Today on Blogcritics
Home » Gun Control Mania: Fear and Ignorance on the Left

Gun Control Mania: Fear and Ignorance on the Left

Please Share...Tweet about this on Twitter0Share on Facebook0Share on Google+0Share on LinkedIn0Pin on Pinterest0Share on TumblrShare on StumbleUpon0Share on Reddit0Email this to someone

On The McLaughlin Group this morning they were discussing the shootings at Virginia Tech, and MSNBC's Lawrence O'Donnell seemed on the verge of violence of his own, as he made shooting motions with his hands, literally frothed at the mouth, and shouted down Pat Buchanan to say:

O'Donnell: It was a high-tech killing because the magazines he was using in his automatic weapon were illegal during the Clinton administration. He would not have been able to buy them if George Bush and the Republican Congress did not allow them to become sold to mentally ill people like this… There were kids on that campus who were brave enough and big enough to stop one person with a gun unless it was an automatic weapon that could spray the bullets, just spray them, Pat. That's why they couldn't stop him.

Buchanan: He didn't spray them. Who stopped him? Men with guns came on the campus. The good guys. If they'd been on campus there wouldn't have been that problem.

O'Donnell: If he'd had to squeeze one bullet at a time he wouldn't…

Buchanan: He did.

O'Donnell: No he didn't. You hold that trigger and it sprays. That's what he was doing. He was spraying the bullets.

Buchanan: You don't know anything about guns. That was a semi-automatic weapon.

That brief exchange told me something about the left's support of gun control that I had never realized before. They fear guns. They even hate guns. But they don't know a damned thing about them. Their crusade against guns is born primarily out of the kind of ignorance, misinformation, and unreasoning fear which Lawrence O'Donnell showed this morning.

I suppose that to make my point I have to catalog O'Donnell's factual errors.

1. The two guns Cho used in his killings did not have magazines which were banned during the Clinton administration. The Glock can take a larger magazine, but in Cho's video it is shown with the standard one which was never banned.

2. The Bush administration and the Republican Congress didn't pass any law to make selling guns to crazy people legal. The assault weapons ban expiration was built into the original bill by the Democrat congress which passed it. Plus the existing background check law precludes selling guns to people who are documented to be mentally ill.

3. Buchanan pointed out the largest error. These were not fully automatic weapons, just semi-automatic pistols. There was none of O'Donnell's "spraying" of bullets going on. Each shot had to be squeezed off and aimed individually. You can't just hold down the trigger and spray with these guns. The fact is that Cho slowly and deliberately shot each person he killed.

I suppose it is in man's nature to fear what he doesn't understand, but unless you want to live in a state of constant fear, the response to that fear should be to seek knowledge, because sometimes when we understand something it's less frightening and we can respond to it rationally rather than in a panic.

Lawrence O'Donnell and much of the left are in an irrational panic when it comes to guns. They want to ban them and control them because they don't understand them. They fear them yet they don't really know what they do or how they work. They just know that they're scary. This is not a mental condition you should make decisions or pass laws in. Good lawmaking requires an informed opinion and a rational mindset. O'Donnell has demonstrated that they have neither.

That kind of ignorance of a subject ought to disqualify you from expressing an opinion on it. Why should we take someone like O'Donnell seriously when he can't be bothered to learn how guns work, the difference between different types of guns, or even the history and content of the gun laws he's discussing?

O'Donnell is an "objective" journalist and a supposed expert commentator. If he's this ignorant and emotion-driven on this issue, imagine how completely uninformed and irrational the average gun opponent must be. It scares me to think that people like this could be making laws which impact my rights and safety as a citizen.

It's something we should all be worried about. I'm going to put my worries on hold for now, though. The gun show closes in four hours and I want to stop by and renew my NRA membership while I still can.

Powered by

About Dave Nalle

  • Arch Conservative

    Semi-automatic? Automatic? Spraying bullets?

    I think you and I are pretty much in the same camp with regard to gun ownership and control Dave but I don’t see why it is absolutely necessary to know the technical details of guns such as automatic vs. semiautomatic, caliber, clip count etc…..to formulate a reasoned argument on either side of the issue. Isn’t it enough to know that all guns may provide an easy method for one to kill or harm another person if they so choose?

