If we can turn the cultural and political momentum around on gun grabbing, can we do it on big government, too?
We’ll find out. I think that Pelosi, Reid and Obama have awakened a sleeping giant. The “Silent Majority” is finally speaking up.
[Update a couple minutes later]
From a surprising source — liberals should defend the Second Amendment:
while liberals certainly do not argue for lawlessness, and will acknowledge the necessity of certain restrictions, it is generally understood that liberals fight to broadly interpret and expand our rights and to question the necessity and wisdom of any restrictions of them.
Liberals can quote legal precedent, news reports, and exhaustive studies. They can talk about the intentions of the Founders. They can argue at length against the tyranny of the government. And they will, almost without exception, conclude the necessity of respecting, and not restricting, civil liberties.
Except for one: the right to keep and bear arms.
When it comes to discussing the Second Amendment, liberals check rational thought at the door. They dismiss approximately 40% of American households that own one or more guns, and those who fight to protect the Second Amendment, as “gun nuts.” They argue for greater restrictions. And they pursue these policies at the risk of alienating voters who might otherwise vote for Democrats.
And they do so in a way that is wholly inconsistent with their approach to all of our other civil liberties.
Of course, true liberals (as opposed to “progressives”) have always supported the Second Amendment. But I can understand why those who want government to rule the people wouldn’t like it.
[Update a few minutes later]
There are over 1400 comments, most of them the usual (“but what about nukes and cannons?” dorm-room stuff), but I was amused to see a little side thread among some of the leftists about the relative virtues of .357 versus .44 Magnum, and carryability. Diversity!
1)”Hence if someone has a CW I would be highly suspicious that they are a thug ”
Really Superman? That X-Ray vision sure comes in handy. Concealed means concealed, got it?
2)”If I was a thug I think I would have a CW (perhaps including a permit). Thugs are more likely to get into a situation that requires a CW than anyone else, so by this cost/benefit calculation they should be the ones to have one.”
Uhh…you do understand you have to be over 21 and be a non-felon to obtain a permit right? You also have to be a non-felon to legally own a gun.
You also understand that thugs by definition are outlaws and do not obey gun control laws of any sort, no matter how ‘reasonable’ some Brady or VPC dimwit tries and claim they are?
Seriously Pete, where do you come from to have such a f-ed up understanding of things? You are arguing chartacteur and speculation when there are volumes of emperical data to show that legit CCW permit holders are not a threat to society. The level of abuse by liscenced permit holders is so low, it is background noise. The VPC recently got caught just making up incidents there are so few to use as grist.
I got a better idea, how about whe try Thug control instead? It seems to be working quite well where it has been tried.
Mabey we should try harder.
Problem with gang violence statistics is that jurisdictions do not uniformly express whether the victim was in fact a gang member in either the category definition or in a breakdown. So, we don’t precisely know to what extent thugs go go after shopkeepers, kids doing their damnedest to stay out of a set, parents and other family members of those kids, and others a weapon might be used to protect.
I do know that something like 55% of all murder victims have felony records.
Some of my LE buds call these ‘TFB’ shootings or ‘Too F-king Bad’.
The Brady s want to thinkg it Ward Cleaver owns a gun, he is gonna get pissed and bust a cap in the Beaver’s ass.
The majority of murders are drug-related. In addition to banning Thugs, ending the war on some drugs would help reduce this too.
I’ve seen upwards 80-90 percent in data specific to certain cities (it’s not clear whether we’re talking felony convictions or what). On the other hand, the remainder isn’t negligible by-catch.
Pete
“If I was a thug I think I would have a CW (perhaps including a permit).”
Are you kidding? Can you be that unserious? I mean come on, your statement is so ignorant of the law that it’s hardly different from trolling.
It’s a federal crime in the U.S. for a person with a felony criminal record to possess a firearm or even possess a single round of ammunition. And it’s been this way since 1968.
“Thugs without [guns] do not tend to kill”
In reality, even in America only about 2/3 of murders involve the use of firearms. Knives, clubs and unarmed attack account for most of the rest. Mexico has a homicide rate three times the rate of the U.S. despite the fact that only 20% of Mexican murders involve a firearm.
Dude, you’re embarrassing yourself.
