Death comes in threes…
A lot of people believe that anyway. They link three deaths together and say, “See? I told you.” Truthfully, the only real thing that usually links those deaths is the person’s beliefs. They connect dots that are not really connected.
The American Political Left is doing that now with gun deaths. President Obama called for gun control after the Islamic terrorist attack in California. He did that before the police cars left the crime scene. California has very tough gun laws. It didn’t seem to help. And congresswoman Nancy Pelosi had just said common sense gun reforms worked in California. How much farther from reality could that statement get?
The dots just don’t connect.
Neil deGrasse Tyson sent out a tweet that stated 3,400 people have died from terrorists in the USA since 2001, but 3,400 people have died from guns in the last 5 weeks. It was a statement designed to shock America into a rush for gun control.
However 60% of those gun deaths were suicide and most of the rest were criminal activity. Neither of those categories would be affected much by gun control. Apparently, Mr. Tyson is no longer a scientist.
He’s connecting dots that are not really connected.
Knowing that 90% of gun deaths in the US are suicide or criminal activity should logically reduce the emotional cry for stricter gun laws. But there are some other categories that we should examine. And if there are things we can do, we should consider them. Reducing gun deaths by 5-10% is a goal worth pursuing.
Terrorist attacks are in the news.
It’s a nightmare for citizens from Paris to San Bernardino. In the USA, there seems to be two major categories that are reoccurring. Islamic terrorist attacks like California, Boston and Fort Hood are one kind. Teen psycho terrorism attacks like Columbine and Aurora is the other major reoccurring type.
And they’re quite different.
More gun laws will not stop Islamic terrorist attacks. They make bombs out of welding supplies. If you’re motivated by a death cult, anything can become a weapon. There may be a solution, but it’s not gun control. When you look at how strict the laws are in Paris and how many people died there, you know those dots do not connect.
A reduction in teen psycho terrorism may be attainable. It looks like most of those perps have psychiatrists. They are taking meds. They play first person shooter computer/video games and they have access to guns. We can break that chain at the doctor level, the parent level or at the school level. Training and legal responsibility for any of the adults involved might mostly end this type of attack.
Most of the other shootings are accidental.
Like kids and adults that somehow have a gun in their hand without any training. This seems largely to be a problem of too many guns. They end up in wrong places. There are inherited guns. There are unsecured gun collections. There are personal security guns that end up with someone other than the owner. It’s difficult to come up with a real solution that would fit all the scenarios.
Buy-back programs could get a lot of these guns off the street.
Incentives to have trigger locks and gun safes would help also. However these types of shootings are not our country’s big problem. These issues don’t relate to mass shootings. So those dots do not connect either.
When you hear people demanding more gun control after an Islamic terror attack you have to realize that their solutions are not fact driven.
All of us could see it when President Obama was in Paris days after an Islamic terror attack and said the USA is the only place these things happen. It was a stunning disconnect. We can only imagine how the French felt when he said it. So let’s be careful to do the right things and not the emotional things. Let’s make sure the changes we make will solve our actual problems.
We all need to connect the right dots.
And the Left needs to kind to people who are really trying to think it through. They’re not the enemy.
The Right needs to be kind to people who just want to do something even if it doesn’t really help. Those people are driven by emotions and truly believe they are doing good things. They’re not our enemies, they’re just connecting the wrong dots.
Nice, reasoned article, MV. I agree it is a complex issue. I also know if nothing is done, nothing will change. The USA loves their guns. Loves! God and guns, baby. Don’t mess with either one or you are un-American.
Gun nuts and bible thumpers. Having a rational debate with either of these groups is impossible.
The next mass shooting in 3, 2, 1…..
But the shootings are not the same.
The problem can’t be solved thinking that they are.
It is like trying to get well by saying we need to get rid of illness.
Illness is too complex for one pill.
You conveniently forgot the most common category of terrorism in our part of the country which is radical Christian terrorism. The shootings at the Jewish Center in Leawood and the Planned Parenthood facility in Colorado Springs are prime examples.
I say if anybody shoots people based on a religious belief, their place of worship, be it a mosque, synagogue, or church, should be held liable.
I did leave out Christian terrorism.
Thanks for adding another type of mass killing that would not be affected by gun control.
The obvious worst example would be Oklahoma City.
It was a bombing that used fertilizer.
I think it is clear that those who are willing to break murder laws will also break gun control laws.
It is presumptuous of you to say that any act of terrorism that involves the use of a gun would be unaffected by gun control. Just stopping one in 1,000 could save a life.
I agree with you Stomper. “Gun control” is such a broad term. It’s real easy to say gun control doesn’t work.
To say there are no steps we can take to make gun owners more accountable and weapons less likely to fall into the hands of would be evil-doers is cowardly and lazy.
That’s a great point Mark. I agree with you, why are we even outlawing murder. Murder should be perfectly legal so you and I can enjoy what the criminals are already enjoying
Quoting KCMonarch – “To say there are no steps we can take to make gun owners more accountable and weapons less likely to fall into the hands of would be evil-doers is cowardly and lazy.”
It’s not that it’s cowardly and lazy. It’s that it’s not profitable. Let’s face it, the likelihood of a politician having their kids’ or wife’s or husband’s brains splattered all over the place is such a low risk that it’s worth taking easy cash.
Miller, nor McVey killed “in the name of the Lord”.
They killed out hatred-one hated Jewish folk, the other one hated the government.
Just saying.
There might be a confusion of correlation and causation with your comment on teens and video games, but I like the article until the last paragraph.
“The Right needs to be kind to people who just want to do something even if it doesn’t really help. Those people are driven by emotions and truly believe they are doing good things. They’re not our enemies, they’re just connecting the wrong dots.’
The “Culture War” is drawing blood and people are literally dying because of the soft tyranny of Political Correctness. Progressives are not just “connecting the wrong dots”, they are, in conjunction with the media and the ‘”New Demographic”, at the behest of the traitor in the White House, “Fundamentally Changing” America into a Fascist, Statist, Marxist country, where a Midwestern, below average Division 1 football team can cashier top administrators over perceived slights and specious accusations of “Racism”.
Neighbors across the street from Syed Farook were afraid to call the police when they observed what was patently dangerous activity, in order to avoid being called “Racist”. The American public square is filled with victims in the “Stocks” for running afoul of extemporaneous, self appointed enforcers of crime speak and crime thought. Job loss, public opprobrium, marginalization and now, our Attorney General promises to “Prosecute” those whom she or any of the hundreds of million Progressives deem “Violent” speech against Muslims.
Enemies?
You make the call.
As always, the art is really cool.
you seriously are the dumbest m-f I’ve ever read on the internet.
what did someone hit you in the head with shovel while digging a
ditch for “the man”…….
Racism ?? I thought Mark was talking about gun control.
Thinking that the Progressive Agenda that includes the “Gun Control” issue is not part of the “Culture War” is WILLFULLY IMPERCIPIENT.
” WILLFULLY IMPERCIPIENT ” A colorful phrase that you have made your own. A search of the phrase leads one to the Thomas Hardy verse. Is that the genesis of your usage?
It is just a self explanatory phrase.
I did just see, last week, “Far From The Maddening Crowd” and enjoyed it.
🙂
I wish the world was perfect, but The Right tends to make Good the enemy of Perfect.
Take the Good and mover closer to Perfect. Don’t yell at the Good because it falls short.
STICK TO ART VALENTINE…AND KEEP YOUR MOUTH SHUT AFTER THAT BECAUSE YOU’RE JUST EXPANDING THE FALLACY OF GUN CONTROL.
Your art shows a very strange look at life which is not what most americans
consider “trash”. I thnink its kind of cool but Im sure you’re one of those
starving artists!!!!!
Had you kept your mouth shut and listened to what was being asked to do
by gun ctonrol advocates was not what you say.
The plan was to pass laws guaranteeing background checks on all gun purchase…
which according to poll was wanted by almost 80% of americasn. Even hunters
and nra members we’re for this after newton but not valentine…the starving
artist.
Laws were talked about limiting size of magazines….approved by 75% of all
americans…..
most Americas…way over 60% want reasonable sane gun laws that might
save one life or two or even 14.
Close the gun show loophole was approved by 70% of americans when they
knw what was going on.
Of course we cant end all gun violence…its in America’s blood to want to
have these old white men without any more power…without any more
say in how the nation is run…as they die off who want to keep their guns and their
powerful armaments. I think its crazy when one of their kids picks up a gun and
kills someone innocently.
sLook at canada… England….france…even the middle east states….look at
south America…..and you se how they handle their guns.
So valentine…stick to those crumby ass caricatures you draw at state fairs and
shut your mouth about any other subject.
We have trouble fighting people who don’t mind dying…and that’s what makes this
terror was so hard to fight.
If you’re so serious about the terrorists…then I’m sure they can find a seat
for you to the caliphate to fight them.
You’re a chicken shit….and half your story is full of unproven statements.
stick to a brush and palette….that way you won’t make yourself and the
Nazi loving/vile digusting/bald headed buddy of your look like such fools
and idiots in front of the kcc audience.
Now go paint a picture of some dog…I’m sure you do well with animals.