    When I have children, which will most likely be in the next several years, I do not intend to have guns in my home. I believe that the only reason I would ever have one would be for protection if someone broke in. However I would fear that one of my children might find the gun, no matter how well hidden and secure, and have an unfortunate accident. So I choose never to have guns in my home. That’s my personal choice.

    However, I do believe that other law abiding responsible Americans should have the right to own and bear arms in their own homes as a method of protection or enjoyment if one pursues target shooting or something along those lines. I do believe in background checks and waiting periods
    I also believe it is incumbent upon all of us as a society to encourage, promote and facilitate the proper education of those seeking to become gun owners. Just because you buy a gun doesn’t mean you know how to use it. Indeed it is even more so incumbent upon the individual to ensure that they educate themselves.

    Many on the left oppose gun ownership because they truly believe it would lead to less gun related fatalities in this country. While I can respect the desire to reduce gun fatalities I am completely at a loss to understand how any reasonable intelligent person would think that repealing the 2nd amendment would actually do so.

    As the saying goes”whens gun’s are outlawed only outlaws will own guns.”

    The only thing that repealing the 2nd amendment would do would be to make it more difficult for the peaceful law abiding citizens to protect themselves from those amongst us who are violent, anti scoial and have no respect for the lives of others.

    And that is downright stupid no matter how you look at it.

  • Lumpy

    If you’re going to talk about guns u ought to at least know the difference between a simple automatically fed pistol and a fucking machinegun. Spraying bullets from a p38 my ass. More liberal buffoonery on parade.

  • http://www.roblogpolitics.blogspot.com RJ

    “Lawrence O’Donnell and much of the left are in an irrational panic when it comes to guns. They want to ban them and control them because they don’t understand them.”

    This is so very true. Pretty much anyone who has had any real-world experience with guns supports the Second Amendment and the right of law-abiding people to bear arms. Unfortunately, leftist media types usually don’t have any real-world experience with guns, so they ignorantly think they are inherently evil.

    Lawrence O’Donnell has zero credibility when it comes to firearms, or really anything else given his pathetic track record…

  • http://www.roblogpolitics.blogspot.com RJ

    “I want to stop by and renew my NRA membership while I still can.”

    Amen! I’m probably going to renew my membership in the NRA now as well. Our Constitutional gun rights are under assault, and all American gun owners need to stand up and defend their rights.

  • http://www.elitebloggers.com Dave Nalle

    Plus I got into the gun show for free by renewing my membership while I was there.

    Dave

  • Louis Orlando

    As a retired law enforcement officer I can tell you that the police cannot protect you against an assault of any kind. Police react to crimes, they are not a preemptive force. If two thugs broke into Mr. Odonnell’s home armed with a baseball bat and a tire iron, I’m sure Mr. O’Donnell could appeal to them on humanitarian grounds, but I’m also fairly certain he’d rather have a Colt .45 in his when he did it.

  • MCH

    Re #4;
    You own a gun? Trying to compensate for something, are we?

  • http://www.elitebloggers.com Dave Nalle

    Technically he didn’t say he owned a gun. He said he belonged to the NRA. Plenty of NRA members don’t own guns.

    And Louis, you echo what I’ve heard from every police officer I’ve ever discussed this issue with. There’s a reason why police support concealed carry and castle laws.

    Dave

  • MCH

    “When I have children…I do not intend to have guns in my home. I believe that the only reason I would ever have one would be for protection if someone broke in. However I would fear that one of my children might find the gun, no matter how well hidden and secure, and have an unfortunate accident. So I choose never to have guns in my home.”
    – Arch/Bing

    Yeah, I mean, why would a guy leave a loaded hunting rifle by the back door, for the purpose of killing stray dogs and mountain lions, with a young daughter in the house?

  • http://www.elitebloggers.com Dave Nalle

    I believe your question answers itself, Emmy.

    And AC, if you don’t have guns in the house and don’t teach your kids about guns, what happens when they go over to a friend’s house and unbeknownst to you encounter a gun?

    It makes more sense to me to teach kids about guns from an early age. Teach them to stay away from them and eventually how to use them. That works and it’s for the best for them.

    And again, it’s the person who’s the danger, not the gun. Teach the person to respect the gun and be responsible and there’s no danger.