“If I was a thug I think I would have a CW (perhaps including a permit).”
Are you kidding? Can you be that unserious? I mean come on, your statement is so ignorant of the law that it’s hardly different from trolling.
Are you saying that some thugs are not clever enough to avoid a felony charge and get a permit?
In my experience people intent on carrying weapons, legally or illegally (other than as a professional necessity), often have thuggish tendencies. There is an old saying, how do you tell the prisoners from the prison guards – one lot has the keys. I do not entirely trust people who like guns – especially in public places, guns select for thugs (permitted or not).
“Thugs without [guns] do not tend to kill”
I should have perhaps qualified that a little more, non lethal weapons do not tend to kill people as often or in as larger numbers as lethal weapons do, though such incidents might be much more common. What proportion of multiple murders do not involve guns?
My guess is they’re smart enough, or at least watched enough cop shows, not to leave such an obvious paper trail.
The idea of the smart criminal is a myth of hollywood. Criminals commit crimes because they are too stupid, lazy, drug addicted, and/or poorly socialized to get and keep productive legitimate work. A majority of crimes, if not directly drug related, can be connected to drug use economically, basically drug addicts who lose their jobs wind up committing a lot of petty property crimes to support their drug habits: muggings, purse snatchings, holdups, bank robberies, burglaries, car thefts, car jackings, kidnappings, babynappings. Addicts also get sucked into prostitution to support their habits and from there become at risk of sex crime.
Most criminals actually aren’t armed because if they get busted, a weapons charge will add five years onto their sentence and make it harder to plea bargain. Those who are armed are usually the most dangerous and NEVER have a clean record.
Other than a pissed off husband/exhusband/wife/exwife/ex-lover, etc in which an otherwise upstanding and previously nonoffending person goes nuts and kills the person who pissed them off, you will never see someone go to buy a gun legally who intends to suddenly change their formerly clean life and start robbing banks, or become a serial killer.
The domestic violence issue is generally well dealt with here in the US by the courts, when someone gets a restraining order against someone for domestic violence, the cops usually get ordered by the judge to go collect any guns or other weapons owned by the object of the restraining order, and they are prevented by the InstaCheck system from purchasing a gun once that order is entered into the system.
So its actually pretty difficult for someone to obtain a weapon without a lot of careful planning if they have a record of any kind. They have to do it on the black market, buying weapons that are either bought by a straw buyer in another state, or are stolen weapons, stolen by drug addict burglars from homes where the owner doesnt secure their weapons properly. Usually handgun owners leave their handguns in the home in jurisdictions that make it difficult for them to carry them outside the home, with restrictive gun control laws, so there is another way that gun control creates crime opportunities.
In my experience people intent on carrying weapons, legally or illegally (other than as a professional necessity), often have thuggish tendencies.
Why should we think this is anything but observer bias?
“Are you saying that some thugs are not clever enough to avoid a felony charge and get a permit? ”
Yep. If there is evidence of this happening, it is well-hidden or near non-existant.
In my experience people intent on carrying weapons, legally or illegally (other than as a professional necessity), often have thuggish tendencies. There is an old saying, how do you tell the prisoners from the prison guards – one lot has the keys. I do not entirely trust people who like guns – especially in public places, guns select for thugs (permitted or not).
In my experience, there is a name for people who think others who legally excerise their constutional protected rights are thugs.
We call them Bigots, Pete.
Again Pete, just WTF do you live to have such a fucked-up view of reality?
In my experience people intent on carrying weapons, legally or illegally (other than as a professional necessity), often have thuggish tendencies.
Says the hoplophobic thug intent on using force to strip other individuals of their rights. Bizzare worldview ya have there.
“Memphis Commercial Appeal –
Robbers pick wrong target; two shot, one killed by gun-toting victim
By Clay Bailey
Saturday, July 3, 2010
Two would-be robbers forgot to ask their victim a key question:
Do you have a gun and know how to use it?
The 21-year-old Bartlett man’s answer might have prevented the two 16-year-olds from being shot.
Instead, an exchange of gunfire between the Bartlett man and the robbers Wednesday night left one teenager dead and the other wounded.
Alyssa Moore, a spokeswoman for Memphis police, said authorities have not released the names of the robber who was killed or the other teenager, who was in noncritical condition.