First, when you start name calling and telling people to not speak, you have lost the ability to make any reasonable point. Come on, Harley!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!(did I spell that right?)
Second, you have missed the point. Maybe that is my fault for not writing clearly enough.
The things that you listed as a gun control wish list will have no effect on suicide, terrorism or criminal shootings.
I clearly wrote that if we could effect 5% of gun deaths, we should consider that.
If you are saying it would change terrorists, criminals or those who want to commit suicide, I suggest you to show that in a more intelligent discussion rather than poorly thought out insults.
FYI: I am not aware of being friends with anybody on this list.
I won’t respond to the other personal insults but I thought I should protect the reputation of whatever bald guy you put me with.
C’est moi!
I got off lucky, he usually includes my many other imperfections. Short, fat, old, ugly and now “dumb m-f”.
🙂
Chuck, Harley can’t even understand English, you shouldn’t be throwing foreign languages at him.
“I clearly wrote that if we could effect 5% of gun deaths, we should consider that.”
But we can’t. Oh well, Mark. We all know it’s the thought that counts… and the prayers, the signs held in front of the face, the ice cubes poured on ones head.
I don’t understand this or your response above.
It seems like you are only willing to respond to some Right Wing line from another writer.
If you can’t respond to this piece, maybe you should hold your stock responses until you read a piece that they fit.
I believe the quote was from you. That’s why I put it in quotes. I apologize if you didn’t say that. Maybe someone hacked your account, I don’t know. You seemed to be suggesting that you were for gun control if it would help, but you felt that it wouldn’t, especially for terrorists. I would argue that not all terrorists are innovative and industrious go-getters, especially some of your lone wolves who want to help the cause “if they can”. Weapons are probably not gonna be able to be brought over from overseas, so they will have to be bought here. The laziest person can buy weapons at a gun show with no legal consequences on the seller and no questions asked of the buyer. Sellers at gun shows should have the same responsibilities as licensed dealers. I might be wrong, but I’m under the impression that it’s not that difficult for a licensed dealer to become a private seller when he sells at a gun show, thus allowing him not to have to abide by the laws requiring background checks. I know that if I were a terrorist, the first places I would be going to would be the gun shows, especially the ones across the street from the mall.
You state 60% of gun deaths are suicide and crime-related, then two paragraphs later, 90%. ???
more 60% is suicide only.
New York Times:
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/10/09/upshot/gun-deaths-are-mostly-suicides.html?_r=0
No … read the first sentence of paras five and seven again. (Sorry, I’m nit-picking.)
^4% suicide
another source:
http://www.annualreviews.org/doi/pdf/10.1146/annurev-publhealth-031914-122535
64%..sorry
Same in Harvard study…suicide is the largest % od gun deaths
http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/magazine-features/guns-and-suicide-the-hidden-toll/
You probably already made the point, but what is the point that 60%, or 90% or 4%? of gun deaths are suicide as opposed to homocide? I didn’t read the article that you refer to, and I’m sure that she had a point in bringing it up in her article. What is your point in reciting that statistic?
Interesting piece Mark. Recognizing that there is the potential for common ground from you is refreshing.
The gun lobby has done a masterful job of creating the illusion that “gun control” means removing the 2nd amendment right to possess firearms. Those advocating for background checks are not looking to take anyone’s guns away. Just looking for baby steps. Sort of like the “Brady Bill”. That’s what taking a shot at Reagan will do.
Chuck: “Madding.”
My fingers have a mind of their own.
🙂
Thanks for the catch.
My pleasure.
I would note the UK – where gun laws are the strictest – has a gun death rate 1/40th of the USA. All else is talk.
If you are following the conversation and not echoing talking points, you will see that most US gun deaths are suicide. So in The UK they commit suicide using different methods.
But I agree that gun deaths could be reduced by removing as many guns from the population as we can. That was clearly stated in the article.
It will not have much effect on terrorism and the increased drum beat for more gun control is in response to a terrorist act.
You bring up an information point that does not connect to the headlines.
I assume it is something that is emotionally satisfying to you.
Nick is not the only commenter here that brings up points not connected to the headline but that may be emotionally satisfying to the commenter. What is related to the topic and what is not, is the choice of the commenter. I mean no offense but Chuck is the poster boy for that point. If you toss a topic out there, Mark, that’s a byproduct of your effort. Enjoy the attention of your readers.
I do agree that the issue of terrorism, especially those where bombs and not guns are used, makes the topic of gun control a separate topic.
Finally, I can’t let your point above in an earlier response go unchallenged. ” I think it is clear that those who are willing to break murder laws will break gun laws.” So you’re saying we shouldn’t have laws against murder because they get broken?
