My condolences to all those who lost friends, family and loved ones.
Other thoughts?
Other thoughts?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
skip to main |
skip to sidebar
Raising social involvement, self awareness and self improvement topics, because our communities are the sum of our personal beliefs, behaviors, action or inaction. Only "we" can improve our family, work place, school, city, country, etc.
Search This Blog
Useful Links
YOU CAN HELP NOW !!!
Tell friends, relatives, co-workers, neighbors, politicians, etc to google give2attain or send them this address now !!!http://give2attain.blogspot.com/ Then I promise to keep posting unique and/or helpful thoughts, and hosting open polite dialogue. Thank You !!!
Trying for Balance
G2A Email and Rules
email: give2get@live.com
G2A will only discuss things that are general public knowledge. (ie no privileged info)
G2A will only link to public / posted documents. (ie school and other websites)
G2A will not post based on singular specific personal conversations or information without permission from the information provider.
G2a will only post after observing common themes, issues, discussions, etc. (ie it is out there and people are talking about it)
G2A will moderate any comments that apply derogatory labels. Be it to G2A, another commenter, group of people, etc.
G2A will moderate any comment that includes offensive language. (ie swearing)
G2A will only discuss things that are general public knowledge. (ie no privileged info)
G2A will only link to public / posted documents. (ie school and other websites)
G2A will not post based on singular specific personal conversations or information without permission from the information provider.
G2a will only post after observing common themes, issues, discussions, etc. (ie it is out there and people are talking about it)
G2A will moderate any comments that apply derogatory labels. Be it to G2A, another commenter, group of people, etc.
G2A will moderate any comment that includes offensive language. (ie swearing)
Blog Archive
-
▼
2016
(242)
-
▼
June
(20)
- Blaming the Employers... Again...
- Trump Against Globalization
- SCOTUS Rocks Lately
- Racism or Common Sense
- Donald Trump is Frying My Brain
- What if Welfare Stopped?
- Personal Rights vs Personal Safety
- Trump Tells Others to Hush
- Fun with Gun Death Stats
- How to Help Kids Escape Poverty
- Oh Canada
- Orlando Gay Night Club Shooting
- Freedom and the Sharp Edge
- Libertarian Wins Against Clinton
- Our Women Matter More
- 2016 MN Special Session
- MN Teacher Supports Tenure Lawsuit
- Stanford Rapist Sentence
- No Particular Place to Go
- The Country Vote
-
▼
June
(20)
About Me
- John
- I am married and we have 3 adult daughters and a dog. We live in Plymouth MN. My interests are learning, communicating, home improvement projects, motorcycling, boating, and other outside activities. Thank you for reading my blog and have a great day !!!
68 comments:
I agree with K. Drum:
"there is a big difference between an attack coordinated and carried out by a foe (Pearl Harbor, Pan Am 103, 9/11, Paris, etc.) and an attack by a lunatic who was inspired by something or other (fame, hatred of blacks, Islamist ideology, etc.). The former is either terrorism or an act of war and the latter is an act of psychosis—and while it may be politically handy to conflate the two, it does nothing to fight either one."
I think assault rifles (AR 15) should be banned or have many restrictions on their purchase.
I am okay with more restrictions on assault rifles but I don't think it would matter. At that close range a semi-automatic hand gun is just as deadly.
Personally I think huge social changes that are forced by the SCOTUS instead of implemented by the States will result in violence. The change is often just too fast for the majority of society to adjust. (ie abortion, LGBT Rights, etc) That is why I am usually a fan of making big moral changes slowly.
"That is why I am usually a fan of making big moral changes slowly."
That's easy for you to say, given that none of your rights are being abridged. How long should African-Americans had to wait in Appelen-world to get equal rights? What would have been the appropriate pace?
The State of Minnesota is forced by federal law to accept the heterosexual marriage of a 15-year-old in Missouri, even though our marriage age is 16. Why should a gay couple "lose" their married status if they move from state-to-state? How is that equal protection under the law?