    Dave

  • http://www.antequeravillarental.com Christopher Rose

    This is one of those cases where your ideals are let down by the reality of the world, Dave. I can’t imagine what kind of a country the USA would be if every single citizen was armed, but it would be a country I would never visit. I’d rather go to current day Iraq!

  • Ruvy in Jerusalem

    Chris,

    It sticks in my craw to do this (defend American society), but I feel I have to say this: you were once a soldier, and you certainly know one gun from another, but you seem to have forgotten that. An armed citizenry is not dangerous. A culture of violence is. There is a world of difference between the two.

    What America suffers from is a culture of violence, and its media push this culture all the time. In addition, Americans drink too damned much. Americans are no more violent than Israelis are – except that Americans are more likely to let an argument escalate into a shooting incident than Israelis. In addition, the freer flowing alcohol in American society raises the level of violence there. Add the alcohol to the guns and a culture of violence, and you have a dangerous place.

    For all this, if more Americans were armed as a matter of course, and if more Americans knew one weapon from another, instead of condemning them sight unseen, America would be a less violent and safer country. The irresponsible use of a gun would be more likely met with a bullet – and stopped. Think about Switzerland – where nearly all the men own guns and shooting is the national sport.

  • http://www.elitebloggers.com Dave Nalle

    Chris, see Ruvy’s response. I certainly could not have said it better. And keep in mind that he comes from a society where everyone is armed. For that matter, everyone in Iraq is armed. You might want to consider a different vacation destination.

    Dave

  • http://www.antequeravillarental.com Christopher Rose

    Ruvy and Dave, when people are entirely rational beings, your ideas might possibly be worth considering. As it is, they simply sound like unworkable social engineering fantasies to me.

  • mi

    right on the money. i just read a great column on this revisionist spin on current events. looks like they aren’t even waiting for it to be history.

  • zingzing

    ruvy: “An armed citizenry is not dangerous. A culture of violence is. There is a world of difference between the two.”

    how about when the armed citizenry and the culture of violence exist in the same world? in the same country even…

    there may be a difference between the two, but they don’t exist seperately. in fact, they feed off each other, don’t they?

  • ss

    2/13/07 Teen Gunman Kills 5 in Utah Mall

    4/16/07 32 Killed in Virginia Tech Massacre

    Name one country with strict gun control where a shooting spree that killd five people was followed 8 weeks later by a shooting spree that 32 people.

  • http://ruvysroost.blogspot.com Ruvy in Jerusalem

    Zingzing,

    “ruvy: ‘An armed citizenry is not dangerous. A culture of violence is. There is a world of difference between the two.’

    there may be a difference between the two, but they don’t exist separately. in fact, they feed off each other, don’t they?”

    Not necessarily. In America, the citizenry is sort of armed, with a lot of wannabes, and the culture of violence in the media feeds off of the desires of the wannabes and the lack of discipline of the ones who are armed, who drink or otherwise abuse their minds, and who therefore lack self control, passing easily into violence.

    In Israel, the citizenry is armed, but there is a tacit understanding amongst the population that the arms are to kill the enemy. There are violent fights, even between armed men, but the firearms are not used. Screaming, fists and pushing are.

  • http://www.roblogpolitics.blogspot.com RJ

    “You own a gun? Trying to compensate for something, are we?”

    So asks the high school girls’ volleyball writer for the Helena Independent Record

    Anyway, you certainly had no use for a firearms during your “Vietnam-era” service in … wait for it … HAWAII …

  • http://www.roblogpolitics.blogspot.com RJ

    “I can’t imagine what kind of a country the USA would be if every single citizen was armed”

    Most are.

    “but it would be a country I would never visit.”

    That’s fine.

  • http://www.friendlymisanthropist.blogspot.com alessandro Nicolo

    I don’t get comments like #4. MCH, where did (unless I misinterpeted then I apologize) the “compensation” theory come from? It reminds me of when I played organized sports. The overly intense, competitive and win at all cost athletes were always deemed to be compensating for something. Rubbish. They were winners. They wanted to win and they used to shake your hand after they lost. I know I was one of them. It’s no different with guns. I used to skeet shoot with a nine-guage. I used to love taking dead-aim at something. It was for sport. Was I compensating for a small wee-wee?