No. But murder is a perfect example of how our society considers intent as part of the crime.
1st Degree Murder. murder, manslaughter are all different kinds of murder. We have done this for a long time
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murder_%28United_States_law%29
Suicides per 100,000 people per year in UK – 6.2; in the United States that’s 12.1: less guns equals less violence, period.
Less guns/stricter regulation will equal less “terrorism”, especially the home-grown “go shoot people because…whatevah.”
It seems to work in nearly every other “civilized” nation; facts are readily available to support said thesis. I suggest you start with Australia and Port Arthur, where they reacted in a reasonable fashion, as opposed to, well…pick a mass shooting in the U.S., where we’ve done exactly nothing. Well, nothing but spout bullshit about why we need our guns.
Which is nothing but misconnecting dots…
But the point of the article is that arguing for gun control as a response to the terror attack does not connect.
You seem to be saying, “I don’t want to comment on the point of the article. I want to argue for gun control.”
…well, thank you for making my point.
Arguing for gun control regulation as a response to terrorist attacks does connect; if hand guns and assault weapons were banned in this country, for instance, and enforced with the vigor that the UK does, there would not only be fewer overall gun-related deaths, but the possibility of terrorist incidents would decrease proportionally, as it would that much harder to locate weapons and munitions.
It’s just not that hard, dude.
So, the right’s answer to the problem of guns here is prayer and more of it (By God…) and to bomb the $hit out of whatever country/muslim organization that aggrieves us this week. Those sound like pretty horrible solutions to me but what do I know.
Nick,
Paris is a living recent example of why you are probably wrong.
Your thoughts are speculation. Paris and San Bernardino are real.
You sound a lot like the Marx Brothers, “Who are you going to believe, me or your own eyes?”
the dude,
That is a strawman argument. You refuted it perfectly…but I never made that argument.
I guess we are in different conversations.
No my response is not a strawman, that is what the right is saying, RIGHT NOW. Do you watch and read the news?
What I am saying is the right has ZERO solutions to the gun problem here. They just want to pray and well wish the problem away and we all know that won’t solve $hit.
The left wants to put out some kind of gun ban or more strict criteria on WHO can buy guns. At least they are trying to do something real about it instead of consulting a higher power that will do NOTHING to remedy the situation. I think they will get shouted down because, MURICUH.
What is your solution?
Mark,
No – France is a different plate of sauteed mushrooms; there is no comparison between the French gun laws and the UK, especially in how said laws are enforced. Moreover the two countries differ wildly in how they approach border security.
Moreover the lack of outrageous gun deaths, whether individual or en mass, in the UK is not speculation. It’s a fact that right-leaning individuals and groups in America do not want to recognize. ’cause…’Murica!
What are you gonna believe? Statistical facts or pundits pushing an agenda…
French gun laws date back to April 18, 1939, though they have been amended a number of times since. They are certainly tough: There is no right to bear arms for the French, and to own a gun, you need a hunting or sporting license which needs to be repeatedly renewed and requires a psychological evaluation.
According to Gun Policy, a project by the University of Sydney, the punishment for illegally having a gun is a maximum of seven years in prison and a fine. In 2012, the French government estimated that there were at least 7.5 million guns legally in circulation.
As The Post’s Thomas Gibbons-Neff notes, the men who attacked Charlie Hebdo appeared to be carrying two different types of Kalashnikov rifles. Such weapons are highly restricted and require extremely stringent background checks to buy (CNN describes it as rivaling the “clearance work done by the FBI for anybody employed at the White House”).
Mark, you are making contradictory statements in both your piece as well as your comments in response to readers. It seems you want to say that gun control laws won’t work in situations where only bombs are used (ok, some potential merit there) but the example in your piece was a terrorist act where guns WERE used ( so your example was beyond poor). YOU made the point that the Left and Obama were wrong in connecting the dots between terrorism and gun control, then you criticize the gun laws in California and criticize Pelosi for the statement that common sense guns laws in California work when the shooting occurred in California. Are you saying that laws that are not 100% successful in preventing the act that is the intent of the law means the laws are failures? If laws against murder don’t work 100% of the time does that mean the laws are not lowering the frequency of murder? Laws against speeding are not 100% successful in preventing speeding, but no one questions that those laws are valuable. And, what difference does it make that the gun crime may be a suicide or a criminal act. They are all bad things that happen through the use of a gun. Who cares about the intent ( 1st degree murder, murder, manslaughter). Somebody died because of the use of a gun. End of story. KC Monarch called you out on the Christian terrorist acts and mentioned two where guns were used and your answer used the Oklahoma City bombing where guns were not used to attempt to discredit him. You say something credible like “don’t let good be the enemy of perfect” and admit that gun laws may reduce gun deaths by 5 – 10% but then say something nonsensical like gun laws won’t work in cases like terrorist acts ( with or without a distinction of the use of guns) , suicides, criminal activity, etc. Huh ???