Just making a pragmatic point... If one pushes too hard/fast... Stress/pressure will increase.
Imagine if you saw something as social unacceptable and damaging, and you had to hear commercials and announcements about it everyday. Or imagine how frustrated you become when you read my views regarding alcohol, sexual assault and personal responsibility. Then imagine you were surrounded by it and felt powerless to stop it. No wonder the somewhat crazy slip over the edge and do terrible things.
Frog Comic
Yes, we should determine one's Constitutional rights based on how crazy people might react to it.
"No wonder the somewhat crazy slip over the edge and do terrible things."
It never ceases to amaze me how quickly you revert to victim-blaming.
Joel
How would you excuse the perpetrators in the colorado movie theater shooting, the sandy hook shooting or the virginia tech shooting? The only thing that maks any sense is restrict the purchase of automatic weapons of all kinds. I could also support the presence of more armed security guards.
We still don't know if this shooter had much anything in the way of online or other communication that could have alerted the FBI. It seems like there will be a debate on when suspects should be jailed for saying doing anything in support of ISIS, as this guy was investigated twice.
Sean,
Using the courts to force change into society is sometimes necessary. However one must accept that it will often be a bumpy a violent ride.
Joel,
I am not blaming the victims, I am noting that change is hard. Especially when the freedoms of opposing groups are being fought for.
Laurie,
Some crazy folks are just crazy. They don't need a political reason to turn violent.
I am fine giving the NSA much more freedom to snoop into our communications.
As for gun control. Personally I think having more people carrying guns in more places seems like a better solution. Since the bad guys will always find a weapon.
The question is will the good guys be armed when needed?
Imagine if even 5 of the victims had been armed and willing to shoot... The massacre simply would not have happened.
"However one must accept that it will often be a bumpy a violent ride."
Nope, we don't have to accept the violence. It's not inevitable, and it shouldn't be shrugged off as such.
I am not sure one should shrug it off as inevitable, but I am sure no one should surprised by it or fail to prepare for it.
How did you like the video of the LGBT folks assaulting the Pastors???
I don't watch any of your videos. Sorry.
First of all, let's get rid of that silly "assault weapons" idea. The gun used here was NOT an assault weapon because it had no automatic fire option, it was a semiautomatic, like millions of other rifles. Such automatic weapons are illegal to sell and to own in the US. So calls to ban automatic weapons or "assault weapons" would have done ZERO to avoid this tragedy. Second, "assault weapon" as used in the law applied only to certain cosmetic features of the weapon, so any other semiautomatic rifle without those features would have done just as much damage, or for that matter, any semiautomatic pistol. Likewise, calls for "universal background checks" do not make any sense and would not have made any difference here. This man DID undergo a background check and passed. Not even two interviews with the FBI, unrelated to the gun purchase, raised sufficient suspicion (perhaps it should have).
And then you should know that, by law, this bar was a gun free zone. Imagine that, somebody intent on committing mass murder (which is against the law) didn't think twice about violating the law against carrying a gun into that bar! It's still reasonable to ask why none of these crazies ever tries to shoot up a gun show.
And I think we have to get over this notion that this was NOT a "coordinated" attack but rather a "lone wolf" situation. The fact is that we are not fighting a nation-state or even an organized army. We are facing an ideology and those susceptible to the extreme wing of that ideology can be "triggered" at any time. It is like those old communist "sleeper cells" we used to worry about being "activated" by a code word. What we have to do is either cut off the head of that ideology militarily, defeat the ideology, or intercept the message. If we try to resolve this by restricting our own freedoms, the terrorists win.
So many excuses for the violence we endure in this country. It's appalling.
I wonder what would happen if we no longer made excuses.
Joel
The bar had an off-duty police officer working security on-site. That officer exchanged gunfire with the attacker (it sounds like he's the one who forced the attacker back into the restrooms).
