.

      You are on the wrong side of the issue in history, and we have a lot more gun violence than other oountries, which proves that our status quo is not a good one.

    5. Crunchy you have defective reasoning and a bad relationship to fact.

      Guns do not reduce rates of crime.

      Effective policing does. Do you need me to provide you those facts, or are you going to pull up your bootstraps and find it for yourself.

      You might want to start with this one:


      That someone who is so wrong minded and has such poor quality assumptions is armed is very sad.

    6. Dog Gone,

      The proportion of citizens that have to be armed to significantly reduce crime is an interesting topic. I don't pretend to know the magic number. What I do know is that gun ranges and police stations are above the threshold because violent crime at both are nil.

      Regardless, armed citizens have more options to endure violent crimes with fewer injuries, less severe injuries, and less loss of life. Thus I have weighed the pros and cons and decided the best course of action for me and my family.

    7. I don't know, I've heard about quite a few shootings at gun ranges, as well as gun stores that have been robbed.

      Additionally, your assertion that "armed citizens have more options to endure violent crimes with fewer injuries, less severe injuries, and less loss of life" is not borne out by peer reviewed studies.

      Studies show that open carry and concealed carry create significant risk to public safety and do little to provide safety to the gun carrier. In a study funded by the National Institutes of Health and published in the American Journal of Public Health, November 2009, epidemiologists at the University of Pennsylvania School of Medicine found that, on average, guns did not protect those who possessed them from being shot in an assault. The study found that people carrying a gun were 4.5 times more likely to be shot in an assault than those not carrying a gun.

      But, I like hearing fantasy tales, Crunchy--so keep it up.

    8. Citations for your last paragraph Laci?

      And I will find the flaw in the Pennsylvania School of Medicine epidemiologists' study ... I have researched it before and cannot recall the error off the top of my head.

      Regardless of what the study says, it is my choice whether or not I carry a gun for self-defense. If it means there is a higher probability that I will be injured, that is my choice ... the same as it is my choice if I want to live in a northern state where icy roads mean there is a much greater probability of an automobile accident resulting in death or serious injury. Neither you nor government get to make that choice for me.

    9. Come on, crunchy, you should be able to figure those things if you're as smart as you believe yourself to be.

      Especially if you came up with a critique of the scholarly study in question--you must have actually read it to have been able to done that.

      Addfitionally, if you were able actually read and comprehend the English language you would have seen "American Journal of Public Health, November 2009, epidemiologists at the University of Pennsylvania School of Medicine"

      I think that's called a cite.

      Crunchy, I would not trust your "research" for ----. The word bumpf comes to mind about your research.

      And that's the polite form (see my Vince the Fox post about how I would actually put it).

      WTF are your credentials for criticising a scholarly study that has been peer reviewed anyway?

      Quite frankly, Crunchy, you are too stupid to be able to take a ---- without a nanny, let alone try to do anything most people over the age of three do on a regular basis.

  9. Laci wrote,
    "Studies show that open carry and concealed carry create significant risk to public safety ..."

    You never responded to my much more important point. Who gave you or the government the authority to tell me how to live my life based on someone's notion of risk of death or injury to myself? That's my choice. If I want to live in a seismic zone with increased risk of death or injury from an earthquake, that is my choice. If I want to live in a northern state with an increased risk of death or injury on icy roads, that is my choice. If I want to live in tornado ally with an increased risk of death or injury from a tornado, that is my choice. If I want to eat a fat laden pastry for breakfast every day with an increased risk of heart attack, that is my choice. If I want to have a gun should a criminal attack me and it increases the risk that I am injured, that is my choice.

    Answer the question directly. Why do you or the government have the authority to evaluate the risk of and decide where I live, how I live, what I eat, etc.?????

    1. Onc again,crunchy demonstrates he doesn't understand the English language:

      Quite frankly, Crunchy, you are too stupid to be able to take a ---- without a nanny, let alone try to do anything most people over the age of three do on a regular basis.

      In more direct terms, because, Crunchy, you are too much of a shit for brains to do simple tasks let alone try to function on a normal level.

    2. Your insults are not persuasive and certainly didn't answer the question. I know you can't restrain yourself so I'll rephrase the question. Why do you or the government have the authority to evaluate the risk of and thus decide where a normal functioning citizen lives, how a normal functioning citizen lives, what a normal functioning citizen eats, etc.?

      It's a simple question, Laci. Answer it.

    3. I can answer the question:

      You never responded to my much more important point. Who gave you or the government the authority to tell me how to live my life based on someone's notion of risk of death or injury to myself?