I think the only thing that those advocating gun control are saying is that when crimes are committed ( terror whether domestic, foreign or religious , any murder, suicide, criminal activity, whatever, where a gun is used and especially when someone dies) maybe we should look at the circumstances of how the gun was acquired, did the person committing the crime legally acquire the weapon, and consider tightening up the laws with regards to acquiring guns. Start small like maybe just looking at people with a history of mental issue. Maybe just those convicted of felonies. Maybe just those on a no fly list. Again, no one is looking to take your guns away.
I find it very curious that the overwhelming majority of gun owners ( and the majority of NRA members) are in favor of some additional, common sense laws relating to gun laws and background checks yet the NRA shuts them out of the discussion.
Remember Mark, you are the one that chose the terrorist shooting ( with guns) as your example and then attempt to make the point that gun control won’t work with terrorist acts. I think the legal term for your transgression of making a statement and then criticizing others for responding to that statment in the manner they did is “Estoppel”.
You had a great topic but you were careless with your examples and inconsistent with your statements. I appreciate your efforts and intentions with the piece but I know you can do better.
No one really knows what the wager is.
I asked Glazer a couple of articles ago, the day of the Paris attacks, what the over under would be on the next attack. What is at risk? Not a metaphorical or philosophical bet, but what does everyone think the bet, the wager, will be?
How many people will die because we don’t have enough guns, or, because we have too many guns? What is your guess, your bet, your wager and how many guns will it take to keep you, me, us safe and our families, if the ongoing civil and political unrest, which is now common in many of our big cities every summer, continues to metastasize? Who will be turning in these guns after laws are passed and who will not? Law abiding citizens will comply, criminals will not. Will the Police keep you safe? You personally, for you and your family, will make that decision, in spite of what the Imperium demands.
Stats are interesting and useful tools when trying to predict the future. It is still a crap shoot. The myriad variables that relate to maintaining the Rule Of Law, in my opinion, seem to indicate, that chaos and entropy will continue to demand more and more of our concern. Our President with the DOJ, in conjunction with the Democrat Party and the MSM has launched an all out assault on Police Departments all over the US. The fears we have of increased criminality and increased terrorism should not pale in significance to the fears we should entertain with regard to our own Government and the dark, Marxist forces that energize it.
The Jews in the Warsaw Ghetto, held off the Nazis for 2 months with little ammunition and a paucity of ordnance. The same for the Lodz Jews.
“I should like to cite the resistance which the Lodz Ghetto Jews have displayed on a number of occasions and which, while they were unarmed, was nevertheless intense and heroic. ” JEWISH LABOR UNDERGROUND.
The success (Make no mistake about it, the coverage of the Paris and California attacks, insure, categorically, that this is the new boilerplate strategy for Terrorists all over the world. With little planning and small arms, the disruption and destruction visited on our civilization is guaranteed. This in turn, changes the larger variables that relate, again to the Rule Of Law and the enforcement of same.
I think, as time passes, you and your family, will not be safer, you will be more and more vulnerable, by way of the aforementioned certainties. The Rule Of Law is under attack and your police department is emasculated and more concerned with Political Correctness then Law Enforcement. In addition, the added stress of increased terrorist attacks as a result of suicidal large scale immigration policies, open border/Sanctuary City insanity, cavalier enforcement of Federal and State Laws insure a degradation of personal and community safety while exposing traditional law abiding citizens to violence.
My bet is that it will get worse and the one thing no one mentions, in this argument all day, is potential. Potential for the real thing. Not just a couple of buildings in New York, but the real thing, brought across the open border, the components to effect a real time disaster on “Soft targets” that damage the grid, destroy a city, a stadium, who knows.
It will be unprecedented. Just. Like. 9/11.
That pistol just might come in handy after all.
Great article. It was well thought out, accurate, and to the point. The largest number of homicides still comes from crime, often referred to as intercity crime. No gun laws, passed or contemplated, will do anything to stop that, since the perpetrators are not inclined to follow laws. The best thing for the this group is capital punishment or true life sentencing, denying the second offense. It is not known how many guns have deterred crimes, but we get a hint when a potential victim uses a firearm for protection, and it makes the news. Successfully used, it also denies that second offense. Hollywood still misses the point. In the movie, A Time to Kill, our defendent charges out of a closet with an AR15, or is it? Nope, it’s a fully automatic M16, that our defendent could only have acquired by robbing a National Guard Armoury. So much for reality. As far as terrorism goes, it is terrorism in my book when a perpetrator wants to kill a large number whether that is at Columbine or Santa Barbara, whether it is an attention seeker, a mentally impared individual, or a religious fanatic. The radical Islamic terrorist believes he or she is a Muslim, whether or not our President believes it. It is past time to think carefully and propose solutions that will work.