Joel, I haven't heard any excuses. What I have heard is avoiding reality and the proposal of irrelevant solutions.
"Joel, I haven't heard any excuses."
1. I am okay with more restrictions on assault rifles but I don't think it would matter. - John
2. Some crazy folks are just crazy. - John
3. ...since the bad guys will always find a weapon. - John
Joel
"And I think we have to get over this notion that this was NOT a "coordinated" attack but rather a "lone wolf" situation. The fact is that we are not fighting a nation-state or even an organized army. We are facing an ideology and those susceptible to the extreme wing of that ideology can be "triggered" at any time. It is like those old communist "sleeper cells" we used to worry about being "activated" by a code word. What we have to do is either cut off the head of that ideology militarily, defeat the ideology, or intercept the message. If we try to resolve this by restricting our own freedoms, the terrorists win."
Are you talking about Islam or homophobia?
One is the impetus for the attack. The other isn't. I'll let you guess.
Joel
Sean,
Well here is a news article since you don't watch videos.
Unfortunately I am guessing both were the driver. I changed away from the "homophobe" term because the reality is that most of these folks don't fear the lifestyle. They just think it unnatural, morally decaying and needs to be stopped.
"Islamic Fundamentalist or Anti-LGBT"
Can you think of any Islamic countries where LGBT people are allowed to be openly LGBT? I can't.
Of course I could see it going this way just as easily...
"Christian Fundamentalist or Anti-LGBT"
OK, the people who attacked the pastors should be prosecuted. What's your point?
Joel,
What do you think is the real reason for the "violence we endure in this country"?
I think some of it is crazy people. And most of it is simply having so many extreme variations of people and beliefs in one country...
- Prochoice and ProLife
- Pro-LGBT and Anti-LGBT
- Burka wearers and String Bikini wearers
- PETA and the NRA
With all these strong beliefs bubbling in our melting pot, I am often amazed we all tolerate each other as well as we do...
"I changed away from the "homophobe" term because the reality is that most of these folks don't fear the lifestyle. They just think it unnatural, morally decaying and needs to be stopped."
Then you are unaware of the definition.
Joel
Sorry, John. I should have been more specific. The reason for the gun violence we endure in this country is...well...guns.
Joel
"Homophobe: a person who fears or hates homosexuals and homosexuality."
I think many people are strongly against LBGT, and yet do not fear it or hate the people. They just believe the behavior and the acceptance of it is bad for America. Maybe like some Liberals dislike big money in politics.
I think you just like to use the term homophobe because it is demeaning to the person who disagrees with you. Maybe like if an anti-LGBT person referred to LGBT people as "Queers".
As for guns being responsible for gun violence... I have yet to see a car run someone over, a knife stab someone or a gun shoot someone without a person wielding it. So I think your answer is an over simplification.
"Homophobe: a person who fears or hates homosexuals and homosexuality."
Where did you find that definition? It's not accurate.
Joel
"Maybe like if an anti-LGBT person referred to LGBT people as "Queers"."
I have no issue with the word Queer. I own it, and so do most of my queer friends.
Joel
"As for guns being responsible for gun violence... I have yet to see a car run someone over, a knife stab someone or a gun shoot someone without a person wielding it. So I think your answer is an over simplification."
Oh well, we can't do anything about it, so let's not try.
Joel
We talk about the biggest "mass shooting in this country" and blame guns. Yet the biggest mass shooting in recent history was in Paris, where guns are not allowed. Just as they were not allowed in the night club.
Those calling for universal background checks seem to ignore this guy PASSED the background check AND FBI scrutiny.
Those calling for an assault weapons ban simply don't know what they are talking about, since the sport AR-15 is one of the most common hunting rifles in the US and incapable of full-auto firing.
