Skip to comments.Searching for the tipping point on gun control (barf alert)
Posted on 09/24/2013 5:41:06 AM PDT by rellimpank
How does change happen?
More to the point, in the wake of 12 gun murders in the Navy Yard and a 3-year-old shot in Chicago: Why doesn't change happen when the need seems so obvious?
It seems obvious that military-style weapons with no hunting or self-defense purpose should not be circulating. It seems obvious that people who hear voices and repeatedly fire guns in anger should be treated before they can buy more guns.
Yet nine months after the school shooting that was supposed to shift these propositions from obvious to undeniable, not much has changed, and no one expects much to change.
One reason is that even people who agree there is a problem disagree on targets for reform: handguns, semiautomatic weapons, multi-round magazines, waiting periods, gun shows, mental health exemptions, gun locks, concealed carry and more. No single change will "solve" the problem.
The more important factor is that the opposition to reform is focused, passionate, unyielding and indefatigable.
You could argue that this principle of singlemindedness call it the National Rifle Association Rule can explain, in reverse, the greatest example of change achieved so far this century: the growing acceptance of gay marriage. Once advocates of gay rights coalesced around marriage (as opposed to, say, workplace rights) as their unitary goal, they were focused, passionate, unyielding and indefatigable. Many Americans are strongly opposed, but few are uniquely focused on stopping same-sex marriage.
(Excerpt) Read more at jsonline.com ...
20 years ago MEXICO banned its citizens from owning GUNS...and look what happened: DRUG GANGS TOOK OVER...this guy is an idiot who doesnt understand whose side OBAMA is really on
I second the author's question! We see clearly that gun free zones invite shootings. Wherever lawful gun ownership is constrained, the murder rate goes up. When will this change?? When will people get smart on this issue?
Funny how the Left never mentions that this guy was granted a Secret clearance by the Obama administration. How much more of a background check do they want?
Being something of a student of history, I happen to know of cases where people were violently murdered WITHOUT the use of guns.
Yes, it’s true! Bows and arrows, swords, spears, guns, knives and clubs were actually able to kill people for thousands of years before guns were even invented.
IF the genie could be put back in the bottle, and all guns everywhere ceased to exist, and all knowledge of guns ceased to exist, murder would not cease. We would simply revert to the methods of murder which predated guns.
But the ONE THING that ALL these murders had in common was people! A person was killed! And a person did the killing!
So perhaps we might focus our attention on the PEOPLE, rather than the weapon? If our intention is actually to prevent/minimize murder.
But perhaps, the real objective of ‘gun control’ is not to reduce murder. Perhaps, it adherents - as is so often the case - are not against violence in principle. Rather they are against violence being perpetrated AGAINST THEMSELVES, and quite willing to inflict violence UPON OTHERS to achieve their ends.
Wow. The writer could not have be born this stupid - he must have worked really hard at it.
This school shooting was supposed to do that, huh?
Well that didn't work, so some more maniacs were trotted out?
Lather, rinse, repeat?
Regardless of what these shooting events are supposed to do, they only increase the resolve of those of us who will remain armed for self defense, from whatever threat.
ping for later
What else can you expect from a douche bag who is the editorial page editor of the Wash (com)Post. People like him are the enemy - more so than any ragged fundamentalist in Afganistan. people like Freddy boy will get you killed when his beloved police come to take your guns.
Aholes like him are a much more pressing threat than muslim terrorists. He's one of the anti-gunners that I've mentioned before. You can't bargain with them because they have nothing to offer - all they want is to take your freedom. They don't want to give you anything and in truth they have nothing to give. You can't reason with them because their hatred of freedom isn't based on reason, but is an outgrowth of their blind worship of the power of the state. (Notice they never want to disarm their beloved police, so they aren't against guns per se, but OUR ownership of guns) They feel neither remorse nor pity When there is a mass shooting what they feel is a thrill, joy and eleation that they have something to wring emotions with because the know they position is logicially untenable.
And they absolutely won't stop ever until we're totally disarmed and at the mercy of their JBTs, we're killed by their beloved police "resisting arrest" or enough of them and their JBTs are killed to send them back under their rocks.
Currently there is no downside for people like Freddy boy. He has absolutely nothing to lose. it's all one sided. that has to change - I'm just not sure how without breaking any laws.
He didn't build that himself, he had to go to a university.
I wish that Obama was as friendly to my firearm ownership as he is for Syrian terrorists:
Washington (CNN) — Reluctant approval from Congress for providing military support to [Georgia citizens] allows the Obama administration to move forward with plans first announced almost six weeks ago.