C’mon Cowboy. You say no gun law would do anything to stop intercity crime and then in the next sentence you described the type of gun law that would do just that. The gun law doesn’t require the bad guy be stopped from acquiring the gun and using it to be considered successful. If, just once, the law puts an additional arrow in the quiver of a prosecuting attorney and imposes capital punishment or lifetime sentence on a bad guy, then one life might be saved. To me, that’s a success story. Laws are tools for law enforcement and can be very focused and limited. Yeah, bad guys don’t follow the law but bad guys also are typically repeat offenders. Going after the repeaters ( intercity crime?) seems like a good place to take our first baby steps in gun laws.
Cowboy, I have no great problem with gun ownership and the conceal and carry laws. When I go out to dinner or a movie with family or friends, I’m guessing a pretty good number of the people around me are armed. I know the bad guys have guns and I have no problem with the good guys having guns. Gun sales are through the roof and the lines in the stores increase with every story on crime. Gun laws don’t mean you are losing your guns or your gun rights. Gun laws don’t mean good guys are getting punished. I just don’t get it that gun owners that are within the law don’t see that. Do you really think that the federal government is so evil that you don’t want them to know you have a weapon?
Most of this conversation is great, especially the parts that are fact driven.
Still, in today’s real context, the call for stricter gun laws is a response to a terror attack.
San Bernadino was foreign attack on the USA. The evidence is becoming more clear every day. Trained and funded by radical Islam, these terrorists killed American mental health workers. They planned something bigger, but lost their temper.
No gun law would have effected them. This has been a good discussion that is disconnected from the headlines. The current call for gun control is a political move to shift blame from the terrorists to domestic political opponents.
I would tell you about how the Left never lets a crisis go to waste and this is SOP, but, I am busy covering up the fact that Black Lives only matter when I am not up for election. I do hope, that you Popolo Minuto refrain from purchasing any ordnance so as to reduce the exposure of any Social Justice Warriors in the streets of Chicago (Where our Gun Laws are showing the Nation how things would be if America adopted OUR plan for Gun Control.), that might be taking the day off from work (snicker) to “Fundamentally Change” the world by example and deed. Those crazy kids can sure get chippy, but, slavery…
You continue to say that gun laws won’t affect terrorist acts without a distinction between whether the terrorist acts involved guns or not. You continue to try to make a distinction between calls for gun control between terrorist acts and “non-terrorist ??” acts. The definition of what is a terrorist act and what it is not is not black and white. What the perpetrator had in his or her mind with regards to motivation and labeling that motivation is impossible to state with 100% accuracy. Two of the assault rifles used in the San Bernadino shooting were bought by Enrique Martinez who shortly after the tragedy was in a mental facility. The Columbine shooting was modeled as a result of the Oklahoma City bombing and one of the perpetrators had documented mental health issues, along with the fact the Jefferson County officials were given a heads up about issues that lead to the tragedy there. The perpetrator of the Sandy Hook shooting had documented mental health issues. The Colorado Springs Planned Parenthood shooting has been labeled domestic terrorism with the perpetrator making anti-abortion statements when he was taken into custody. My point is that it is extremely difficult, and certainly not beneficial to try to put each tragedy of gun deaths into a neat and easily defineable box of foreign terrorism, domestic terrorism, anti-semitic, anti-abortion, mental health issue, or something else. Lots of gray and lots of overlap. Maybe the only common thread is that guns were used to kill innocent people. You are correct, one certainly cannot say with 100% accuracy that a focused and specific gun law would prevent a tragedy. Likewise, one cannot say with 100% accuracy that a focused and specific gun law would not prevent a tragedy. For you to say that no gun law would prevent what you try to force fit into a terrorism attack definition is inane. You praise the use of “facts” by those in the discussion here but facts that don’t fit into the rhetoric of your position are discredited.
In my day job, I’m in the business of “Risk”. Everyday I’m in discussions of “Risk versus Reward” topics. Is the chance of a loss so catastrophic that there is no question that proactive steps to address it are warranted? Is the expense to address this potential for catastrophic loss so minimal in comparison that you wouldn’t think twice about it. San Bernadino – 14 dead, Columbine – 12 dead, Sandy Hook – 27 dead, Colorado Springs – 3 dead, Jewish Community Center – 3 dead. Prayer alone doesn’t seem to be working. Remind me, what was Eistein’s definition of insanity?