Oh, and here is another news flash. Apparently the shooter was well known at the club, having visited many times over the last 3 years, and had been on a gay dating website. Not that motivation really matters to a crazy person, but for those who insist that we have to prevent future crimes based on such motivations (real or imagined), puzzle that one.
"...but for those who insist that we have to prevent future crimes based on such motivations..."
Not sure what you're trying to say, but it isn't favorable for those making this out to be a case of "radical Islamic terrorism".
Now if you can't imagine how someone who has homosexual feelings could be homophobic, you're not really paying attention to the rhetoric with which the dominant religions constantly bombard LGBTQ people.
Joel
"Those calling for an assault weapons ban simply don't know what they are talking about, since the sport AR-15 is one of the most common hunting rifles in the US and incapable of full-auto firing."
A semi-automatic weapon can fire as fast a person can pull the trigger...easily twice per second. There is no application for this in hunting.
Guns are designed to kill. Why are we surprised when people use them to kill other people?
Joel
" There is no application for this in hunting." Another example of liberal ignorance. If you shoot a deer and the first shot doesn't bring the animal down, it is cruel to not follow up with another as quickly as possible, because you won't get one later. Guns /are/ designed to kill, so why should we want only killers to have them?
I remember when the assault weapons ban was first under consideration, and a man confined to a wheelchair demanded the right to self defense. His plea was that he needed a weapon that could be managed with one hand, and since he preferred not to kill intruders, he wanted the "biggest, ugliest gun he could find" to dissuade them-- an AR-15. Why should you get to decide what weapon someone chooses to hunt with, or to defend themselves, or if they are allowed to defend themselves at all?
As for "twice per second," Rep. Grayson of Florida was on TV concerned because the shooter had a gun "capable of firing 700 rounds per minute." Stupidity, or willful ignorance, or maybe an outright lie?
Assault weapons must be banned in America
"As for "twice per second," Rep. Grayson of Florida was on TV concerned because the shooter had a gun "capable of firing 700 rounds per minute." Stupidity, or willful ignorance, or maybe an outright lie?"
How are his and my statements related? Am I incorrect?
"Another example of liberal ignorance."
Another example of your arrogance. I know enough about hunting to know you don't need what the AR-15 is capable of...especially if you're a good hunter.
Joel
What you "know about hunting" is irrelevant, since a large percentage of actual hunters choose the AR-15 for that purpose. What it is "capable of" is, apparently, being a good hunting rifle. What it is NOT capable of is the fully automatic operation that would make it an assault weapon. If you look at Laurie's article, you will discover that the gun-grabbers' definition of "assault weapon" (and the one in the now-expired law) is based on COSMETIC features of the weapon, not it's rapid-fire capability or lethality. Remember how we HAD an assault weapons ban, and it didn't make a dime's worth of difference to crime or mass shootings? Why, of the millions of AR-15s manufactured and sold, does this ONE crime make them all dangerous?
And lets understand this-- half the guns sold in the US are semi-automatics. They are easier to use for most people, and more convenient. Singling out a gun because you don't like its looks is like suggesting that certain cars are completely unsafe because of their styling.
"The reason for the gun violence we endure in this country is...well...guns." And the reason for the knife violence, or the airplane (9/11) violence? And the sexual violence? Where do the "bans" stop?
Why the mad rush to keep lawful guns out of the hands of law-abiding citizens, just to prevent the very rare unlawful use of a (possibly unlawfully acquired) gun? It seems like first-rate insanity at best, to suggest that law-breakers will follow the law if we just had one more. If you have a suggestion which would actually prevent this sort of thing, trot it out. So far I haven't heard one.
Try this another way: We have laws against murdering 49 people, and we have a law against bringing a gun into that night club. Which one do you believe had the bigger deterrent effect on the shooter?
Omar Mateen Had a “Modern Sporting Rifle”
Laurie,
I agree that background checks should be required for all gun purchases. And I do not understand the passions of the gun enthusiasts. I only own a couple of shotguns and may someday buy a rifle & semi automatic hand gun. Not sure why they have the desire to be armed like Rambo...
In our country, we have decided that people bent on committing mass murder have a scared and constitutional right to own fully loaded assault weapons right up to the moment they open fire. That being the case Orlandos will continue to happen, and they will happen, I believe, at a steadily increasing paces.
If we don't want this outcome, we need to make different choices.
--Hiram
Laurie, your article clearly identifies the problem. "What's in a name?" If Congress simply (and stupidly) decides to ban "assault weapons" by that name, we can still sell them as "modern sporting rifles." Or, if Congress re-instates the last "assault weapons" ban, based on cosmetic features, we can still buy the exact same gun, just as deadly and just as accurate as it was before, but it won't have the "grenade launcher." In other words, an "assault weapons ban" will have ZERO chance of preventing such tragedies.
Likewise, "universal background checks" are unlikely to solve the problem. The Sandy Hook shooter stole the guns he used. The San Bernadino couple used a straw buyer, and this guy actually passed the background check. Again, ZERO chance of preventing such things.
The problem isn't assault weapons or background checks or "automatic weapons" because they are fictional solutions to a real problem, which is the way these people are glorified in the popular press for committing such atrocities. Never mention their name or background and watch how quickly these copycats go away. And if they do it in the name of Islam, try making a big show of burying them in a pigskin. I know, it's not PC, but neither is killing 49 people for being gay.
I don't believe in the idea that certain turns of phrase have magical properties. The view out there, for example, that acts of mass terror are caused by the president's decision not to speak the phrase "radical Islamic terrorism" seems to me to be dubious at best. Do any of us believe that the fanatical and monstrous terrorists of ISIS would really be reduced to a puddle of incapacitating tears, the moment they heard those words uttered on Voice of America? Except for Donald Trump, I mean?
The fact that we have a free media changes things. Occasionally, it's for the worse, but more often the better. I will say, I would be much more frightened if I saw a guy enter a movie theater with an assault weapon, than I would be of a guy carrying a newspaper. And what amazes me is that there are a lot of people who seem to me much more concerned about the newspaper than they are about the weapon.
--Hiram
I don't think those concerned with the President's phraseology care about his exact words except as they are indicative of his mindset. If he does not connect the words "Islamic" and "terrorism" in his speech, has he ever connected them in his mind? When a fanatical terrorist blows himself up exclaiming "Allahu Akbar" and kills a dozen people, is that a terrorist act done in the name of Islam? It seems obvious, and whether Muslims are peaceful and this guy is an extremist or a "lone wolf" or just a "disgruntled worker" makes not one whit of difference. You cannot fight this form of terrorism without recognizing its Islamic underpinnings. And it is becoming increasingly obvious that Obama has a willful blindness, and perhaps a deep-seated aversion, to calling it what it is.
"I would be much more frightened if I saw a guy enter a movie theater with an assault weapon, than I would be of a guy carrying a newspaper."
Not unreasonable. But it IS unreasonable to be so afraid of law-abiding citizens carrying concealed weapons into the theater that you post a sign disallowing it, making everybody inside a defenseless target for somebody willing to simply ignore the sign.
I don't think those concerned with the President's phraseology care about his exact words except as they are indicative of his mindset.
The mindset that ordered the killing of Bin Laden? That one?
--Hiram
. But it IS unreasonable to be so afraid of law-abiding citizens carrying concealed weapons into the theater that you post a sign disallowing it, making everybody inside a defenseless target for somebody willing to simply ignore the sign.
the guy in Orlando was a law abiding citizen right up until the moment he opened fire. Was that the point at which concern was justified? Was that the point at which is second amendment rights were suspended?
This really isn't my issue. The occasional mindless slaughter of innocents is the price we as a society have agreed to pay so that people can have access to assault weapons. I will leave it to someone else, to the parents of the children at Sandy Hook, or the families of Orlando, perhaps, to argue that the benefit we get from those weapons is worth the price they were called upon to pay.
