Mass shooting an excuse for anti-gun hostility…and speaking of which…

[Bold Lib]

http://www.examiner.com/gun-rights-in-seattle/mass-shooting-an-excuse-for-anti-gun-hostility-and-speaking-of-which

It did not take long after Thursday’s mass shooting in a West Seattle neighborhood for anti-gun extremists to exploit the crime by attacking the Second Amendment, and/or the National Rifle Association.

It seems almost par for the course. The section following the Seattle Times’ in-depth report tells the tale, as do some of the remarks following the equally-detailed first report by the on-line Seattle Post-Intelligencer. To the credit of a few readers, however, they quickly noted now tacky it is to use this kind of tragic event to bolster a political agenda. Both news agencies, incidentally, should be applauded for their coverage. It is gripping, and holds the readers' interest.

It is really nothing new. Readers will recall how quickly anti-gunners blamed the NRA for the shooting and double homicide at Lake Sammamish State Park in July. This column discussed that here, and noted with some surprise how long it took Washington CeaseFire to join in the exploitation here



Pretty good article about grave dancing to push a failed agenda. It also discusses the Madison 5 and has a bit of input from a cop on the issue. Worth a look IMO.

[Kolesar]

1. Half of the cop murders in Ohio are by armed fugitives

"push a failed agenda"
Some will say there is nothing wrong with a heavily armed Ohio.

[baldguy]

3. I can't help but wonder just where those fugitives get their guns?

They get them one way or another from other people who own the guns legally.

[Pavulon]

4. I wonder where they get their coke and weed

how about a deal. Once you have eradicated the scourge of drugs, they I will happily surrender all my firearms.. The day after I can no longer buy coke in miami.

[baldguy]

16. They're not getting their drugs from "law abiding citizens".

And drug dealers don't have a billion-dollar lobby to back them up by subverting Congress & state legislatures to be soft on drug crimes.

[Pavulon]

18. Sure they do, has OXY been banned yet? Its an affirmed right, get used to ownership

like blacks and women at your job and freedom of choice for reproduction you are going to have to deal, its the law. You can still protest though.

Prescriptions of oxy and fentanyl are legal, stealing them and selling them is illegal. does that grok, legal illegal. very simple.

move on.

[merqz]

25. I agree. After my surgery

Oxycontin was a very effective drug for me. Should my ability to have it prescribed be eliminated because some assmunches abuse it, divert it, steal it, criminally market it, engage in violence over possession and distribution of it, etc? Simple answer: No.

Criminals will abuse guns, of course. They will use them to commit robbery, murder, etc. That says nothing about my right to own one or bear one. In fact, if anything - it strengthens the justification for such a right. Criminals will use them regardless of whether *i* have the right to bear them, in response. The VAST majority of gun crimes are committed by people who are already prohibited from the mere possession of guns - either convicted felons, domestic violence convictions, etc. Whereas the vast majority of CCW'ers are law abiding, and to a greater extent than the public at large (as endless stats in the gungeon attest to).

[friendly_iconoclast]

20. Ahh, yes. The GCRDF has returned. I described this here about a year ago

To be perfectly candid, it was Richard Hofstadter who first described it back in the Sixties. I just pointed out certain details of

its manifestation here. Eric Hoffer's "The True Believer" is also a good source:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=118&topic_id=267220

"Insights on gun control from...9/11 truthers and teabggers?!?!?"

I always wondered why certain posters insisted that there was some "conspiracy to 'give guns to everyone', run by the NRA and/or the Republican Party" (or something similar). The conspiracy supposedly "runs" certain posters at DU- search "NRA talking points" here and you will get circa 11,400 hits.- and *anything* promoting shooting allegedly helps some vast racist, misogynist, right-wing conspiracy.

Then I read this guest blog at BoingBoing:

http://www.boingboing.net/2009/11/09/911-truth-and-the-...

and one comment really struck me. Substitute "the NRA and/or the GOP" for "Bush, Cheney, and/or the government" (or
"Obama, the Communists and/or the Militant Islamacists"), and we could be talking about some DUers on the subject of guns and the use thereof:....

The further you get from the political center, the more the various political subgroups tend to resemble each other, rather

than the centrists...

[one-eyed fat man]

22. Are you serious?

Crooks need a lobbyist? They have so much fucking cash they just bribe cops and politicians outright. Only difference is now instead of taking their graft in shoe boxes or freezers full of cash they can have it transferred with a mouse click to an offshore account.

They have so much money they can afford to buy you for what you think you are worth!

[Taitertots]

23. No one ever gets oxycontin from "law abiding citizens"

Oh wait, they do constantly.