Is it possible that those against any laws on gun control might agree that certain individuals, certain psychological profiles might not deserve the opportunity to buy or possess a firearm? Maybe those with documented mental health issues, maybe felons convicted of violent crimes, maybe those on a no-fly list? It appears that the potential for finding some common ground between those in favor of gun control laws and those against gun control laws lies in the area of mental health. Maybe we should consider a narrowly worded, specifically focused law that addresses that profile?
It appears that the response suggested by those against any type of gun control to these continuing tragedies is for every person over the age of 18 to openly carry an automatic weapon with no restrictions. The only thing that can stop a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun, right? Do you agree with that statement? Ok, let’s try that solution. It’s clear that not doing anything is not working.
And Chuck, to respond to your question on the over/under date of the next attack, I’d say before the end of the year.
All pretty good thoughts…until you said we are doing nothing.
We have done and are doing a lot after every event.
I stand by my thoughts:
1. The vast majority of gun violence is suicide and criminal. I cited numerous sources in this thread. Nobody has disagreed. They will not be effected by laws. they are already acting outside the law.
2. Terrorists have less to do with guns than intent. If you have the intent, the guns are not very relevant. history has clearly shown that.
3. I am not suggesting that we do nothing. I am suggesting The Left is using this as an inappropriate response to Terrorism.
You are also suggesting that the left is using it as an inappropriate response to suicide and criminal activity which you suggest can’t be remedied by laws. See number 1 of your comment. If you think about it, that essentially leaves nothing. All gun violence is either criminal activity against another, or suicide against oneself. * Why don’t you just admit that you don’t want gun control. It’s just an opinion after all
*Or self defense, but that’s not the issue here.
I believe, that he is saying, again, that the conflation of thousands of Terrorist Attacks by Muslims with the Gun Control issue is disingenuous agitprop designed to acquire power for the Progressive Narrative on the backs of the dead. How the guns were acquired by the Terrorists, legally or illegally is peripheral in the big picture, because Terrorist Attacks are not planned with a Gun Control Law caveat.
It is doubtful, that much of any premeditated illegal activity, with few exceptions, designed to inflict harm that uses guns, is curtailed by current Gun Control Laws. Hence, the insistence on the Left that the California attacks by Muslim terrorists be seen as another failure of legislation serves two purposes, to enhance the power of the Left in the “Culture War” and distract the hoi polloi from the real problem, open borders, sanctuary cities and immigration policies, legal and illegal.
Your personal record for comments is 66 and I’m really trying to get you to 67 here but I’m going to need some help. It’s a great topic that needs to be rewarded.
🙂
Stomper, the next attack, in my opinion, might be on Trump. He has planted his foot square into a nest of poisonous, viper journalists on the right and the left who, in conjunction with the Republocrats want him dead, not just out of the race, but dead.
He is not a “Soft Target” but a desirable one for those who are increasingly rabid in condemnation of his right to state an opinion that both those on the Left and Right find untoward and unacceptable. He is moving the needle in the Overton Window and THAT is a death sentence in the new Fascist Amerika.
Killing him early, before Feb, would be the best opportunity. I hope the guy is taking his personal safety seriously. The only “Jay Vee” operating now we need to worry about is the Secret Service. Their track record as of late is sketchy.
Interesting thought Chuck. I hope you’re wrong but I see your point. I do think Trumps’comments were made with the intent to fire up his base but unfortunately I also think recruiting for ISIS just got supercharged, especially with those potential recruits in this country. To have the leading candidate of one of the major parties target ALL Muslims and say that America, the country that has been the desired destination for immigrants seeking a better life for centuries now should bar ALL Muslims, plays right into their radical rhetoric for recruitment. ISIS would probably do a better job of protecting him than would the Secret Service.
Lets return to the Big Casino.
When Glazer bets on or against the Chiefs, there is a time frame and predictable variables based on his ability to assess information from the past and his prescience with respect to the next contest. He sees, as do all gamblers, the variables as static to a certain point. He knows the injury reports, the players, the weather, if it is home or away etc. etc. etc.
Again, the variables are static in the sense that they are short term and relate to recent contests. Expectations and wagers are made by Glazer and millions more, based on that paradigm, which adheres to a short term time line. If in fact, the rules changed at Half Time and the Glazer was not aware of what the new rules were, or, even if he was aware of the new rules (Canadian Football Rules in the 2nd Half! the field is 50 yards wider!), he would be far less likely to gamble, or, at least change his betting strategy as best he could, to accommodate the unpredictability of the 2nd half. For instance, he may bet on teams with more speed guys because the field is wider, etc. etc. The rules change and the bets change and, THE EXPOSURE FOR LOSS CHANGES.