--Hiram
I think Jerry is mostly right on the effectiveness of the "assault weapons ban" as it's currently discussed in the U.S. It's mostly cosmetic and doesn't really get at the functionality of the weapon.
If we want to solve the problem of mass shootings via gun legislation, we can take significant action to do so (realizing of course that it's impossible to reduce it to zero). Australia has more or less done so, by passing a very broad gun control program, which included buyback and confiscation of most semi-automatic weapons, reductions of magazine sizes, etc. Their society decided they had reached a breaking point when it came to gun violence, and the measures have survived the transition of political power between the two main parties there (and was passed under the leadership of the country's conservative party).
Such a change would be a fundamental reordering of how we've come to think about the Second Amendment. We may get there at some point, but it's clear we're not there as a society today.
I think Jerry is mostly right on the effectiveness of the "assault weapons ban" as it's currently discussed in the U.S. It's mostly cosmetic and doesn't really get at the functionality of the weapon.
I am on occasion chastised both for my inability to reason logically and effectively and for my lack of knowledge about guns. But logical or emotional or not, I am definitely of the opinion that if people didn't have assault weapons, there would be fewer assault weapons related shootings. Others as always are free to challenge the logic of that as they choose.
But this is irrelevant really. We have already made the decision that the benefits to be derived from making these weapons freely available outweigh the carnage they cause. In this sense, the children of Sandy Hook Elementary, and the patrons of the Pulse bar are sacrificed for all of us. I just wish I knew what exactly we are getting in return.
==Hiram
It’s An Honor To Continue Being Valued Over Countless Human Lives (by an AR-15)
If we were that concerned about "carnage" we would start in a vastly different place than with a few illegally-acquired and used "assault weapons" which are not really assault weapons. We had 100 people shot in Orlando. On any given, average day, 91 people are killed by guns in the US, according to the CDC, while 2.1 million crimes are prevented every year using guns. That seems to me a reasonable trade-off. Mass shootings are just the most notorious, while the day-to-day "routine" criminal violence goes on.
"the guy in Orlando was a law abiding citizen right up until the moment he opened fire." -- Hiram
Not so. He drove to the club with intent. That's illegal. He had a loaded firearm in the car. That's illegal. He carried the gun into the club. That's illegal. And then he shot 100 people. That's illegal 100 times, if not more. How many laws can we pass that would have prevented his doing what he did?
Is There An Actual Argument Against Banning High-Capacity Magazines?
He drove to the club with intent.
Driving with intent isn't a crime.
--Hiram
If we were that concerned about "carnage" we would start in a vastly different place than with a few illegally-acquired and used "assault weapons" which are not really assault weapons.
Are you really saying that what happened in Orlando wasn't carnage, or if it is, those who raise the issue of the access to the assault weapons used there aren't concerned about it?
--Hiram
I'm saying that those who propose banning "assault weapons" aren't concerned enough about the problems of mass shootings to do something that would actually matter. They are also apparently unaware that FAR more people are killed every year in "ordinary carnage." Lately, by the way, these events all have an Islamist tinge to them, and THAT would seem to be the more relevant common feature by which to pursue solutions to such events.
"aren't concerned enough about the problems of mass shootings to do something that would actually matter."
Jerry, Okay I'll bite... What is this?
I was going to post this elsewhere, since apparently our two worthless MN Senators have joined the cries for new gun control measures. It is this: I demand a guarantee that if these two gun control measures are passed-- an "assault weapons" ban and not permitting those on the the terror or no-fly lists to pass background checks, that we will never have another mass shooting. The minute we do, these laws become null and void. Were I to lay a bet, I would give it six months, at best. And that's giving them the first 3 months "free."
Can you really give credit for caring and concern to someone who wants a quick-fix government solution that will have ZERO effect on the actual problem? Killers wantonly disobey the laws against murder. Is a law against carrying a firearm into a nightclub really going to stop them?