White House spokesman Jay Carney told reporters on Tuesday that the goal of the military aid expected to include small arms, ammunition and perhaps anti-tank weapons is to keep the [Georgia citizens] going against [hoodlums] aligned with President [Obama’s] regime.
Noting [Obama’s people] have been helped by [practically everyone] as well as [others], Carney said [Georgia citizens] need the help of the United States to withstand an increase[ingly deteriorating society].
This idiot has inadvertently found the "disconnect" between the fantasy world of the gun banning folks and the real world in which most people reside.
"seems" is the key word.
The need for "change" (read: more gun laws) SEEMS obvious (to him, in his fantasy world of easy solutions).
However, in the real world, rational people understand that the need for "change" is actually NOT obvious, and in fact, is nonexistent.
But just four your education, sir, you may want to look at what has happened all over America since 1986. In the last 27 years, every state has had this debate, and in every case, every state has decided that increasing citizens' ability to carry a concealed weapon is an improvement.
I'm sorry, but your ideas are not as popular, or as logical, or as wise, as you think they are. And IF you should decide to circumvent the system using the power of the media, and a President with little regard for the Legislative process, and a philosophy of taking advantage of high-profile, emotional public events, then you may well push things past that tipping point... and the nation may well find out why ammunition sales have set records lately, and why our American Revolution was ignited when the British went after the firearms stores at Lexington and Concord.
About 700 British Army regulars, under Lieutenant Colonel Francis Smith, were given secret orders to capture and destroy military supplies that were reportedly stored by the Massachusetts militia at Concord.
That, apparently, was his plan.
Based on his choice of words, an argument could be made that he has admitted to being complicit in that shooting.
“Being something of a student of history, I happen to know of cases where people were violently murdered WITHOUT the use of guns.”
You mean Hannibal didn’t have a traveling circus?
When the police are just minutes away, run to the ballerina next door for help.
A cute little dance will slow down the bad guys until the police arrive.
This was yet another mass shooting at a gun-free zone, because soldiers for some reason aren't allowed to carry there. Even though some people on the left think that the Second Amendment only applies to soldiers. Maybe one of the survivors could raise a federal lawsuit that his Second Amendment rights were violated on base.
1) An AR-15 is an excellent self-defense weapon
2) The perp's initial weapon was a Remington 870 shotgun which, last I checked, is an excellent hunting firearm.
So exactly what is this pinhead's point? This is why the gun-grabbers are so transparent - they immediately propose laws that have nothing to do with averting these shootings.
Wrong Fred. Make self-defense legal.
So 17 states have not changed, but the other 33 have all changed, and in every case, they voted for increased firearms freedom.
Mea culpa for making a too-sweeping statement.
It's called a degree in Journalism.
All of these horrible atrocities coming under the Mahdi’s regime, IMHO, clearly are not coincidences and probably are deliberate. Heres a post from Sept. 18 by FReeper Responsibility2d
which shows that, of the 12 mass shooting incidents involving 12 or more deaths that occurred since 1949, 5 (nearly 42%) occurred under the Mahdi, starting in 2009 and going through 2013. Combine that with the hundreds of people killed with Fast and Furious weapons walked across the border and deliberately supplied to the Mexican drug cartels to kill people and create mayhem to promote destruction of the Second Amendment, and its clear we have a criminal, homicidal regime thats out to promote and facilitate these atrocities so it can destroy the Constitution.
Indeed, IMHO, the NSA data gathering comes into this because it enables the regime to scan social media and chat rooms to find unstable individuals who might be inclined to perpetrate these horrors and develop them into genuine, effective mass murderers.
Especially after Breitbart and Hastings dying under what I consider to be questionable circumstances.
It’s called CHOICE. If you don’t want a gun, don’t have one.
The liberals seem to like that kind of talking point.
So a simple pump shotgun is a military weapon with no sporting purpose? Who knew?
***It seems obvious that military-style weapons with no hunting or self-defense purpose should not be circulating.***
Self defense purpose? Why do so many politicians keep body guards armed with these weapons, to defend themselves if they are not suitable for self defense?
Besides, the Navy yard shooter used a pump action, tube fed SHOTGUN. No easy replaceable extended magazine and it only held FOUR SHELLS.
For those who need a history lesson.....
It has always been about handguns. Assault rifles are just a decoy to try and get their anti-gun foot in the door.
Once they get a ban on AWs then they will use the same reasons to go after handguns.
John Kennedy killed with a 5 shot bolt action rifle.
Officer Tippit killed with a 6 shot revolver.
Charles Whitman, killed 14, wounded 32 others mostly with a bolt action 6mm hunting rifle. Also used a shotgun and an m1 carbine.
