I keep seeing politicians and liberal media pundits pointing at the horrifying pictures from the Sandy Hook school massacre and calling for more gun control. But are they using the images of 20 murdered children to promote laws that would have affected that tragedy, or any recent mass murder? Hell no! They’re fighting for the standard pillars of gun control:
An assault weapons ban (worthless, given that Cho at VT used a pistol) Background checks for all purchases (worthless, given that most of the recent shooting were either with stolen guns or the guy passed a background check) A ban on “large capacity” magazines (pretty much worthless — *click* *click* — as long as it takes to say that is as long as it takes to change out a lower capacity magazine).
Is this offensive to anyone else?
I listened to the President’s address on his Biden led “Gun Violence Panel” expecting an anti-gun diatribe, but what I got on the gun issue was a carefully worded (to lock him into as few positions as possible) speech basically saying “an Assault Weapons Ban would be nice, but let’s just agree we all want to keep military style weapons out of . . . → Read More: Let’s cut the crap and talk about real solutions to keeping children safe — not just anti-gun laws
It’s funny how a single image can affect you more profoundly than a thousand others. When I see the collage of the faces of all those beautiful children murdered in the Sandy Hook elementary school massacre it’s just too much; it’s like trying to drink pain from a firehose. That picture could be of my first grader’s class, children whom I know by name and see regularly. My brain can’t conceive of all of them gone from something so … terrible? Horrible? Unthinkable? My thesaurus fails me. There’s no adequate word in the English language for so many children savagely murdered.
But then I see a picture of a father walking along the sidewalk, head low, to attend his child’s funeral. And suddenly that’s me. Crushed and dazed and about to see the body of my six year old lying in a casket. Whom just days before I had kissed on the cheek and dropped off at school. And I find myself with tears in my eyes. And my heart so full of pain I can barely stand it.
With 300 million people what can we do to keep the insane and hateful from murdering innocents? Should we make the . . . → Read More: A Gun Guy Does Some Soul Searching After the Sandy Hook School Massacre
I pretty much ended this blog some time ago, but since I still have some “followers” and I still see people reading it, here’s my post for 2012 …
So I’ve been watching Facebook people arguing back and forth for awhile about the Auroroa Theater Massacre and what enabled the monster (who’s name I won’t repeat) to accomplish what he did. But many seem to think that some kind of gun law would have stopped him (though the law against murder did not), or that limiting him to 10 round magazines would have stopped him. And of course they call upon the Clinton error Assault Weapons Ban, which ran from 1994 – 2004, and was punctuated by the Columbine mass murder which happened RIGHT IN THE MIDDLE OF IT in 1999. But it doesn’t keep people from self righteously proclaiming something like:
Yes guys, every time I envision of the empty 100 round magazine lying on the floor of that Aurora theatre, among the blood and bodies, I can think of only one thing. FREEDOM!!
OR, most common, the “I’m in favor of the second Amednemdment but”:
I’m not against the sale of guns. It’s our Constitutional right to . . . → Read More: High Capacity Magazines — Will banning them end mass murders?
Plenty of others have commented on Joe Zamudio, who ran TOWARDS the gunfire with weapon ready when Jared Loughner opened fire on Rep. Giffords’ meeting. We on the pro-gun side honor his courage for running toward the violence. Those on the anti-gun side consider him one of the dangers of the day, being he didn’t kill the bad guy (anti-gun people care only about body count) and as he surveyed the situation he initially targeted an innocent man helping to disarm Loughner. Did Zamudio’s legally carried firearm save the day? No. Did it empower another civilian to run to the aid of those fighting Loughner instead of fleeing the gunfire as other unarmed civilians did? Hell yeah! If Loughner had succeeded in his reload and eluded those that tackled him, was his shooting rampage over once Zamudio appeared? Probably. The bottom line … the gun Zamudio carried was nothing but good. And if you’re ever in such a situation where gunfire breaks out and no police are around … you’d better hope there is a Zamudio in the area.
The facts of what happened in Tucson challenge two constantly repeated tenets of the opposing sides of the gun debate; the . . . → Read More: Joe Zamudio, the legal CCWer who intervened in the Tucson massacre
There’s no American who cares about their country that doesn’t feel pain when one of our representatives is gunned down. And political stance and political party don’t matter; when someone attacks an elected leader, they attack us all. And because of this I agree that an attack on a leader can require more action than another citizen. i.e. when President Clinton bombed Iraq after the alleged assassination plot against ex-president Bush in Kuwait, it was probably not an action he would take if an average citizen were targeted — and was not something we would expect of him.