The robbery portion of the case is still under investigation and charges are pending. State prosecutor Thomas Henderson said Friday the office will not prosecute the potential robbery victim, saying his actions appear justified.
The man, who works for a local gun range, declined comment Friday. He asked that his name not be published because authorities told him the attempted robbery may be gang-related.
The shootout occurred about 10 p.m. Wednesday at the Edgewater Apartments east of Sycamore View and south of Raleigh-LaGrange.
According to Moore, one of the suspects fired at the man during an attempted robbery.
The victim, who was within 3 feet of one robber and about 10 from the other, fired five shots, four of them striking the would-be robbers.
According to the state Department of Public Safety, the potential victim is a licensed handgun permit holder.
–– Clay Bailey: 529-2393
Scripps Lighthouse
“
Here is a comment on that shooting by a local trainer:
“My best guess is that this is another Tom Givens trained shooter. Over the past fifteen years his students have gone 51-2 against criminals in Memphis.”
51 to 2. That is 25.5 dead thugs per citizen. Only an idiot could argue with a success ratio like that.
In my experience people intent on carrying weapons, legally or illegally (other than as a professional necessity), often have thuggish tendencies.
Why should we think this is anything but observer bias?
Quite possible, but would you think that the correlation between people who think about violence, and people who do violence, would be an inverse one?
Again Pete:
Where do you live?
“Quite possible, but would you think that the correlation between people who think about violence, and people who do violence, would be an inverse one?”
What do you call it when real world data fails to support your simplistic “correlation equals causation” hypothesis?
In my experience, there is a name for people who think others who legally excerise their constutional protected rights are thugs.
We call them Bigots, Pete.
I am not sure that word means what you think it means.
Do you think the founding fathers had rifles and an organized militia in mind when writing the constitution? Or lone self appointed individuals carrying concealed handguns out in general society?
Most of the rest of world is quite happy to form an armed militia with rifles, why is the US so different? I am sure this is not always the case but this attraction to concealed handguns comes across as serious personal insecurity issues, is the US really such an insecure place? Do such US citizens feel the need to carry concealed handguns when in other first world countries?
Again Pete, just WTF do you live to have such a fucked-up view of reality?
Well, I have been spending a fair bit of time in Oakland of late, maybe that explains it.
Are you even from the US?
“Quite possible, but would you think that the correlation between people who think about violence, and people who do violence, would be an inverse one?”
What do you call it when real world data fails to support your simplistic “correlation equals causation” hypothesis?
Did I say there was a direct causal relationship? Did I say there was anything simple about it? Do you really think that people of the US are the only people who know anything about violence? Why is the US mostly alone among first world countries with regard to concealed handguns? Not even Israel, where there would seem a much greater need for an armed militia, is into handguns as much as the US. If concealed handguns are so great, why is the US in a minority on this issue?
Are you even from the US?
No I am not from the US, therefore I know nothing of violence and guns and all my arguments are nonsense. Obviously the world ends at the US border.
Have you ever even been outside of the US? Unlike the majority of your fellow citizens?
“If concealed handguns are so great, why is the US in a minority on this issue?”
So we come from making a fallacious correlation does not equal casuation to the argumentum ad numerum fallacy.
What part of 25.5 to 1 do you not understand?
“We call them Bigots, Pete.
I am not sure that word means what you think it means. ”
Oh, I am sure.
Pete’s more interested in debating with strawmen and making arguments based on the principle that might makes right.
I was going to post a remark with links refuting Pete’s absurd claims, including clever pithy comments, but it’s late and I’m tired. Not to mention more than a few folks have already knocked the legs out from under his position.
Short form: you don’t know what you’re talking about, Pete.
Clue: every year (we just passed July 4) thousands of people talk about the “liberal” ideas of the Declaration of Independence, or of the idealistic ideas of the Founding Fathers.
In fact, the American Revolution is practically the only truly conservative revolution on record. The Rebels -this is the key point- were defending their rights as Englishmen. One of those rights was to carry and bear arms.
Later on Britain revoked that right from their subjects.
But then, the difference between the European concept of “subjects,” and the American concept of “free citizens” just underlines the difference. I doubt Pete will ever understand the true meaning of Gadsden’ flag…