And they have a multi billion dollar lobby subverting congress to be hard on drugs they don't have a monopoly over, among other socially unfavorable things.

[proteus_lives]

19. Criminals. Think about it.

[gmoney]

7. Cops in Ohio are unarmed?

Guess they have no way to fight back.

[Bold Lib]

10. Armed fugitives that I'm SURE passed a NICS check right?

If not how do "fugitives" get their guns? If you do not know then you can try looking here:
http://www.rkba.org/research/wright/armed-criminal.summary.html

[friendly_iconoclast]

21. Ohio certainly has more guns than it did ten years ago. And less stringent gun laws, as well.

Which brings up a question for you:

Have the violent crime and murder rates risen or declined? Please include links to your source(s) in your reply.

TIA!

[msongs]

2. those people shot dead are celebrating the shooter's RKBA no doubt nt

[Pavulon]

5. And last nights DWI corpses are celebrating my right to buy Vodka..

you know if they banned alcohol all the DWI would stop. I wonder how that would work out?

[Ernesto]

9. works for me nt

[SteveM]

14. Ummm, more prohibition. That worked last time, didn't it? nt

[Pavulon]

17. good think you anti folks still have your right to protest. Like the right to lifers

you can still get a sign with a dead baby and beat feet to planned parenthood. Two supreme court cases put you squarely with those guys.

[RSillsbee]

26. But it most certainly didn't work for America

The last time it was tried.

Now, I know you aren't saying this but I want to ask; how does restricting the law abiding from owning a firearm for legal purposes stop criminals from obtaining firearms for nefarious purposes? If Drug dealers can purchase submarines to transport cocaine do you really think an AK-47(A real one not a semiautomatic look-a-like )is going to be difficult to come by?

[oneshooter]

6. When you have an intelligent comment to make please do so.

We don't mind waiting.

Really we don't.

Oneshooter
Armed and Livin in Texas

[Bold Lib]

11. No, this is about the grave dancing that the gun control proponents do.

I'm very SURE that you know the difference.

[SteveM]

15. Are you slippin' and a-slidin' in it yet? nt

[quaker bill]

8. I think you are confusing the term

"excuse" with the term "rationale". The statement "Mass shooting a rationale for anti-gun hostility" makes far more sense. A reasonable reaction to this sort of gun use is to want to see less of them about, it is called sanity. If folks could be counted on to use guns responsibly, there would be no issue with the second ammendment. This incident is just further evidence that an assumption of responsible behavior is not dependable.

[Bold Lib]

12. Perhaps you should make that suggestion to the author of the article.

Regarding you other comment, are you suggesting prior restraint on a fundamental right?

[SteveM]

13. Actually, the gun-controllers/banners are using fear; it's popular, now...

They look at the instrument and call for control/bans. It is NOT a a "reasonable reaction" to "see less of them about, it is called sanity." That is a fearful reaction, just as we see with so many tea-bag reactions to merely being Islamic.

"Assumption of responsible behavior" is what holds a civilized society together -- even if we all know that such assumptions are "not dependable" -- yet we must make them every time we head down the road at 60 mph and the other lane is coming "at us" at 60 mph.

Frankly, these shooting incidents are indeed an excuse for gun-controllers to inject more fear into a fear-addled society.

You would agree that the vast majority of the 80,000,000+ American gun-owners are "responsible," would you not? If not, do you have any data which would show this?

[Euromutt]

24. No, the "reasonable reaction" would be to re-examine mental health care

The reports in the Seattle Times (http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2012980349_shooting24m.html) and the Seattle Post-Intelligencer (http://www.seattlepi.com/local/427281_shootingscene24.html) state that the shooter, Chhouy Harm, suffered from mental illness, had been in and out of various institutions, and was reportedly off her meds at the time.

Nobody has an issue with restricting the right of the mentally ill to keep and bear arms. The problem is that the laws on the books meant to keep the mentally ill from legally acquiring firearms are out of synch with the way we treat mental illness. As Dr. Harriet Hall argued last year, "it has become next to impossible to get a patient involuntarily committed" (http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/?p=410), but involuntary commitment remains the criterium (under the Gun Control Act of 1968) for denying a mental patient access to firearms. It's worth reading Dr. Hall's entire piece; she makes a persuasive case that the rejection of involuntary treatment of mental problems may well have gone too far, to the detriment of the patients as well as society in general.

[RSillsbee]

27. I once heard a statement

on facebook of all places that (IMO) sums this discussion up nicely


If you took all the guns off the streets of America you would still have a crime problem. However, if you took all the criminals of the streets of America you would not have a gun problem.

[jazzhound]

28. Sounds right to me -- and welcome to the Guns forum.

:thumbsup: