 |
| Reasoned discourse |
Thursday, December 03, 2015
Kingman, Barstow, San Bernardino
I don't know the motive for the shooting yesterday in the town the locals call San Berdoo. I do know that leftist hive mockery doesn't help matters:
I pray every day. Today, I might even pray for the editors of the New York Daily News. Hope they don't mind.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
13 comments:
After the Umpqua CC shooting 2 months ago, Obama condescendingly stated "...prayers are not enough." With the selected GOP politicos tweeting out prayers requests, I saw it as they were unwittingly trolling the President.
With the selected GOP politicos tweeting out prayers requests, I saw it as they were unwittingly trolling the President.
That must be it, Brad.
Or as the BBC stated, “Just another day in the United States of America, another day of gunfire, panic, and fear.”
I'm not panicking, CB. You can panic if you like.
Wait a second... So a terrorist attack is a blemish on us? So Europe is about the same size as America, give or take. They've got that little Ukranian somethin, they've had the rape scandal, the Tube explosion, the Madrid explosion, murdered artists, mass-murder in Paris, and probably a lot that I miss because I'm not actually looking to grind an ax. Ummkay then. Narrative much?
I believe they were talking about the actual incident and not about the American people panicking. I am not panicking, but for this to go on is completely idiotic. We can just wait for the group of survivors or families of victims to get larger until one day we are forced to take action. Welcome to America!
So Mr. Picklesworth, I believe the BBC published that article before they knew it was a terrorist attack. Also, I believe there are certain parties breathing a sigh of relief that it appears it was a terrorist attack so the narrative (as long as we are talking about narrative) can be changed to "President does not mention radical Islam." Oh wait, that has already been said! Plus I believe the narrative is sound as it was the 355th mass shooting in the US this year - which is stated in the article as well. Or maybe it will only be 354 as this qualifies as a terrorist attack which is different for I am not sure what reason.
I am not panicking, but for this to go on is completely idiotic.
Define "this," please.
You need to look at what a mass shooting is, by the way. I saw the example attributed to Minnesota, which was a sad and horrible case in which a father killed his wife and two children, then himself. While that is tragic, there was no danger to the public from the incident.
This graphic shows mass killings in the United States since 2006. The info comes from Gannett/USA Today, a mainstream media source. You'll notice that over half the incidents reported are situations such as the Minnesota case. The "mass shooting" data you cite is from a crowd-sourced site that comes out of Reddit. It includes people getting shot with BB guns, among other things. Perhaps that's enough for you to believe a narrative is sound. I would, personally, want something a little more substantial.
Some of my regular commenters are gun people, some aren't. Some carry every day. I have no fear of any of them.
This is mass shooting and inability of our country to have a sane discussion and resolution of this argument. There are straw arguments on both sides that need to be weeded through so this issue and problem can be resolved.
Regarding the data I sited, yes I do look at that as a reliable narrative. Just because no one dies does not disqualify it from being a mass shooting. This site is challenging the narrative which to me is asking what is gun violence. Also, the makers of the list define in this article how they come to their numbers and why they do so. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2015/12/03/what-makes-a-mass-shooting-in-america/
And if you do not like that site, this site even challenges the narrative further as to what is gun violence. I appreciate this statement in their mission statement: "GVA is not, by design an advocacy group. The mission of GVA is to document incidents of gun violence and gun crime to provide raw, verified data to those who need to use it in their research, advocacy or writing." Regarding your point about recording BB guns this is how they record it: "We collect incidents where Airsoft or BB guns are used AS weapons, not where they are used in general vandalism or delinquency. Those collected ARE NOT included in our Incident Totals on the Daily Summary Ledger." Here is the site: http://www.gunviolencearchive.org/
Regardless, the dialogue needs to change as this issue is not whether the public is in danger, but can we or should we restrict ownership of guns and why is the gun death rate so high in America. Both sides use straw arguments that need to be tossed aside. It is incredible to me how both sides view the other and have this paranoia that the other is trying to destroy their lives and America.
I too have many friends who are gun owners and many of them I trust. I have shot guns with them with the coolest being an elk rifle which almost took my shoulder out! Some, however, have become "preppers" and have developed kits for a coming apocalypse that they are sure is coming. They have a multitude of guns, have survival backpacks ready and are sure Obama is a Muslim and is coming to take all of their guns and destroy America. These are bright, caring people with a few of them being engineers at Intel. I also have many Mormon friends (as it is popular in Oregon) who have food, supplies and ammunition piled up in case something happens. Some do it as a wise practice (which I can totally understand) while others do it with the same prepper mentality. Those people with the prepper mentality, I must admit, I do not trust as I see their mentality illogical and a little unhinged.
