May 19, 2018

What kind of state governor would say about a 17-year-old "He didn't have the courage to commit suicide"?

Texas Governor Greg Abbott.

Whatever outrage you feel fired up or politically motivated to express, do not put that idea out there for young people to consume: Suicide is an act of courage.

404 comments:

1 – 200 of 404   Newer›   Newest»
Sebastian said...

"What kind of state governor would say"

The kind that has access to what the shooter himself said?

AlbertAnonymous said...

I thought it made perfect sense in context. Apparently he left notes saying he planned to kill a bunch of people and then commit suicide. But he ended up giving himself up. So he chickened out. Coward.

HT said...

Ah distractions.

mccullough said...

When the decision is to massacre other people or suicide, then suicide is the courageous act. Also, if you feel compelled to rape or kill, then take one for the team and kill yourself. It’s the right thing to do.

Beloved Commenter AReasonableMan said...

This is the America the gun lobby has given us:

'It's happening everywhere': Texas student, 17, says she wasn't at all surprised by the Santa Fe mass shooting and EXPECTED to be shot at school eventually

Guns everywhere, making us safer.

chuck said...

Doesn't bother me.

David Begley said...

The trial will be an abortion.

Bob said...

Remember Dennis Miller's famous rant "You have got to lean into the strike zone and take one for the team."

Achilles said...

The leftist press fawn over the school shooters. Watch ARM orgasm every time it happens. They get in their and post pictures of the killers as much as they can and empathize on national TV with the plight of the shooter and blame an inanimate object.

They should be mocked as the subhuman filth they are. Yes both of the above.

Bob said...

And I myself have pondered this question in my mind: how many individuals each year commit suicide to prevent themselves from committing homicide? The violence turned inward, rather than outward?

Matt Sablan said...

We've got a lot to learn about the shooter before we really know what to do.

Was there a pattern of behavior ignored? Did he routinely make threats and commit violent crimes, yet somehow the authorities ignored him?

Also, if that student expected to be shot at, maybe it is because the media has done a terrible job of adequately explaining how low the chances are of being a victim of a school shooting, or a shooting in general. For a fact-based community, you'd think the left would be a lot more re-assuring on this topic.

Beloved Commenter AReasonableMan said...

Achilles said...
They should be mocked as the subhuman filth they are.


The shit stains are out early on this thread.

Ironclad said...

Hmmm. Funny that the anti bullying crowd isn’t up in righteous indignation too since apparently the school coaches were laughing at the kid and making jokes that he “smelled bad”

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.dailywire.com/news/30827/watch-student-says-shooter-was-picked-coaches-wore-ryan-saavedra%3Famp

The kid was bottled lightning. In Texas he will get the death penalty

Matt Sablan said...

"There were no red flags beforehand to indicate that Pagourtzis was headed for trouble, Governor Greg Abbott said. But social media and journal entries revealed a young man infatuated with guns, determined to kill and to die."

-- I'll wait on this, since the same thing was said about pretty much every mass shooter until we found out all the red flags.

Also, Abbott being quoted like this:

"Abbott told reporters that entries in the teen's personal journals, seized by police, showed, "Not only did he want to commit the shooting, but he wanted to commit suicide after the shooting."

But, Abbott said, "He didn't have the courage to commit suicide.""

Is terrible journalism, considering if you look at ARM's link, it says: "The suspect told authorities after his arrest that he had intended to kill himself too, but that he lacked the courage."

Why is the first story pretending Abbott is saying this as if it is his own idea, instead of just reporting what the shooter actually said?

Beloved Commenter AReasonableMan said...

Other countries have mental illness and a press, what they don't have is an out of control gun lobby. This is the difference. Everyone knows it, only some will acknowledge the real source of the problem.

rcocean said...

There should be a standing policy to kill these mass murders on-sight. What is to be gained by putting this looney on trial and putting him in Jail for 20 years?

In 2038 he'll be walking around free - age 37, while his victims will still be dead.

Darrell said...

The shit stains are out early on this thread.

Yep. 9:31 AM by my reckoning.

Beloved Commenter AReasonableMan said...

Another shit stain.

Darrell said...

Quarter-wit.

holdfast said...

This pathetic shitstain used guns based on designs over 150 years old. Pakistani villagers can craft more sophisticated weapons out of scrap metal while seated on the dirt floor of a hut.

For decades these sorts of guns were sold freely in American hardware stores.

The guns didn’t change.

The culture changed. The Leftists won the battle against family, faith and community.

The media, including so-called conservatives like Drudge plaster their faces and pathetic “manifestos” all over our screens.

Darrell said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
rhhardin said...

Women's weepy feelings track the definition of child as the defined age of child goes up and up, a curious evolutionary fact.

I'd end it when testosterone kicks in seriously.

Beloved Commenter AReasonableMan said...

Other countries have leftists, more of them in fact, what they don't have is an out of control gun lobby. This is the difference. Everyone knows it, only some will acknowledge the real source of the problem.

Bilwick said...

I've always thought suicide takes courage. I know several times in my life I have contemplated suicide and I just didn't have the nerve to do it.
In retrospect I'm glad I didn't, and if nothing else I need to stay alive for the sake of my "unborn children" (novels I want to write). But I do feel it takes a certain type of courage to point the gun at yourself and pull the trigger.

Re what the governor said, I think it might have been George Carlin (or maybe Dennis Miller) who advised potential murderers to reverse the usual procedure, where they kill their victims and then kill themselves. He said, "Instead of that, start with yourself."

Bob said...

UK doesn't have a "gun lobby," so the guns are mostly gone. The subjects (not citizens, citizens are free men) are going at each other with knives and bottles of acid.

David Begley said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Big Mike said...

@Althouse, you are so effing gullible to left-wing spin in the press. Abbott was restating what the shooter himself said. Sheesh.

tim in vermont said...

We had guns everywhere when I was a kid. This stuff didn't happen because the culture had not yet been destroyed.

Birkel said...

Order of operations matters if you want the correct answer.

Kill people and then commit suicide is the wrong order.

The correct order is suicide first and then mass murder.

David Begley said...

The guns didn’t change.

The culture changed. The Leftists won the battle against family, faith and community. “

And that’s why the attacks on the NRA and demand for new gun control laws will never work.

Getting into a school will be as tough as boarding a plane but with roving cops in the halls.

I suppose some day these security measures will be necessary even at Omaha’s Catholic schools and small town high schools in Nebraska.

Beloved Commenter AReasonableMan said...