According to Brady Campaign Vice President Dennis Henigan on Countdown with Keith Olberman Friday night (actually moderated by Chris Hayes) … apparently pro-gun congress people may be ready to change their positions on gun control and decide the laws they’ve rejected in the past, because they haven’t work anywhere else, are suddenly worthwhile after lunatic Jared Loughner’s Tucson murder spree. But the sad fact is …
Rep. Gabrielle Giffords was hit by the FIRST round, not the last. So the brutal and tragic bottom line is … to whatever extent lower capacity mags might have helped in this assault (and I think . . . → Read More: A quick note to legislators …
I’ve used this blog to review mass murders and the standard list of gun controls anti-gun groups trot out as a “response” even though they would have no effect. Such as using the VTI massacre to end guns shows and pass nationwide one-gun-a-month, though the guns were NOT bought at a gun show and Virginia already HAD one-gun-a-month. But this time they seem to be targeting only a restriction on magazines that hold over 10 rounds. And it is NOT illogical to say that if Loughner had had a lower capacity magazine he might have been tackled earlier and shot less people. But since in a free society (which anti-gun people don’t seem to understand anyway) the burden of proof is on a laws’ advocates to prove that it is necessary to restrict anything, much less a constitutionally protected right … I don’t think they can meet that burden. There are two many variables and facts they ignore.
And just a note on the ongoing problems in logic of anti-gun groups … for the VTI massacre they vehemently claim that even though the victims had time to bar doors while the gunman roamed around, help people climb out windows, and . . . → Read More: Did a large capacity magazine (30 round “clip”) empower Jared Loughner to murder more people?
I actually first posted this almost two years ago, but I think it’s apropos now as we see the anti-gun groups mounting a campaign to remedy the violence of an insane man with legal restrictions on all 300 million Americans. In this shooting there were armed citizens nearby, and one did come in to help, but given the nature of the attack the shooter was already on the ground so firing at him wasn’t necessary. There also is at least a legitimate argument to be made in this case that the capacity of the shooter’s firearm did empower him to shoot more than if he had a lower capacity magazine … but I’ll deal with that specific issue shortly. In the meantime, here is a general critique of the reaction of the anti-gun groups and their outlook:
Josh Sugarman, who blames all the violence in America on the NRA, published Yet Another Mass Shooting, at the Washington Post, a fill-in-the-blank article for lazy reporters who don’t want to do real research or unbiased reporting (Washpo is a probably a prime candidate to use this for gun related stories). But I believe a few corrections are in order. I’ve made those . . . → Read More: A fill in the blank article on mass shootings (repost)
Brady Board member Joan Peterson, blogging as Japete, makes her second post within a day and a half of the murderous assault by probable psychopath Jared Loughner. The anti-gun groups jumped on this incident of political violence with exuberance, undoubtedly hoping for the kind of success they attained after other political assassinations (from Kennedy to Reagan, though none of those laws affected this assault). And honestly … I don’t blame them. At their core are people who truly believe that all violence is due to guns and that without them violent people would be harmless (which is not actually supported by history, recent or otherwise) and so it’s natural that they assume that every violent incident will suddenly “open the eyes” of Americans to agree with their version of “common sense” (though it may be anything but).
But a reading of Japete’s post and opinion gives a window to the reasoning the anti-gun groups are using to try and take away a constitutionally protected right, personal empowerment, and cultural tradition … but contrary to what they say their views are not logical, not in our best interests as a nation, and not really common sense at all.
I do realize . . . → Read More: Anti-gunner’s view of the Tucson mass murder and assassination attempt on Rep. Gabrielle Giffords
A lot of the stuff I read from the Left about Jared Loughner’s mass murder and assassination attempt of Rep. Gabrielle Giffords in Tucson is intent on using this horrible event as a political opportunity to attack conservatives (the TEA party) and the pundits they follow. Where is the logic of attacking the new conservative movement in America based on the murderous actions of an anarchist who likes Karl Marx? (as well as about any other whacky idea — he was a headcase for sure).
As I said in my earlier post … we could not make a bigger mistake; to let the actions of this insane murderer affect our freedom or even our political views would be like allowing our country to be frightened into becoming a police state after 9-11. To live in a free society takes courage, and let’s hope this is still the land of the free and the home of the brave (the former requires the latter, and the latter will always obtain the former). Even if we have to share it with a few psychotic mass murderers.
But what is the logic of the left on this? Even if we assume Loughner in some . . . → Read More: The assault on our liberties that began in Tucson with one targeted Congresswoman … now targets us all
The left has been trying to focus blame for Jared Loughner’s mass murder and assassination attempt of Rep. Gabrielle Giffords on the TEA Party and the talk radio/cable TV pundits who are related to it. Wow. Normally it’s just anti 2nd amendment groups that jump on a murder to try and limit a right, now it’s those who would limit freedom of speech for political reasons.
Pima County Sheriff Clarence Dupnik has been accused of being on the forefront of this effort for some of his remarks. I’ll give him the benefit of the doubt that he’s speaking out of pain and anger, as Ms. Giffords was a personal friend of his, and I’m sure he is reeling from what happened in his own backyard. But there are certainly those who are using this situation for political gains. And they are using his words.
Mr. Dupnik said a lot of things, but at the heart of them is what he calls the “vitriol” coming from television and radio:
Let me say one thing, because people tend to pooh-pooh this business about all the vitriol that we hear inflaming the American public by people who make a living off of doing . . . → Read More: Did Glenn Beck and Sarah Palin convince Jared Loughner to murder Rep. Giffords?