They are also apparently unaware that FAR more people are killed every year in "ordinary carnage."
It may be the case that people who are concerned about one issue are also concerned about other issues. Issue wise, there is such a thing as multi tasking. And I do understand the argument here. After all, the percentage of Americans slain with assault weapons is small, and it seems, at an acceptable level. Especially, compared with the wonderful benefits easy access to semi automatic assault weapons brings to all of us.
--Hiram
Paul wrote a Community Voices piece on why no American should have "assault rifles".
Can you really give credit for caring and concern to someone who wants a quick-fix government solution that will have ZERO effect on the actual problem?
The point of addressing gun issues isn't really to score caring and concern credit.
" And I do understand the argument here. After all, the percentage of Americans slain with assault weapons is small, and it seems, at an acceptable level"
And that really is at the heart of the discussion. Children are murdered of course, but the numbers are acceptably low. On the other hand, easy access to assault weapons are of enormous benefit to our society in ways that are never explained but surely must exist.
--Hiram
"...assault weapons are of enormous benefit to our society in ways that are never explained but surely must exist."
Yes, it's true. Of the 5 million or so "assault weapons" already in the hands of law-abiding citizens, exactly ONE of them was [mis-]used in this terrible assault. Every other person got some enjoyment (using it for sport) or sense of security, knowing that they could defend home and family if it ever, Heaven forbid, became necessary. And last year, statistics show that almost 2.5 million crimes were prevented using firearms, NOT counting their use by police.
This problems is little different than the TSA. They waste vast amounts of time and money looking for bombs, when they should be looking for bombers. Here, we shouldn't be looking at guns, but the killers that might wield them.
...why no American should have "assault rifles"
I know I shouldn't laugh. The author of this piece goes to great lengths to say that assault weapons bans based on cosmetic features cannot be effective, then proposes a solution, which is to "ban all weapons that LOOK LIKE military weapons after 1880"! Isn't that a ban based strictly on cosmetic features? Seems like it would include plastic replicas and non-functional collector's items as well. And, one assumes, cavalry swords, tomahawks, etc.?
We're conflating two, and maybe more, different problems here. We've got crazy people that shouldn't have guns, like Sandy Hook or Columbine, and we've got criminals like the gangs killing a dozen people a week in Chicago alone. We could do a better job of keeping crazy people from getting guns and of getting criminals off the streets, but more guns in law-abiding hands actually HELPS these situations, not hurts. To believe otherwise is to live in a liberal fantasyland. That's also true of the kind of terrorist attack here, but there is more that should be done. Start with naming the threat-- "Islamic terror." Whether it is radical or not is another question, but there is absolutely no doubt that this guy was a religious fanatic, inspired by spiritual [mis-]leaders. Cut off that "incitement" and we have less of a problem.
Where do criminals get their guns? Is there a separate criminal gun industry that supplies guns to hoodlums exclusively.
We talk about the law abiding citizen who needs a gun to protect themselves from criminals but this is largely a meaningless distinction. Criminals have guns because law abiding businesses make guns and sell guns either directly or indirectly to criminals, and all in this context all law abiding means that the thugs have access to better lawyers, better lobbyists, and more effective politicians.
--Hiram
--
OK, let's do this: Let's have the same highly potent gun bans as Paris and Brussels. Surely that would stop all of these terrorists attacks, just as they did there, right? Oops.
: Let's have the same highly potent gun bans as Paris and Brussels.
As I recall, the Brussels terrorists used bombs. Should the fact that Belgian authorities were unable to stop a bomb attack mean that bombs should be legalized in Belgium or Europe generally?
But what opponents to the widespread availability of assault weapons need to contend with is the social utility of these weapons, the value they add to our lives. They do, after all, make wonderful ashtrays and excellent lamps.
--Hiram
Post a Comment