    Dave, what was Eleonore Clift saying? Did she shriek?

    The only one who makes sense on a regular basis is Buchanan. That guy gives the others on the panel a LESSON. It may come as a surprise to some but he’s actually written some pretty intelligent, balanced stuff about politics. Blankley is not bad either. Go figure. I don’t sit on either side of the political pendelum but it’s the conservatives who seem far more sharp. With Clift it becomes so boring and predictable with what she’ll say. Less so with the Bukes and Blanks. I actually learn something from them. The liberals remind me of my high school history teachers.

  • sr

    To bad we dont have a hunting season for liberals.

  • ss

    Hey RJ

    Can you name one country with strict gun control where a shooting spree that killed five people was followed 8 weeks later by a shooting spree that killed 32 people.

    No?
    You just gonna ignore that?

    How about you Ruvy?
    Dave?
    Arch?
    Lumpy?

    You gonna pass on your big chance to show up a liberl, sr?

    All you have to do is provide a factual answer.

  • http://blogcritics.org/writer/clavos Clavos

    ss,

    Do you think you could implement “strict gun control” successfully in a country with an estimated 250-300 million guns already in circulation, and in which fully 41% of the electorate lives in a household with guns?

    A country where despite stringent, vigorously enforced laws, illegal drugs are available in most schools and on street corners everywhere?

    Good luck with that.

  • Ruvy in Jerusalem

    ss,

    Try re-reading my comments. Let’s try this ONE MORE TIME. Slowly. The United States is in the thrall of a culture of violence. You see it all around you – in the media, the schools and everywhere else you look.

    In addition, let’s make the following points. A weapon on a table is a piece of metal with a tube, a storage compartment, a firing (really a throwing) mechanism and a trigger. This is true either for a pistol or a rifle. An unarmed weapon on a table is a danger to nobody unless used to hit someone over the head.

    For the weapon to become a danger in the accepted sense of the word, it requires a person to load the storage compartment with a clip of bullets (projectiles to be thrown), first of all. At that point, unless the firing pin is locked, the weapon can fire by accident, possibly killing somebody. That is an issue of weapon safety. If the loaded weapon does, G-d forbid, go off and does indeed, G-d forbid, kill somebody, the person whose negligence allowed for this event to occur is guilty of “manslaughter.” His actions were not done intentionally, but he did not have sufficient respect for his weapon.

    Any accident beyond an accidental firing of an unlocked weapon requires a person to pull the trigger of the weapon, causing the firing mechanism to throw a projectile. One of Ariel Sharon’s sons was reputed to have been killed many years ago in just such an accident – where either the son or his friend pulled the trigger.

    Finally, you have people acting out the cult of violence that has seized your nation like a fit seizes an epileptic. The shooting a few weeks ago was certainly an example of this. The shooting a few days ago at VT may have been an example of this. The shooter was not an American by culture, but may well have been influenced by its culture…

  • ss

    Neither of you could name one.

    Ruvy:

    They have the same culture of violence in England. I just read a review of the movie Hot Fuzz where the critic thrashed the movie, claiming this was the sort of mindless glorification of nihilistic violence that caused horrors like the one at VT.
    Except that Hot Fuzz was made by English guys who’d watched all kinds of violent movies, and yet they come from a country where there haven’t been two loners who committed mass murder in the last three months.

    Clavos:
    A more realistic point.
    But there are plenty of people on the boards lately saying the solution is more guns.
    More guns will make it even harder to keep them out of the wrong hands.

  • http://www.friendlymisanthropist.blogspot.com alessandro Nicolo

    #22 – It’s DUCK season. You’ll have to wait.

  • http://www.friendlymisanthropist.blogspot.com alessandro Nicolo

    SS, Canada will serve as an example moving forward. Not convinced the gun registry will prove or do anything. Stay tuned.

  • http://blogcritics.org/writer/clavos Clavos

    ss,

    I continue to insist that the real solution lies in vigorous enforcement of the plethora of laws that already exist, and much harsher punishment for crimes committed with the use of a gun.

    Taken together, these two measures will be far more effective in reducing gun-related violence than any attempt to ban guns, IMO.