The culture changed in other countries, more so in many. What they don't have is an out of control gun lobby. This is the difference. Everyone knows it, only some will acknowledge the real source of the problem.

Matt Sablan said...

How is the gun lobby out of control when they spend about the same as other lobbies? And, in fact, often spend less?

While gun rights vs gun control groups, the spending appears radically different, that is mainly a product of gun control groups being part and parcel of other spending efforts and not needing to spend as much to get their message out compared to gun rights groups.

So -- how do you define an "out of control" lobby?

J. E. Malthaus said...

"What kind of state governor would say about a 17-year-old "He didn't have the courage to commit suicide"?

The murderer had a plan that he failed to see through because of fear. Which would seem to be the opposite of courage, really.

Perhaps courage should be less binary, and more like sexuality: heterocourageous, homocourageous, bicourageous, acourageous, etc etc.

Because adding more alternatives provides the clarity of obfuscation, which helps us hide definitions and usages we find distasteful or upsetting.

It takes courage to see the courageousness in suicide, possibly.

LWL

BillyTalley said...

Agreed. Here's another thing the state shouldn't do: enlarge the sphere of the state that resulted from tragedies like this. More: I think the state has -increasingly over time- arrogated the responsibility of raising kids from parents. All we hear is plans for a further enlargement of the state, "...more police state...", they say. Instead, the state should devolve the responsibility of raising kids BACK to parents. The parents of the Santa Fe shooter should have to answer to why they didn't know why their kid not only had unsupervised access to their guns, but also why he was able to build pipe bombs (9!??) without them knowing so. Parents across the country should be held to account for the formation of character of their children as they become adults.

Bob Boyd said...

Did you ever notice how often you can learn something from Matt Sablan's comments?
I like that.

tim in vermont said...

Wasn't it just yesterday that ARM was talking about tiresome comments?

PJ said...

Suicide can be an act of courage, and a failure to follow through on a sincere plan of suicide a result of inadequate courage. Whether the particular non-suicide in question resulted from a failure of courage may be debatable, and perhaps the Governor stated a conclusion before all the relevant facts are known (in which case, criticize him for that). But in my view the idea that young people need to be protected from the very notion of suicide as an act of courage strikes me as preposterous. In the first place, unless you’re talking about pre-teens, I have little doubt that young people are already well aware that suicide requires a sort of courage many people lack (I know I was, lo those many years ago). And in the second place, to the extent that a perverse vision of a suicide may form a critical part of an overall plan that also includes mass murder, doubts about the courage to follow through on the former may lead to a decision to abstain from the latter.

Beloved Commenter AReasonableMan said...

The state has enlarged its sphere in other countries, more so in many. What they don't have is an out of control gun lobby. This is the difference. Everyone knows it, only some will acknowledge the real source of the problem.

Matt Sablan said...

ARM: Could you define an out of control lobby? What makes the gun rights advocacy group out of control?

Beloved Commenter AReasonableMan said...

If the gun lobby was not out of control we would have gun laws like other countries. What those other countries don't have is an out of control gun lobby. This is the difference. Everyone knows it, only some will acknowledge the real source of the problem.

Bilwick said...

But that's because you're a natural serf, ARM. Even if you could prove that stricter gun control is effective in reducing murder, and that's why Chicago is such a murder-free Utopia, some of us prefer the risks of a free society. Ignoble wretches, on the other hand, prefer to crawl on their bellies, whining, "Protect me, Big Brother, protect me!" The irony of course is that Big Brother is the bloodiest and most dangerous gunslinger of all. Another reason that Ben Franklin was right about those who would trade freedom for security deserve neither.

Beloved Commenter AReasonableMan said...

More Americans Than Ever Support Stricter Gun Control Laws, Poll Finds

Matt Sablan said...

Considering, for example, the Heller decision was required to prevent the state from trampling on civil rights, and that required a lot of spending -- and educating people on why it was the right decision -- how can we claim that it is "out of control?" In our very lifetimes we've had a Supreme Court decision confirm that the states are unconstitutionally trying to bar people from their civil rights.

Beloved Commenter AReasonableMan said...

William Chadwick said...
Ignoble wretches


Prove to me that you are any less an ignoble wretch than any other citizen, while sitting under your nuclear umbrella.

Matt Sablan said...

"Support for universal background checks, a mandatory waiting period for firearm purchases and an assault weapon ban came in at 97%, 83% and 67%, respectively."

-- All three of those things already exist in one form or another for most gun purchases, so it isn't really a surprise that they'd be popular.

Beloved Commenter AReasonableMan said...

So the Supreme Court can never be out of step with the best interests of the country or its citizens?

Bob Boyd said...

What do you propose be done to get the gun lobby under control ARM?

tim in vermont said...

We should definitely throw out our constitution to get our murder rate down by two per hundred thousand to European levels!

Suicide is a bigger problem, but suicide doesn't make the news.

holdfast said...

Well, since this is America and the guns were here first, how about some Common Sense Lefty Control?

You know, For The Children.


Other countries have had school massacres, but only here did the media turn the tragedy into a cultural event and the killers into celebs. And it’s been Colombia copy cats ever since.

Darrell said...

Don't be a fuckhead and listen to the Left.

--Some wise man

Matt Sablan said...

"So the Supreme Court can never be out of step with the best interests of the country or its citizens?"

-- This is a stupid question that doesn't address the initial query: Can you define an "out of control lobby?" The point of the fact is to show that, given the spending habits of other organizations and the fact that in very recent history gun rights advocacy has proven to have important topics in the public sphere, it isn't unexpected to see them spending money. It doesn't matter if the Supreme Court is right or wrong; there was a reason for higher spending recently. Define "out of control lobby."

tim in vermont said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Darrell said...

What this country needs is a bigger gun lobby.
And a five cent cigar.

tim in vermont said...

Change the constitution. ARM is advocating just ignoring it, what a surprise, an anti-democratic tyrant wannabe.

Michael K said...

"The shit stains are out early on this thread."

Another crazy ARM thread. Maybe you should get help, ARM.

Before you stab somebody.

Beloved Commenter AReasonableMan said...

Bob Boyd said...
What do you propose be done to get the gun lobby under control ARM?


That the losers who continue to support it gradually die off and their relatives melt down their guns.

Beloved Commenter AReasonableMan said...

Michael K

Another crazy shit stain.

CWJ said...

The sun rises in the East in other countries. What they don't have is an out of control gun lobby. This is the difference. Everyone knows it, only some will acknowledge the real source of the problem.

Darrell said...

Wasn't it just yesterday that ARM was talking about tiresome comments?

Yeah. He accidentally read some of his comments, if I recall.

Beloved Commenter AReasonableMan said...

holdfast said...
Other countries have had school massacres, but only here did the media turn the tragedy into a cultural event


This is nonsense, of course.

Matt Sablan said...

Honestly, I feel like instead of insulting ARM, etc., etc., it would be best to just force him to actually *answer the damn question* and refuse to continue entertaining his trollish statements. He wants a reasonable discussion, fine.

Define "out of control lobby."

tim in vermont said...

Bernie Sanders could have made the five cent cigar comment, instead he prattled on about not needing so many brands of deodorant.

CWJ said...

Gravity exists in other countries. What they don't have is an out of control gun lobby. This is the difference. Everyone knows it, only some will acknowledge the real source of the problem.

CWJ said...

Etc. Ad nauseam.

Darrell said...

CWJ sounds just like ARM.
Talking points or sockpuppet?
You decide.

Birkel said...

The quest for Leftist Collectivist power is interesting to watch. ARM is a case study.

If the Left is successful in its attempt to disarm and subjugate Americans, there will be a resistance. But not like the one the Left has attempted.

CWJ said...

"Define 'out of control lobby.'"

He won't, of course. It's not part of his game.

chickelit said...

The baby faced killer has sort of a Brian Wilson look going. I’ll bet he gets lots of fan mail mail in prison from sick women.

Birkel said...

Darrell,
CWJ is taking the piss out of ARM.

PJ said...

@Chiselface: As far as I know, the gun lobby is under the same control as all the other lobbies. What you seem to object to is not that they are a lobby, and not that they are somehow exempt from the normal controls on lobbies, but the object of their lobbying — protection of the Second Amendment rights of ordinary citizens. The fundamental difference between the US and most other countries is that the right of private citizens to own militia-ready guns is protected as a civil right in our Constitution. That this protection has led to the existence of lobbying organizations devoted to its preservation, and that the lobbying organization enjoys the support of those who cherish that civil right, are very much a second-order distinctions.

Gahrie said...

do not put that idea out there for young people to consume: Suicide is an act of courage.

Why not. It's not nearly as dangerous as "a fetus is not a person". And about as dangerous as "You'll feel better about yourself if we cut off your penis".

Darrell said...

Why can't I have a rail gun?

tim in vermont said...

ARN tkes all of this personally, the other day he posted a video about how terrible he felt about having his arguments demolished, he felt like I was taking an ax to him, I guess.

The reason he won't engage is that he has zero confidence in his ability to hold up his side of a rational discussion. It's pathetic, really.

Darrell said...

CWJ is taking the piss out of ARM.

Quite.

Bob Boyd said...

ARM said..."That the losers who continue to support it gradually die off and their relatives melt down their guns."

This is a little more honest anyway.

CWJ said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Beloved Commenter AReasonableMan said...

CWJ said...
Gravity exists in other countries.


It does, just like all the other ridiculous excuses proffered to explain why gun violence is so prevalent in this country.

Birkel said...

The First Amendment acknowledges freedom of speech and the right to petition for redress of grievances. The Second Amendment acknowledges a right to self defense.

ARM advocates all three be abolished in his quest for power via disarmament of Americans.

Beloved Commenter AReasonableMan said...

Birkel said...
Darrell,
CWJ is taking the piss out of ARM.


Birkel assuming that Darrell is very stupid. Not sure how he could have developed that idea.

Gahrie said...

So the Supreme Court can never be out of step with the best interests of the country or its citizens?

Sure they can. Dred Scott, Plessy, Lawerence and Roe are all good examples.

Your problem is that you believe that the Constitution is out of step, but know you'll never convince the American people to agree with you, so as the Left does, you want the Court to impose your will upon the country and citizens.

tim in vermont said...

The extra two murders per hundred thousand can mostly be accounted for by the urban hells the Democrats have created by destroying families and flooding the market for low skilled workers with immigrants to win elections.

Gahrie said...

It does, just like all the other ridiculous excuses proffered to explain why gun violence is so prevalent in this country.

Would it make you feel better if they used knives and acid instead like they do in the UK?

Far more people drown each year than are killed by guns....should we ban pools? Think of the children!

CWJ said...

Bob Boyd @ 10:03

Same here. I agree. Mathew and Drago do good work.

mccullough said...

The problem is cultural, much like with radical Islam. The incidence of school shootings has gone up along with the incidence of trrror attacks.

It’s very hard to compare across countries given the differences. The US is made up mostly of people whose ancestors left Europe (and other nations). The people who stayed behind are different than those who came and the US has much more multiethnic people.

why do Europeans have a lower fertility rate than the US? Japan? Australia?

The cultural differences between Americans and the Europeans are pretty vast. We are the people who left those shitholes behind and we still fuck and have kids. We are more violent than they are but we will be around in the future. They will not.

They are dying off. Doesn’t take school shootings to kill them. They are doing it themselves. And the Muslims in their midsts are accelerating their demise.

They are roadkill for radical Islam.



Darrell said...

Not sure how he could have developed that idea

I dunno, ARM. When did you first realize you were stupid? Did the gun lobby tell you?

mccullough said...

More murders in London than New York City. The Knife Lobby in England is stronger than The Gun Lobby in the US.

TWW said...

I'm really not that worried about the governor affecting the sensibilities of a seventeen year old...old enough to kill ten innocent people. And the comment was directed at him and him alone, not the general populace of seventeen year old's.

Why are so many students killing members of their peer group?

Birkel said...

Beloved Commenter AReasonableMan said...
CWJ said...
Gravity exists in other countries.

It does, just like all the other ridiculous excuses proffered to explain why gun violence is so prevalent in this country.
5/19/18, 10:24 AM


In which ARM acts like CWJ agrees with ARM. And then ARM pretends Darrell is the dumb one.

tim in vermont said...

The constitution is just a damned piece of paper!"

Shorter ARM.

I don't really care about guns, but to me 2A is like the canary in the coal mine regarding individual rights vs the state. Fascists like ARM naturally believe that the state is always supreme.

Bruce Hayden said...

“UK doesn't have a "gun lobby," so the guns are mostly gone. The subjects (not citizens, citizens are free men) are going at each other with knives and bottles of acid.”

Be fair to the Britts - that is mostly the Muzzies.

Beloved Commenter AReasonableMan said...

Gahrie said...
Your problem is that you believe that the Constitution is out of step, but know you'll never convince the American people to agree with you


A majority do agree with me that the extreme interpretations of the second amendment promulgated by the gun lobby are wrong.

JAORE said...

If you believe suicide is the proper path to end whatever demons torment you, why commit mass murder first?

So you will be remembered, even glorified by certain folk.

Thus I approve of the very few news people who will not cover the shooter by name.
And, for the same reason I applaud labeling the shooter in a number of ways. Loser, weakling,coward, nut case (yeah, yeah, how unPC of me, get over it), fool and animal.

Maybe, just maybe the next kid wouldn't think this is the way to leave his mark on the world.

Matt Sablan said...

"A majority do agree with me that the extreme interpretations of the second amendment promulgated by the gun lobby are wrong."

-- What do you consider an extreme interpretation of the second amendment?

Beloved Commenter AReasonableMan said...

tim in vermont
Fascist


Shit stain post.

mockturtle said...

False flag! Own up, Althouse! Abbot was just quoting the killer.

tim in vermont said...

" And the comment was directed at him and him alone, not the general populace of seventeen year old's."

This is so mistaken and widespread a thinking error that it makes one despair for the future of free thought. Of course others heard it, we are talking about it. The sentiment is embedded as an obvious truth. He didn't whisper it in the killer's ear.

n.n said...

So, he wanted to self-abort, but then there was different Planning.

Kill people and then commit suicide is the wrong order.

Try it, like it, progress. He made the right choice for himself, but it was too late for his victims.

Beloved Commenter AReasonableMan said...

Matthew Sablan said...
What do you consider an extreme interpretation of the second amendment?


Opposition to the Federal Assault Weapons Ban.

Matt Sablan said...

Second: What is wrong with an extreme interpretation of the Second Amendment? I'm a Free Speech Absolutist; something that was pretty much universally agreed to by the left, ACLU and libertarians in the 90s when that mainly meant "keep people from banning mature video games," but has now warped into an alt-Right, Nazi position that even the ACLU doesn't think should necessarily be embraced. So, knowing exactly what you consider "extreme" and why it is wrong is important to understand what you're saying.

Darrell said...

A majority do agree with me

Sure they do.
Did George Soros tell you that?

Birkel said...

ARM is upset that the gun lobby wins in the marketplace of ideas. Thwrefore, ARM insists that freedom of speech and the right to petition be curtailed so that the Second can be neutered. ARM wants power for the Left. Any other argument at which ARM pretends is a lie.

Bilwick said...

Proving anything to someone as irrational as you, ARM, or any other State cultist would be a Herculean task beyond my powers: as the saying goes, there's no arguing religion, and I find that extra true when the religion is statism. I mean, if in the 21st Century someone is still dopey enough to believe Big Brother is his best friend, a mere syllogism isn't going to break through that level of imbecility. We are then dealing with what Voltaire called "Invincible Stupidity."

But to answer your question (which I suspect we both know was less of a question and more of a dodge; and in the form of the lame "tu quoque"), I'd prefer it if my protection from bad guys (in which category I include statists) came from a limited government type republic rather than a nuclear-armed garrison state; and if I could wave a magic wand and make the latter disappear in place of the former (not just unilaterally but abroad) I would. But I don't. So what do I do? While that unfortunate situation remains in place, I can at least not demand even more restrictions on my liberty. While the serf-minded Eloi, on the other hand. . . .


Darrell said...

Opposition to the Federal Assault Weapons Ban.

It's that black part that goes up, right?

Matt Sablan said...

The Federal Assault Weapons Ban had no discernible impact in crime or violence reduction (The Washington Times quoted University of Pennsylvania professor Christopher Koper, author of the NIJ report, saying, “We cannot clearly credit the ban with any of the nation’s recent drop in gun violence. And, indeed, there has been no discernible reduction in the lethality and injuriousness of gun violence.”)

Support or opposition to it, in relation to actual gun violence, is completely and utterly inconsequential. The ban saved, most likely, zero lives. Support or opposition to it is hardly a logical position to be "Extreme" or "not extreme."

tim in vermont said...

Fascists don't let the text of a constitution stand in their way. What was the majority in the Heller decision? 7-2?

If you have a majority, change the text, I might even vote for it if it were clear, unambiguous, and reasonable. I don't like these semisemi-automatic weapons much more than machine guns we managed to greatly restrict under the current interpretation of 2A.

Trumpit said...

Suicide means killing oneself. Don't be too quick to judge others' actions. In December, 2013, near billionaire, 86-y.o. Robert Wilson leapt to his death from his 16th floor Manhattan penthouse after suffering a debilitating stroke. He gave away 800,000,000 to charity before his death. He probably viewed his death as a mercy killing.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2528944/Multi-millionaire-86-jumps-death-16th-floor-balcony-giving-money-away-charity.html

Achilles said...

Beloved Commenter AReasonableMan said...
The state has enlarged its sphere in other countries, more so in many. What they don't have is an out of control gun lobby. This is the difference. Everyone knows it, only some will acknowledge the real source of the problem.

The state enlarging it's sphere:

Britain proposes sending people to jail for criticizing Islam.

British cops threaten NHS critics as Alfie Evans is killed by Hospital.


ARM supports this "enlargement." He and the rest of the leftist filth want to jail people who criticize Islam and failed single payer systems.

Naturally guns in the hands of law abiding citizens are the problem. That is why ARM and the left publicize and fawn over school shooters. They use them as a tool to disarm their political opponents so they can persecute and jail them.

They are all filth.

Drago said...

ARM: "Opposition to the Federal Assault Weapons Ban."

LOL

Where the writers of said ban have literally admitted that all they did was look thru magazines and pick out the scariest looking guns.

Note also that lefties like ARM are legion in demanding restricting speech, and are celebrating the destruction of the 4th amendment, and, in fact are arguing against the entire Bill of Rights.

Once the lefties get rid of the 1,2,3,4th amendments, all others will fall. Which has been their intent from the very beginning.

Which is why we will never relinquish our weapons in the face of the Antifa-ization of the entire left/liberals.

Ever.

Beloved Commenter AReasonableMan said...

William Chadwick said...
imbecility


Shit stain post.

Yancey Ward said...

Is it only me that is bothered by the fact that these shooters are so often captured alive? This is telling me that no one, not even law enforcement, are shooting back in these instances. They seem to be killing until they are cornered, then giving up.

Birkel said...

According to the FBI there are 2.5 million defensive gun uses per year, that prevent crimes.

Do Leftists trust the FBI these days?

Matt Sablan said...

"Attributing the decline in gun murders and shootings to the AW-LCM ban is problematic,
however, considering that crimes with LCMs appear to have been steady or rising since
the ban. For this reason, we do not undertake a rigorous investigation of the ban’s effects
on gun violence." -- from "An Updated Assessment of the Federal Assault Weapons Ban: Impacts on Gun Markets and Gun Violence, 1994-2003."

Also: "But a more casual assessment shows that gun crimes since the ban have been no less likely to cause death or injury than those before the ban, contrary to what we might expect if crimes with AWs and LCMs had both declined. For instance, the percentage of violent gun crimes resulting in death has been very stable since 1990 according to national statistics on crimes reported to police (see Figure 9-1 in section 9.1).110 In fact, the percentage of gun crimes resulting in death during 2001 and 2002 (2.94%) was slightly higher than that during 1992 and 1993 (2.9%)."

So, I don't consider it extreme to consider getting rid of a law that didn't do much.

Darrell said...

The most recent Texas school shooter used a shotgun and a pistol. An Assault Weapons Ban would have been as useless as ARM.

Ken B said...

So a hypothetical. You want to commit suicide, but think suicide by cop will be easier. You leave a note explaining this. You go on a rampage, killing teens and are shot by a cop. I lament that you lacked the courage to just shoot yourself instead. Althouse, arms akimbo, chastises me for my tasteless heartlessness.
Reactions?

Matt Sablan said...

So, why do you consider opposing the Federal Assault Weapons Ban extreme?

mockturtle said...

Funny how, when someone runs over a bunch of people with a large vehicle, no one ever blames the availability of trucks.

Darrell said...

Do Leftists trust the FBI these days?

Sure. Brothers with arms.

Achilles said...

Beloved Commenter AReasonableMan said...
Matthew Sablan said...
What do you consider an extreme interpretation of the second amendment?

Opposition to the Federal Assault Weapons Ban.


Almost all gun violence is committed by democrat voters in inner cities.

ARM cares not for this.

More people are killed by knives, fists, and hammers than by any "assault weapon."

ARM only cares about the "assault weapons."

Because the "assault weapons" keep him and his leftist filth from jailing and persecuting his political opponents.

tim in vermont said...

I do find it amusing that the same people who whine about calling them assault weapons insist we need them to protect ourselves against the government, which will presumably bring an army. What protects us against the government is our lack of exploitable blood feud tribal differences. You couldn't get the soldiers I know to kill innocent Americans.

Drago said...

The term "the People" is found 5 times in the Bill of Rights.

Every court since the beginning of the republic has identified that "the People" as a term relates specifically to individual rights.

It is only (for now the only, the lefties will go after the others later) "the People" when used in the 2A that our would be commissars like ARM assert boldly that the founders did not mean individual rights.

Which is an obvious and pathetic lie.

Which is why ARM and his lefty/dem/LLR pals will not rest until the Bill of Rights, like the Constitution, is tossed into the ashcan of history so a Lefty Brave New World Paradise can be established.

You know, like Mao's China, or the Soviet Union, or the Peoples Paradise of Cuba/Venezuela.

mockturtle said...

So a hypothetical. You want to commit suicide, but think suicide by cop will be easier. You leave a note explaining this. You go on a rampage, killing teens and are shot by a cop. I lament that you lacked the courage to just shoot yourself instead. Althouse, arms akimbo, chastises me for my tasteless heartlessness.
Reactions?


Similar to the 'estranged husband' who takes out his wife & kids and THEN commits suicide. He should be encouraged to do the latter first. But where's the vengeful satisfaction in that? [/s]

Matt Sablan said...

Anyway, that's the next question I'd like answered. Why is it extreme to oppose a law that even the DoJ acknowledges didn't do what it promised to do?

tim in vermont said...

My favorite suicide joke was Gary Shandling, he said that his note would say "I am not mad at anybody. This is just something I am doing for me."

Matt Sablan said...

(Sidenote: This is an ACTUAL example of the Socratic Method for folks keeping track.)

Achilles said...

Beloved Commenter AReasonableMan said...
William Chadwick said...
imbecility

Shit stain post.

Put up or shut up. Finish off your coup against Trump or remain a cowardly promoter of totalitarianism in a land of freedom.

You will be constantly mocked as the piece of shit you are.

Birkel said...

Expand your horizons, tim in vermont/florida.

There are many Leftists who would happily suppress others. There has never been a shortage of hangmen or executioners. The aim to systematically remove God-given rights is clear and serves only one purpose: power qua power.

Beloved Commenter AReasonableMan said...

Achilles
piece of shit


Shit stain post.

Drago said...

Matthew Sablan: "(Sidenote: This is an ACTUAL example of the Socratic Method for folks keeping track.)"

Socrates is a Dead White European Male and as such, as an lefty in good standing like ARM could tell you, has absolutely nothing to say about our modern world or how we should view it.

All we need now is Ta-Nehisi Coates and "I Rigoberta" to tell us how to organize our society and live.

Racist.

Bruce Hayden said...

“The cultural differences between Americans and the Europeans are pretty vast. We are the people who left those shitholes behind and we still fuck and have kids. We are more violent than they are but we will be around in the future. They will not.”

“They are dying off. Doesn’t take school shootings to kill them. They are doing it themselves. And the Muslims in their midsts are accelerating their demise.”

I think that to some extent we are following Europe and Japan. It is really our immigrants, legal and not, who keep our birth rates up around replacement level. And guess what? Western Europe is starting to see the same dynamic a bit. The difference is that our biggest immigrant baby makers are Christian, while theirs are Muslim. Which means that ours will assimilate much better, and not try to force everyone else to submit, which is inherent in Islam.

It isn’t just the immigrants here, and esp immigrant Hispanics, of course. Here in rural MT, families seem a little larger, but the Mennonites and the like seem to have four or so extremely well behaved children. Mormons are also breeders, where larger family size still provides social benefit. A lot of it seems to correlate with how “liberated” the women are.

Achilles said...

tim in vermont said...
I do find it amusing that the same people who whine about calling them assault weapons insist we need them to protect ourselves against the government, which will presumably bring an army. What protects us against the government is our lack of exploitable blood feud tribal differences. You couldn't get the soldiers I know to kill innocent Americans.


Depends on your definition of innocent.

Let the left eliminate the 2nd amendment and start confiscating guns.

Then you might see the enlisted ranks develop some motivation to intervene.

It wont be on the side of the leftist totalitarians.

n.n said...

Should we call a dual-use scalpel an assault scalpel? Should its characterization be affected by its actual and alternative, but all too common, use?

Bilwick said...

Re that Ben Franklin quote I included in my comment to ARM ("Those who choose security over freedom deserve neither"*)--what happened to that? When Bush was president fighting the War on Terror, members of the "liberal" Hive would quote it constantly . . . you know, as if they really cared about freedom. Nowadays, especially when gun control is under discussion, not so much. Golly gee, what changed?

Drago said...

MS: "Anyway, that's the next question I'd like answered. Why is it extreme to oppose a law that even the DoJ acknowledges didn't do what it promised to do?"

Because opposing what the left wants represents a hindrance to the left establishing Utopia on Earth Under Leftism.

No other reason is necessary for the left to label you extreme and an enemy of the people.

Beloved Commenter AReasonableMan said...

Matthew Sablan said...
This is an ACTUAL example of the Socratic Method for folks keeping track.


The pomposity is strong in this one.

tim in vermont said...

All of this talk about "shit stains," maybe you can find a laundromat, and get them to let you take a shower at the Y.

Achilles said...

Beloved Commenter AReasonableMan said...
Achilles
piece of shit

Shit stain post.

You are an enemy of freedom.

Drago said...

As long as the Hodgekinson's are continuously encouraged by the ARM's of the world, it is literally a suicidal act for any conservative anywhere to disarm to any extent.

Quaestor said...

The state has enlarged its sphere in other countries, more so in many.

The State is the solution to everything. Ask anybody. Ask Stalin. Ask Hitler. [silence] Well, they're dead... Ask ARM!

Matt Sablan said...

Calling me pompous is a fair cop. But, admit it. Our little Q&A has gotten the most information out of both of us; you've defined several terms you hadn't previously. I provided sources for why I thought those definitions may not fit well, and then gave you a chance to further define it. I may be pompous in saying I've furthered the discussion through the Socratic Method, but I'd also *be right.*

Bilwick said...

So does ARM think repeating the phrase "shit stain post" is especially clever, and/or refutes all pro-freedom thought? If so he has devolved to Inga-level intelligence and is dangerously close to occupying the padded cell next to Pee Pee.

Birkel said...

Matthew Sablan cannot be right because he does not wish to expand the power of the state. That is revolutionary truth.

Drago said...

William Chadwick: "So does ARM think repeating the phrase "shit stain post" is especially clever, and/or refutes all pro-freedom thought?"

It's worse than that really.

He actually thinks he's upping his game with that.

Never go Full LLR Chuck.

Anonymous said...

One thing that ARM has missed is that there was no one from the "out of control gun lobby" at the Santa Fe shooting yesterday - or the two recently in Florida, etc. There may have been an out of control game player, or an out control adolescent, or an out of control social media participant, but there was no one pulling the trigger from the " out of control gun lobby". The shooter was a student. at the school.

The answer, unfortunately, is robust security at every school. I also think it would be a good idea to limit the sales of violent video games to people over 21 ( really 40 years of age, but that won' fly). My impression is that many of these shooters think they are playing a game and are completely divorced from reality.

Yancey Ward is also correct. If we had photos of the bloody body of the shooter on the front page I am sure it would serve as a deterrent. Harsh, but so what?

Drago said...

Remember, ARM and the left have no issues with Hamas and MS-13, but you guys all have to go....

Matt Sablan said...

Cruz, the Las Vegas shooter and this guy all seemed to fully understand they were killing real flesh and blood people. They may be divorced from reality, but not in a "I'm in the Matrix" sort of way.

Kevin said...

That sound you DON'T hear? It's the sound of Democrats not finding the nearest TV with specific proposals to prevent this tragedy.

Assault weapons ban? Didn't use one.
Tougher background checks? Wouldn't have mattered.
Ban on high-capacity magazines? Weren't used.
Bump stocks? Didn't use them.
Gun show "loophole"? Not used.

There isn't a single thing the Dems could propose other than taking away every American's right to own a shotgun or .38 revolver, and yet the trolls have no problem coming here to spout off about an "out of control gun lobby" as if it has any relevance in this situation.

Everyone knows it, only some will acknowledge the real source of the problem.

Bob Boyd said...

@ Beloved Commenter AReasonableMan

You came to the fight against Matthew Sablan unarmed. Think about it.

Beloved Commenter AReasonableMan said...

The world didn't come to an end during the Federal Assault Weapons Ban. That it is difficult to assign the decline in gun deaths to the Assault Weapons Ban has as much to do with the limitations of epidemiology than anything else. Certainly gun control people did not believe it was a panacea that by itself would eliminate gun violence. For one thing it was not retroactive.

Birkel said...

Sorry you cannot be "right" Matthew Sablan. It is definitional.

Bruce Hayden said...

I think that maybe the solution here is to do what they did a hundred or so years ago. After violent criminals were killed by the citizenry and the LEOs of the time, the ones who did the killings would pose with their guns by the bullet riddled corpses of the societal menaces that they had killed for photographs, that were then published in the newspapers. Much less glorious to go out that way, with your killers posing with your bullet riddled body prominently displayed, than if you believe that you will be a cult figure (apparently the trench coats of the Columbine killers have become standard fashion accessories for would be school shooters).

Curious George said...

"Matthew Sablan said...
So, why do you consider opposing the Federal Assault Weapons Ban extreme?

Matthew Sablan said...
Anyway, that's the next question I'd like answered. Why is it extreme to oppose a law that even the DoJ acknowledges didn't do what it promised to do?"

C'mon Sablan, you've been here long enough to know that ARM is not going to get down in the weeds on any issue.

Matt Sablan said...

Let's not strawman this ARM. No one said the ban was supposed to a panacea.

It didn't have *any measurable impact at all.*

buwaya said...

It is not a "gun lobby".
It is rather a "gun people". There is a powerful reluctance to admit this, that all this, the NRA and the politics, is a manifestation of the popular will of dozens of millions.

And the gun thing is so deeply bound up in every sort of other traditional value because it is held by the majority of the American legacy population as a suite of tribal symbols. It is inseparable. The only way to change this is by expunging that whole culture, basically your ethnic identity, cultural genocide at least.