Medgar Evers, shot with a 5 shot 1917 bolt action Enfield rifle.
Martin Luther King, shot with a 4 shot Remington 760 pump action Gamemaster rifle.
Bobby Kennedy with a .22 Iver Johnson Cadet revolver.
George Wallace wounded with a 5 shot Charter Arms .38spl revolver.
Howard Johnsons shooter (Mark Essex) killed nine, wounded thirteen with a 4 shot RUGER .44 mag Deerslayer rifle.
Gerald Ford attacked with a 7 shot 1911 semi auto.
Edmond OK post office with two National Guard 7 shot 1911 pistols.
SF mayor Moscone and his homo toadie killed with a 6 shot revolver.
John Lennon murdered with a 5 shot Charter Arms revolver.
Ronald Reagan and Jim Brady with an RG-14 .22 revolver.
Ronald Gene Simmons: killed sixteen people. Strangled half his family, shot the other half with a .22 single action six shot revolver.
What do they all have in common? NONE over 7 rounds, yet after each one came a cry of panic to ban all of them.
As I said many times, they will use any excuse to ban your guns.
When I read the article, I was impressed by the repeated use of “obviously”, by the writer. However, what seems most “obvious” is that people who advocate gun control seem to be stuck in the paradox that they only have a limited number of ideas, and those ideas don’t work at all. In fact, those old, tired ideas are counterproductive.
Which also makes it blindingly “obvious” that people who advocate gun control, are not doing so for the reasons they claim, but with ulterior motives.
So “obviously” by not discerning what those ulterior motives may be, the writer is not doing his job.
—yep—anything that uses “obvious” and “common sense” is suspect-—
Here is a tipping point technology (CLGG) that should be miniaturized. It can use methane directly, or reformer technology to produce hydrogen for propellant. Utilizing hydrogen stored as hydride could be an enabler. Due to muzzle velocity, it would be line of sight trajectory for those of average skills. Combining counter-recoil with reasonable weight are critical. A fuel cell drawing upon propellant would enable electrical sub-systems to self power. Methane can be DIY. Projectiles usable with the firing pressures produced need evaluation.
See a movie that was 40 years ahead of its time The Parallax View.
Tagline from the movie: There is no conspiracy. Just twelve people dead.
1) An AR-15 is an excellent self-defense weapon
In an open area definately however I beg to differ based on what I see as the most likely short range and/or indoor scenario , a .223 will severely over-penetrate in most homes/buildings ... I’d say a shorter larger bore weapon with less velocity would be better ,, say a Kimber 1911.
When I grad this article, the complete lack of critical thinking is the first thing that leaps to mind: the author completely neglects to evaluate his own assumptions and never ever considers alternative points of view. Pathetic.
Critical thinking is contra-indicated when promoting gun control, because the facts run absolutely counter the proposal. Mostly gun control is about “feeling.
Lets start with the concept of “gun violence” and “gun deaths.” Many nations have a MUCH higher incidence of murder and violence than the USA and a far lower incidence of “gun violence” or “gun deaths.” Does it really matter how a person is wounded or killed, whether it is by a gun versus a machete? The concept of “gun violence” and “gun deaths” is simply absurd.
Next, we can address the effectiveness of gun control. Recreational drugs are illegal, and billions are spent to interdict them, but the supply remains plentiful. There is no reason to believe that gun control will be any more effective at keeping guns out criminal hands than it is at stopping the flow of illegal drugs. The most heavily “gun controlled” cities in this country are the the most violent. Gun control only disarms honest people who use firearms for recreation and self defense. Criminals, by definition, don’t obey the law.
The relationship of guns to violence can also be addressed. There exist societies in which there are large numbers of military type firearms in private hands, Switzerland for instance, and where crime, including “gun deaths” are very low. Gun ownership is not an indicator of “gun violence” or “gun deaths.”
Guns are an equalizer between the weak and the strong, between the individual and the mob. Without a firearm, a smaller person is at the mercy of the larger, and an individual is at the mercy of the mob. With a firearm, he stands a chance against both. Women are especially affected by this. It comes as no surprise that most of the recent mob violence like “the knock-out game” occurs in gun-contolled urban areas and states where thugs know their victims will be unarmed.
It is very simple. There is no reason to deny the law abiding arms, there is every reason not to, and there are no valid gun control arguments against this. If we really wanted to address violent crime we’d be locking entire segments of society into concentration camps, but that, of course, would be both a civil rights violation and worse (according to Progressives) “racist.”
Freedom always entails responsibility and risk. I will accept these and take my chances with freedom, firearms, and rationality.