  • MCH

    “Anyway, you certainly had no use for a firearms during your “Vietnam-era” service in … wait for it … HAWAII …”
    – RJ Elliott

    Yeah, my service was mediocre. But was more than yours, which was…wait for it…NONE…

  • A Concerned Citizen

    Ruvy

    I tend to lurk about this website fairly frequently, and you are the only one I’ve seen that consistently makes sense. Bravo! I agree with you 100%, the main problem the US has is its culture and glorification of violence.

    Movies, video games, and anything put forth by the media are simply inundated with violence. If we want change our violence we have to shift our focus to something more constructive, more positive instead of reveling in the goldmine of bloodshed.

  • http://www.elitebloggers.com Dave Nalle

    But there are plenty of people on the boards lately saying the solution is more guns.
    More guns will make it even harder to keep them out of the wrong hands.

    The idea of the more guns argument is that rather than stopping the killer from getting guns, you just stop the killer – dead.

    Gun prohibition clearly doesn’t work. It’s failed everywhere it’s been tried. Seems to me it makes sense to try something else that likely WILL work.

    Dave

  • Geneva Texan

    To Arch Conservative:
    Your suggestion that the details of the debate on gun control (automatic/semi automatic) are not relevant is a poorly formed argument.
    On issues of subtance the details drive the debate. In abortion it’s near-term vs. early abortion, in stem cell research its embryonic stem cells vs. those from material such as umbilical cords, in gun control, it’s issues like assault rifle vs. hunting rifle, automatic vs. semi automatic, teflon coated bullets versus normal.
    The horror of a man with a machine gun hosing down a college is a much better sell for a liberal backlash financed with mis-information.
    Unfortunately, the debate looses validity when one’s position is founded on falsehoods. The debate on gun control is a worthwhile debate, but let’s stick to the truth so we are arguing about a real issue, not a fabricated one.

  • Geneva Texan

    And to SS,
    Several people have noted that the installed base of handguns in the US is in the hundreds of millions. Even if we all agree that incidents like VT don’t occur in countries with strict gun control, those countries don’t mirror the size or makeup of the US, and they did not take a 250 million installed base of guns off the market.
    The truth is, there is no effective way to take those guns out of circulation. Buy-backs recover a small percentage, round ups in a democratic society would trample a host of constitutional rights.
    So, lets give you your point. But what does it prove? Pass super-strict rules. Make handguns impossible to buy legally. Do you think that the installed base will be remarkably and suddenly rendered impotent? I don’t see where your argument goes, in relation to the current problem in the US. All of the social issues remain, and so does the tactical issue of stopping 250 million handguns from killing people.

  • Ruvy in Jerusalem

    Concerned Citizen (at Comment #31):

    Thank you. Compliments come far and few between here and are appreciated when they arrive.

  • http://www.elitebloggers.com Dave Nalle

    The horror of a man with a machine gun hosing down a college is a much better sell for a liberal backlash financed with mis-information.

    What interests me is that I know for a fact that there are plenty of people with fully automatic weapons and almost anyone can get a cheap eastern european assault rifle and a kit to convert it to full auto, yet we haven’t seen them used in spree killings like this. Apparently those with the motivation to obtain REAL guns which ‘spray’ bullets are interested in something other than shooting up a school.

    Dave

  • http://www.friendlymisanthropist.blogspot.com alessandro Nicolo

    We have the gun reigstry here in Canada. Billions (at the taxpayers expense) have been spent. Academics think it’s working. The media thinks it needs to be given a chance.

    I know for a fact it’s still easy for criminals to get their hands on the guns.

    The same thing will happen with Kyoto. Not a damn thing will come of it. But someone or some corp. (and it won’t be Haliburton) will be making a killing off it.

  • Steve

    Ruvy, what are the gun laws like in Israel?

  • Dr Dreadful

    1. Louis Orlando (comment #6): “As a retired law enforcement officer I can tell you that the police cannot protect you against an assault of any kind.”

    That being so, why do so many police departments have some variation on the motto “to protect and to serve” emblazoned prominently on their vehicles?

    2. sr (comment #22): “To bad we dont have a hunting season for liberals.”

    Let me help you. I’m a liberal. Let’s meet somewhere. I will bring one loaded gun. I will hand it to you. We’ll see what happens. Guess who blinks first.

    Seriously though, such idiotic puerile statements really piss me off. I know people who think like you (if that can be called thinking), and I’ve sometimes considered calling them out in just the way I described.