I also have a 25 year friend who served 2 tours in Afghanistan and was a sniper who now has PTSD from the people he has killed and wakes up at night occasionally screaming. He was asked to join a militia in one of our suburbs because they too had the same views as the others stated above. His response was they were delusional and was not interested. Out of anyone I know he seems to have the most balanced view of gun ownership - balancing the right of gun ownership with being willing to suggest limits.
So my last comment was long and I had to cut out the rest which I believe needs to be added so here you go!
On another vein, my wife is a parole officer with our county and works with mentally ill who have committed crimes. She will tell you that more guns are not the answer. She will also tell you that less then 2 or 3 % of her parolees commit crimes with guns so blaming the mentally ill for gun crimes she does not find as valid. In fact, most of them are not violent at all, are homeless and if they have any weapons it is usually a knife for self-defense. The ironic thing is usually the only time they are violent is when they are provoked by the police! The parole officers do random home visits of any parolees not in jail and for those that cannot have weapons due to their parole conditions and are found to have a weapon are taken in to custody for a parole violation. Lydia will also tell you that she sees many issues with the justice system, police tactics issues, not enough preventative follow-up for parolees, lack of funding for counseling and mental health issues and the list goes on.
So, why did I bring all of this up? The people I mentioned are just a small cross-section of sides of the gun debate that I would like to see involved in discussions. Neither side is evil and each needs to build a trust for one another. I know this affects a lot of big issues, but somehow, someway we need to move forward.
She will tell you that more guns are not the answer.
Where did I say that we need more guns? No one is making that argument, at least here. Please don't decry straw man arguments in your introduction and then make them as you go forward. It erodes your credibility.
I would add that you would find considerable sympathy in my readership regarding criminal justice issues that Lydia would identify (my best to her, by the way), as many of my readers are more libertarian than traditionally conservative. Do you see that those issues, which boil down to the arbitrary use of state power, are precisely why many people feel they need to keep weapons for self-defense?
You could kill someone with a paint ball gun, I suppose. You could also kill a person with a screwdriver, or a kitchen knife, or a brick, or by drowning them in a bathtub. The issue isn't the tool you choose, it's the intent. You can discuss all these matters to the point of tedium, but you will never change human nature.
You did not say we needed more guns and I never stated you did, Mr. D. It is an argument that normally goes along with the anti-gun control lobby as evidenced by Jerry Falwell Jr and I was getting ahead of the game. Probably not a good idea in retrospect.
Though I appreciate the arguments of state power I do not see the relevance of it when it comes to the gun argument that I see currently raging. It is not based on logic as I stated above, but more based on fear, Obama taking over, a coming apocalypse, etc. My understanding of the gun control argument is not wanting to take away all guns and in favor of the 2nd Amendment, but wanting to have laws changed and more money for enforcement as opposed to agencies like the ATF being gutted by legislation, ironically, put forward by the NRA. We have strengthened gun laws before and we have survived. For example, the US Supreme Court ruled in the case of the United States v. Miller in 1939 that the federal government and the states could limit any weapon types not having a reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia.
It is a discussion that needs to be continued, but the parameters have to be changed as I stated in my last 2 comments. Unfortunately, in this current climate it will take some time. And though I know we can kill people with the items you mentioned it is not the same as what the CA shooters legally purchased: 2 legal .223 caliber assault-style rifles and two 9 mm semi-automatic handguns. Though the shooters' intent would still be there maybe it might have been a little harder to kill so many people if they had less firepower.
Actually, they didn't purchase the .223s legally. Straw purchase, and then they illegally upgraded them to hold 30 round magazines (CA limit is 10 or 15) and tried to make one of them full auto. So by the time they'd (illegally) walked into that building with those guns, they'd broken a bunch of laws.
Plus, the shot count at both sites was about 60-70--are we really to believe that the second or two it takes to reload would have made that much of a difference? Keep in mind at least one of them reloaded once during each firefight, as they've found more than 60 casings at each site.
And really, if you want some nasty firepower at close range, ban the .223 and watch the illegales walk fully automatic AKs across the border, chambered in 7.62. Just ask Parisians.
Really, if you want to reduce body counts in general, you've got to address why people kill themselves or others. The big contributing factors to that, as far as I can tell, are family breakup (big for both homicide and suicide), the drug trade, and the gang life (where family also plays a huge role). Mental illness, too. Guns are only the tool.
And when you address that, you've got to understand that the perceived cost of aggression plays a role, which is why it's important to make it possible to have victims shooting back or otherwise making life interesting for the perpetrator. That's where policing comes in, too.
Post a Comment