      You have a fundamental failure to understand the nature of society and government. This understanding of the nature of government was understood by our founding fathers:

      "We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

      That is the premise under which we have things like seat belt laws relating both to the manufacture of vehicles and wearing them; it is the basis for civic government that decides things like building codes and zoning codes (which I believe covers your question about where you live -- ever hear of eminent domain? it is a VERY old concept of legitimate government). Why could that be a legitimate aspect of government - the answer lies in historic experience, ranging from plagues to mass fires, which we learned how to minimize by telling people where they could live - how far apart buildings had to be, how they had to live, etc.
      What a normal functioning citizen EATS? You really object to what......food safety inspections and standards? Things like requiring ingredient lists so people with allergies don't drop dead? Are you unfamiliar with things like the scandals in China where people die from tainted crap in their food supply? We currently have controversies in Minnesota with requiring people not to sell or consume raw milk. We have had rashes of deaths from that-including children who have supremel stupid parents who did things like gave them raw milk and told them to drink it which killed them ---those helpless kids deserved the protection of government. Protection from raw milk AND STUPID PARENTS WHO DID DANGEROUS THINGS.

      THAT is the function of government - to address those things, and within reason to tell citizens what they can and cannot do.

      You are a dolt, an idiot, a fool --- an extraordinarily UNEDUCATED fool Crunchy, who holds uninformed opinions that are stupid. That is an insult, but it also a serious statement of fact about your position, which is a massive FAILURE.

    4. Crunchy, you have a fundamental problem with understanding the English language.

      Dog Gone has far more patience for your stupidity than I do and did a better job of explaining things.

      Maybe, just maybe, you might understand what she said.

      But I seriously doubt it from what little interaction I have had with you.

      I suggest that you reread what I wrote and what Dog Gone has written several times. Work very hard to understand what she has said.

      Try to understand how ignorant your responses are to what we have written.

      I am not insulting you, Crunchy, you are just showing me that you are someone who just isn't at an intellectual or educational level to try to have a discussion with me.

    5. I am going to add something else, Crunchy, you see things that aren't there such as my posts in anyway support your position.

      While missing some things which are there Such as "American Journal of Public Health, November 2009, epidemiologists at the University of Pennsylvania School of Medicine"

      That's a cite, Crunchy, and that's the Second time I've pointed it out to you.

      My response to your silly "genocide" post totally refutes it.

      So, if I say you have shit for brains, it's because you are missing some pretty obvious things.

      Additionally, you lack some basic understanding of society.

      But, if you are saying that you are a moronic, worthless human being whose death would be no loss to society--I couldn't agree with you more.

      That is indeed the best reason you have given us for your having a gun.

      But the problem is that no only are you a danger to yourself because of your stupidity, you are a danger to others as well.

      But, even though that has been spelled out for you, crunchy, I doubt you will understand it.

      You're just too stupid.

    6. Laci wrote,
      "My response to your silly 'genocide' post totally refutes it."

      My post didn't refer to and I never typed the word genocide. I typed democide and referred exclusively to it.

      I will say it again democide, NOT genocide. And you accuse me of having reading comprehension deficits?

    7. Dog Gone,

      Many people including myself disagree with your assertion about the role of government. All of the instances where government has overstepped its authority continue only because people don't have enough muscle or motivation to repeal them. The fact that those oversteps exist does not make them moral or right.

      I fully support government efforts to educate people on the risks and benefits of various items and lifestyle choices. I fully support government inspections of the food supply. I fully support government or professional classification of items (e.g. "EnergyStar" appliances). Those efforts enable citizens to make informed choices. Those efforts clearly "promote the general Welfare". What I refute is the government's authority to evaluate the risks and benefits for me and tell me what to do. It is my liberty to decide. Government has no business telling me how much sugar or fat I can eat, where I choose to live, whether I drive a small car or large car, or whether I choose to face an attacker armed or unarmed.

      This doesn't make me a dolt, idiot, or fool. It makes me an independent individual, responsible for and accountable to myself.

      Regarding your eminent domain comment, government is required to compensate the citizen to put them in a similar or better situation. Government does not take away their property and leave them with nothing.

      As for the rest of your examples the government response was how to make them safer, not to eliminate them.

      But thank you for illustrating that gun control proponents view everyone as children who are incapable of making "good" choices and require government to make their choices for them.

    8. http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/democide


      The word you've entered isn't in the dictionary. Click on a spelling suggestion below or try again using the search bar above.

      When you've learned to deal with reality, crunchy, maybe we can have a discussion, but if you are making shit up as you go along, then you win.

      That's because facts don't fit into your world.

    9. Democide could be a made-up word which denotes that type of commenter who would like to kill democommie.

  10. http://m.yahoo.com/w/legobpengine/news/mont-authorities-hitchhiker-shot-himself-162754188.html?orig_host_hdr=news.yahoo.com&.intl=US&.lang=en-US

    Seems Mr.Walkabout was a hidden criminal.....