  • http://blogcritics.org/writer/clavos Clavos

    That being so, why do so many police departments have some variation on the motto “to protect and to serve” emblazoned prominently on their vehicles?

    PR.

  • http://blogcritics.org/writer/clavos Clavos

    According to local news reports tonight, an armed Ft. Lauderdale jewelry store owner foiled an attempted armed robbery in his store today.

    Two mopes posing as customers drew weapons and demanded he hand over all the jewelry and cash in the store.

    Instead, the proprietor pulled out his own weapon and shot both perps. One fell on the spot, the other staggered out to their getaway car and drove away. He was apprehended by police within minutes.

    Both thugs are listed in critical condition at Broward General Medical Center.

    No charges have been filed against the jewelry store proprietor.

  • http://www.elitebloggers.com Dave Nalle

    Seriously though, such idiotic puerile statements really piss me off. I know people who think like you (if that can be called thinking), and I’ve sometimes considered calling them out in just the way I described.

    So you think that matching their level of puerlility will prove what, exactly? That they are right? That you’re just as idiotic? Or perhaps that you’re both idiots, but you’d actually like to get shot?

    Dave

  • http://www.antequeravillarental.com Christopher Rose

    Clavos, these two guys were obviously total losers. If they had already drawn their weapons, they had every opportunity to shoot the storekeeper, who was clearly lucky to escape with his life. If I’d been one of the criminals, I’d have shot him!

    Similarly, if weapons management was being implemented properly, they wouldn’t have had the opportunity to have weapons in the first place.

  • STM

    Perhaps, Doc, the reality is we have just inhabited a different world to that experienced by Americans. In your comment to the ex-cop, I’ll just say there would be very few police officers in Australia who would express support for more guns in the community rather than less. I assume that is also the case in Britain. In fact, I know it is.

    Neither country has the gun culture of the US, despite Australia having had a very wild and wooly past marked by the rule of the gun – and I’m not sorry it’s panned out that way, and nor are most of my countrymen.

  • http://blogcritics.org/writer/clavos Clavos

    Clavos, these two guys were obviously total losers.

    No shit! What was your first clue? They’re criminals, (low end stickup artists at that) Rose!

    And they are a perfect example of why one should not carry a gun unless prepared to use it.

    Similarly, if weapons management was being implemented properly, they wouldn’t have had the opportunity to have weapons in the first place.

    Hah!

    Just like the junkies can’t get their next fix…

  • http://www.antequeravillarental.com Christopher Rose

    I see the cynicism and pessimism are kicking in this morning Clavos. Wanna score?

  • http://blogcritics.org/writer/clavos Clavos

    Neither cynicism nor pessimism, Chris, just the reality of contemporary America.

    I don’t really know why (probably a combination of factors), but over the last several decades, a significant portion of our population has become scofflaw. For most, it’s just things like breaking traffic laws, but there’s an perceptible attitude on the part of many that the observance of the law is not important.

    I’m not speaking of the criminal class (though obviously, they’re the vanguard), I’m referring to the middle and upper classes; the well publicized white collar criminals who have been caught and jailed recently are just the ones who’ve been caught, low level dishonesty, cheating, and skirting of the law aren’t even much hidden anymore.

    I’m digressing, but I repeat:

    It ain’t cynicism or pessimism…

  • Dr Dreadful

    So you think that matching their level of puerility will prove what, exactly? That they are right? That you’re just as idiotic? Or perhaps that you’re both idiots, but you’d actually like to get shot?

    Well, either the idiot wouldn’t shoot, in which case he’d lose face, or he would, in which case he’d be a murderer. Either way, he’d prove himself to be full of shit.

  • Dr Dreadful

    Of course, none of us were there and it’s possible that the jewelry store owner felt in danger of his life, but there is a different way to look at that story.

    Instead of pulling a Dirty Harry, the owner could’ve just given them what they wanted and then called the cops after they’d left. After all, the guy’s stock is (one would hope) insured against robbery, and when all’s said and done it’s just a bunch of rocks and metal, not a person.

    Would have saved the people the cost of medical care for those two hoodlums, as well.