And the result of that will be an unsustainable society, because most of what is especially valuable about the American national character is inherent in this population, and explicitly rejected by their opponents. Thats where you are now. To solve this little problem you would have to commit national suicide.

That is, if it can be done peacefully. If its not peaceful, it will be another sort of national suicide.

Matt Sablan said...

Let's give ARM credit: He at least went one level down from his repeating X has Y, but not Z, to talk about extremism and its relation to the Federal Assault Weapons Ban. So, he's gone a level or two deeper than we were initially.

Char Char Binks, Esq. said...

What is the point of school, and why do we expect every teenager to attend until age 17 or 18? Grade school and middle school shootings are much rarer than high school shootings, and there are reasons for that. High school is just fine for those who are attractive, successful, and happy, but it's damaging for many others, and so many students don't belong there for various reasons, (even students who are happy there, but especially those who aren't).

Overcrowded rat cages lead to rat cannibalism and other abnormal behavior, just like like schools lead to school shootings. Schools are behavioral sinks.

Kevin said...

The world didn't come to an end during the Federal Assault Weapons Ban.

And this tragedy wouldn't have been prevented had it continued in effect.

For one thing it was not retroactive.

And if it were, it would not have prevented this tragedy.

Argue from reality.

Beloved Commenter AReasonableMan said...

Khesanh 0802 said...
One thing that ARM has missed is that there was no one from the "out of control gun lobby" at the Santa Fe shooting yesterday


The guns came from Pagourtzis's father who is a NRA supporter. The son was himself a gun nut, posting pictures of guns on Instagram. These people are part of the gun lobby. Self evidently, they are out of control.

Kevin said...

They're banning knives in London.

If only we didn't have an "out of control knife lobby" in the US...

tim in vermont said...

Melt down our guns once we are all dead? It will be a Great Leap Forward (tm)!

Matt Sablan said...

Honestly, the worst part about this is I'm in the persuadable middle about gun control laws. I just want gun control laws that will *actually address the problem.* For example, the VA Tech shooter and Cruz both, if the laws on the books had been followed, would not have been able to legally get their weapons.

So, I find it hard to be persuaded to make it even HARDER to buy weapons for the mentally ill or criminals if the current laws aren't being enforced at all.

I don't own a gun; I've never shot a gun in my life beyond paintball gun. I'm relatively suburban or urban in demographics. I'm the exact person that a well crafted gun control law could persuade. But we never get those, instead doubling down on "background checks" and "gunshow loopholes."

Matt Sablan said...

"The guns came from Pagourtzis's father who is a NRA supporter."

-- I'm willing to bet that if the guns were stolen, that his father failed any number of gun safety protocols (and maybe even laws!) relating to the guns. If he gave them to his kid to shoot up the school, he'll be arrested pretty quick, I imagine.

Birkel said...

The 2.5 million defensive gun uses per year that stop crime are unimportant to ARM.

Only revolutionary truth matters.

Kevin said...

You know all those people posting pictures of their kids in karate outfits on Instagram?

Apparently they're part of the out of control self-defense lobby. Self-evidently, they are out of control.

Once the guns and knives are removed, they will be next.

Beloved Commenter AReasonableMan said...

Matthew Sablan said...
It didn't have *any measurable impact at all.*


As anyone with any knowledge of epidemiological studies would know, measurable here means that it was difficult to measure, not that an effect didn't exist. It is a complex problem and the Assault Weapons Ban was only a small part of the solution. No one expected otherwise.

Matt Sablan said...

"The 2.5 million defensive gun uses per year that stop crime are unimportant to ARM."

-- Whenever someone says we should take away all guns, that's usually one of my questions. How many of those defensive gun uses are we willing to trade for lower gun statistics? It is an honest-to-God trade off, like raising the minimum wage is a trade-off. A lot of politics is about making uncomfortable trades to try and reach a better net quality of life for people.

Now, maybe some of those 2.5M will not be needed if the defender only needed to defend themselves because the attacker had a gun, but not all of them.

Politics is not easy. It is why I never wanted to get into policy or running for office. You have to make trades like that.

Beloved Commenter AReasonableMan said...

Matthew Sablan said...
Honestly, the worst part about this is I'm in the persuadable middle about gun control laws.


I doubt this because the evidence in Australia, in particular, is quite clear. The US is an obvious outlier when it comes to gun violence.


mockturtle said...

Will there be a demand for a ban on pressure cookers? This guy had an array of explosive devices, as well as his father's firearms. Someone intent upon wreaking havoc will find a way. But it seems to me that a teen who goes around in a tee shirt that says 'Born to Kill' should be watched carefully. He obviously wasn't.

readering said...

Don't get overwrought about this. There will be another one in a month.

Yancey Ward said...

measurable here means that it was difficult to measure, not that an effect didn't exist.

In a world where priorities are important, you should focus your efforts on interventions that are measurable, because you are otherwise focusing them on efforts that are producing effects that more likely don't exist.

Birkel said...

Matthew Sablan,
You must embrace revolutionary truth. There is no trade-off between defensive gun uses and removing guns. Not, that is, from the perspective of revolutionary truth.

ARM wants power. He wants control. The Left has a singular desire for power.

Matt Sablan said...

Australia is complete gun confiscation; a policy that is normally not being argued. Even there, complete confiscation of guns in the United States is much harder and unconstitutional. If we want to discuss complete confiscation, the only legal way to do that is a constitutional amendment. We can argue the merits of that, but the practicality of it is that it won't happen any time soon.

Kevin said...

It is a complex problem and the Assault Weapons Ban was only a small part of the solution.

Zero impact is not only small, it is the smallest you can get.

We could have killed live chickens in sacrifice to KEVLAR the gun safety God, and perhaps gotten some small random effect.

Perhaps we should try that next, since we're looking for small parts of the solution very far from the actual causes.

buwaya said...

The assault weapons ban affected weapons that were rarely used in gun violence.
That is indisputable. This was in no way a practical measure.

It was simply symbolic. A very foolish symbol, that added to the increasing alienation of the American native population from its leadership class. It was yet another hammer on the head, a lash across the back, a slap on the face. One among many, but it seems a particularly telling one.

The alienation has increased tremendously since then, as the insults have piled up. Guns are not just guns, physical objects, but political and cultural symbols. Owning them is now an act of defiance. Taking them, or threatening to, is a politico-cultural threat against a nation-in-a-nation. The NRA is not just about guns and politics about guns, but is a nexus of popular rebellion of an entire ethnicity.