“To have the leading candidate of one of the major parties target ALL Muslims and say that America, the country that has been the desired destination for immigrants seeking a better life for centuries now should bar ALL Muslims,…”
Things have changed. The wagers are now life and death, not just for the folks who are exposed to a culture that finds the West anathema, but for the continuation of the Occident period. The wagers are now the destruction of the Grid, a “Twin Tower Type” catastrophe, poison in the water supply, gas on the subway and, of course, gunfire in a neighborhood near you.
The media incessantly “Sought answers…” and “tried to find a reason…” and looked at “Work place violence…” in it’s despicable and deceptive efforts to make the Gun Control red herring a major talking point, when, anyone with room fu**in temperature knew exactly what this was, another Paris type attack here in America, effected entirely within the scope of Islam and the Terror that Islam has wrought for 30 years, and, since the year 711 on the Iberian Peninsula (The President, moron that he is, implies at the bully pulpit, that the “Crusades” were the impetus for this millennial conflict.).
Laura Ingram, last night, while criticizing Trump for his ban on all Muslim immigration, blurted out something that is so, so true in my opinion. It wasn’t just extemporaneous, it was parasympathetic. She suddenly blurted out, that “Americans don’t think Trump is crazy, they think Washington is crazy.”
Muslim immigration should stop and stop now.
for gods sake you vile animal…shut up.
I apologize Harley, for driving you crazy, getting under your exoskeleton and making it tough for you to enjoy your life, living under the floor somewhere in a crawl space with your family of retarded spiders.
My hope for you, is to have a better day. Perhaps some rat will venture too close and you can drop onto his back, crawl through the fleas, find a soft spot in his crotch and suck until your heart is content.
You deserve that buddy.
🙂
“. . .60% of those gun deaths were suicide and most of the rest were criminal activity.”
This line got a lot of play but very little actual discussion. First, I love how you lump “criminal activity” together without any real explanation. To be clear, what happened in San Bernardino was “criminal activity.”
Second, I also think it is ADORABLE how you simply reference criminal activity as if criminal activity is simply not possible to stop. For the record, much of the left you seek to demonize is trying to also stop all the “criminal activity.” Simply referencing it and then baldly asserting that it can’t be stopped ignores the facts and the arguments. It’s a proposition made without any support.
Here, let me try: “Hearne Christopher bitches a lot about Kansas City and the Star but most of his bitching concerns institutions that preceded him and will live on long after he is gone, so his complaining won’t do any good.” Now, what I said my be true (it probably is), but it’s an assertion made with zero support and merely asks the reader to take it on faith that it is correct.
Which I guess is why KC Confidential has been unsuccessful at making the Star disappear even though Hearne is still butthurt after having been fired from it years ago.
Gavin,
Thanks for a thoughtful response.
So over 60% of gun deaths are suicide. We established that with several sources.
As much as 80% of the remaining gun deaths are gang related.:
http://www.nij.gov/topics/crime/gun-violence/pages/welcome.aspx
As in all crimes, intent is an important consideration.
But since we are actually talking about gun control being an inappropriate response to terrorism, you must admit a terrorist has the kind of intent that will not be swayed by these laws.
I have said clearly that I am not against a bit more gun control. It is just becoming more clear every day that this is a political move against The Right rather than practical move against terrorism.
When you say terrorism, you are obviously talking about the kind of terrorism you would see in the Die Hard movies. Fortunately for the terrorist, there isn’t that high of a bar to become one. All you need is to commit a violent act (doesn’t need to be murder, but that will work), with the intention to intimidate others, to further your political goal or goals. I’ll admit, you aren’t gonna stop the Hans Gruber’s of the world with gun control. They are way to fanatical. But you might stop some of your Frazier Glenn Cross’ of the world who are more bark than their bite until you are willing to provide them all the teeth without much effort. And the important thing is that the Frazier Glenn Cross’ of the world can achieve the same body counts in many cases as the Hans Gruber’s can.
It is an interesting point. Maybe the lesser, less motivated terrorists would change their minds or wait for something less planned and more opportunistic.
You must admit, that your reply seems to clearly support the point that gun control as a response to San Bernadino is more political than practical.
My comment supports whatever will make you happy
It is kind of hard to be happy when we are talking politics. On some level, everybody is wrong.
What motivates a terrorist to go after a soft target?
Gang related homicides:
Check the last graph (government stats)
https://www.nationalgangcenter.gov/survey-analysis/measuring-the-extent-of-gang-problems