  • Dr Dreadful

    Hmm. That may well be the first time the word “hoodlum” has been used in a sentence since 1948…

  • http://blogcritics.org/writer/clavos Clavos

    Instead of pulling a Dirty Harry, the owner could’ve just given them what they wanted and then called the cops after they’d left.

    True. But I’m sure it was much more satisfying to plug the bastards; too bad he wasn’t a better shot.

  • http://www.antequeravillarental.com Christopher Rose

    The cynicism is the why and how of you posting it Clavos. You’re presumably putting it forth as support for the arming of America, not serving as our pet news announcer…

  • Dr Dreadful

    In your comment to the ex-cop, I’ll just say there would be very few police officers in Australia who would express support for more guns in the community rather than less. I assume that is also the case in Britain. In fact, I know it is.

    It is indeed. Furthermore, when British cops have been polled on whether they would like to be armed themselves, they’ve overwhelmingly responded in the negative.

    Funny how easy it is not to need guns if you’ve never had them.

  • http://blogcritics.org/writer/clavos Clavos

    The cynicism is the why and how of you posting it Clavos. You’re presumably putting it forth as support for the arming of America…

    Of course I was, Chris; that’s obvious, even to a Limey, but I don’t see that as cynical: merely as support of one side of a legitimate American political issue.

  • http://www.antequeravillarental.com Christopher Rose

    Clavos, the fact that you don’t see it as cynical to simply post some random news story the way you did speaks volumes about the current state of US political debate. It may well explain your pessimism though!

    On a more serious note, I really don’t see how the idea of arming everybody in America is going to bring about a more peaceful society.

  • http://blogcritics.org/writer/clavos Clavos

    Chris,

    Random??

    It’s a news story about an incident in my home town that is germane to this article AND supports one side of the discussion, what the hell is random about that?

    On a more serious note, I really don’t see how the idea of arming everybody in America is going to bring about a more peaceful society.

    I know you don’t.

  • http://www.antequeravillarental.com Christopher Rose

    Well, why don’t you try and lay out how you see that scenario working?

    If you’re going to, please try and come up with something better than the tired old argument about how properly trained gun owners will usher in a new era of social responsibility. That’s just never going to happen.

    Personally, the idea of the Jerry Springer generation and the seething resentful masses being armed to the teeth fills me with dread – unless you really want to see a massive reduction in the US population!

  • http://blogcritics.org/writer/clavos Clavos

    Well, why don’t you try and lay out how you see that scenario working?

    I’ll pass. Let someone else with a higher tolerance for futility take a crack at it.

    Futility, because even if I were to convince you (highly unlikely, as we both know), you can’t vote in the USA, and thus have no effective voice in the matter, so what’s the point?

  • http://www.antequeravillarental.com Christopher Rose

    Well, I thought we were having a conversation, not preparing for a vote. I’ll take your lack of willingness to support your point as a concession!

  • http://blogcritics.org/writer/clavos Clavos

    Whatever floats your boat, Chris…

  • Lumpy

    Concealed carry is not about arming everyone. It’s about offering the option to carry a gun to the relatively small number of people who go through training and a more extensive background check.

    then the idea is that the presence of unidentified armed and trained citizens will avert and perhaps prevent some crimes. kind of like the role armed air marshals play on planes.

    The stats so far suggest that it works.

  • http://www.elitebloggers.com Dave Nalle


    Similarly, if weapons management was being implemented properly, they wouldn’t have had the opportunity to have weapons in the first place.

    Sorry, Christopher. Not only do we not have enough tanks to pull one up to every house in the US and demand their guns, but our Constitution prohibits that kind of use of military force against the civilian population when not in the midst of an armed rebellion.

    Dave

  • http://www.antequeravillarental.com Christopher Rose

    Clavos, play nice now!

    Lumpy, we weren’t discussing, or rather attempting to discuss, concealed carry.

    The poijnt I’m trying to get to is this: what exactly would be the criteria the pro-gun lobby would like to see applied to the concept of gun ownership? I can’t see any set of conditions that would make such a scenario workable.

    In lieu of such a workable scenario, I think the concept of disarming people is worth consideration.

    Aah, Dave, I was wondering when you’d turn up. Judging by the high comedy – low practicality of your remark, you didn’t need to bother. Fortunately I know you just can’t help yourself, you litttle comment addict you!