It was extremely stupid, clueless, blind, out-of-touch, for the American elite to have created such a situation.

Beloved Commenter AReasonableMan said...

Yancey Ward said...
In a world where priorities are important


The Federal Assault Weapons Ban brought us more into line with other countries that have much lower levels of gun violence. That would seem to be a priority.

Drago said...

ARM: "The US is an obvious outlier when it comes to gun violence."

The US is an obvious outlier in any possible category you could dream up.

We are unique in human history.

Which is why the left is working so hard to destroy it.

Drago said...

ARM: "The Federal Assault Weapons Ban brought us more into line with other countries that have much lower levels of gun violence."

Wrong.

Demonstrably so.

There is no way in hell any other nation was so stupid as to select which weapons to ban simply based on their physical appearance and selected by staffers who know absolutely nothing about weapons.

Matt Sablan said...

"The Federal Assault Weapons Ban brought us more into line with other countries that have much lower levels of gun violence."

-- It did nothing to effect our levels of gun violence.

Anonymous said...

@ Bruce Hayden I agree completely with returning to photos of bullet ridden bodies of the perpetrators. However to get there I am afraid we need to provide security at the schools that actually knows how and, more importantly, will shoot.

Beloved Commenter AReasonableMan said...

Matthew is arguing in bad faith here. He wants to pretend that he is actually persuadable on gun control but rejects all the arguments that persuadable people are persuaded by.

Yancey Ward said...

ARM,

That still doesn't make it a measurable effect, though. We could do lots of things that bring us more in line with the rest of the world that has lower levels of gun related deaths that have no measurable impact on gun related deaths in the US, but even you wouldn't be advocating them.

If you are honest, just tell us this- do you want to ban gun ownership outright?

Bay Area Guy said...

Misplaced focus, Althouse.

What the Governor said, is much less important than what this punk kid did.

Beloved Commenter AReasonableMan said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
J. E. Malthaus said...

Tom and Lorenzo are getting the attention for their coverage of the royal wedding fashions, but everyone seems to be ignoring their review of the Texas shooter's sartorial choices.

Excerpt:

"...the choice of a trenchcoat was so very 90s, and not in a retro-ironic way. It practically shouts "I'm going to shoot up the high school", where perhaps a 70s denim jacket might've added more intrigue...

...his T-shirt with the slogan 'Born to Kill' was too obvious, obviously. The clothing choices should speak, but not actually spell it out. If text was absolutely required, then a 'Don't Mess With Texas' shirt could've brought an oblique sensibility to his presentation...

"...the display of pins on the trench coat could've been a savvy touch, but he did not not quite stick the landing here, either. The Iron Cross is much too cliche I'm afraid, and the Cthulhu and Baphomet choices are what a school shooter would buy at a Hot Topics in the Potential Mass Murderer section..."

"...of course, we do not expect these shooters to be wearing the latest couture from a runway in Milan, but these people should realize that preparation is more than buying guns and making bombs: clothes matter, and selfies showing a sharper sartorial flair would've given his new fame more appeal. Killers: think Che, not Wal-Mart shopper..."

I don't know: maybe they have a point, but it might not be the right time just yet...

LWL

Beloved Commenter AReasonableMan said...

buwaya said...
The NRA is not just about guns and politics about guns, but is a nexus of popular rebellion of an entire ethnicity.


I belong to this ethnicity. I don't think you really understand how sad and pathetic this sounds.
With all the challenges my ethnicity faces in the world, guns and oxycodone are the answer.

Bilwick said...

Drago, what ARM's use of the phrase "shit stain" reminds me of is the kindergartners's use of "poo poo head." As the Smart Left (who at least tried to preserve the appearance of rationality) was supplanted by the Stupid Left (where the Dumbest Generation met Saul Alinsky), which now seems increasingly supplanted by the Loony Left (where the Stupid Left meets the Crazy Guy on the bus or park bench), you see this kind of thing more and more often. You could be saying, "As von Mises pointed out in chapter 302 of 'Human Action,' minimum wage laws are unsound because . . ." and some half-deranged yahoo will counter with "Well, that's because you're a poo poo head." And think that incredibly clever!

I'm picturing ARM going into a library, finding a copy of "Human Action," and writing "Shit Stain Economics" on the fly leaf. Or--since "liberals" are the New Tories--18th Century ARM writing on copies of the Cato Letters or Paine's "Common Sense," "Shit Stain Whiggery." And probably thinking, "That shows 'em!"

O

Drago said...

ARM: "Matthew is arguing in bad faith here. He wants to pretend that he is actually persuadable on gun control but rejects all the arguments that persuadable people are persuaded by."

Shorter ARM: Mathew rejects demonstrably false lefty talking points and underlying assumptions and provably false "facts".

The "Assault Weapons ban" covered weapons selected by idiots who knew nothing about weapons and selected the weapons included based on scary appearance and after adopting the "ban" there was no statistical change in gun violence.

Also, men and women are different.

Also, you can't "transition" from being a man to being a woman simply because you wish it to be so.

One could go on and on and on forever along these lines exposing the lysenkoist thinking of lefties.

Matt Sablan said...

The problem might be ARM is that you've *never had to actually persuade someone* on this before. You've provided the ban -- which I've got good reason to distrust. You've pointed to Australia, which is not analagous to the U.S. at all. There are countries with more guns, less crime than the U.S.; less crime, less guns; more crime, more guns; etc., etc. Australis is just one data point. You've not actually proposed another law between those two extremes--completely ineffectual and completely unconstitutional.

buwaya said...

There were perfectly good statistics about the sorts of guns used in killings before and after the assault weapons ban, and it is indisputable that rifles of any kind were rarely used before or after.

As a statistical matter it is impossible to justify such a policy then or now. But of course it was a purely political act, not a practical one. As also the Australian laws.

Both, beneath the rhetoric, were entirely symbolic, intended for a cultural purpose, to weaken traditionalist resistance to a transfer of power between classes. The people must be made to bend the knee, lose independence, and submit to the will of the leadership caste. This is easier with Australians (and I know Australians). In spite of the myth and image, they are much more conformist than Americans. Americans can be very dangerous people.

Quaestor said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Beloved Commenter AReasonableMan said...

The arguments surrounding gun control are well established by now. For someone to come here and claim that they are persuadable, if only the other side had better arguments, is transparently fake.

Tim in Vermont, who hates the left with a blind passion, is actually persuadable. Mathew is just spouting nonsense.

Matt Sablan said...

You've provided two recommendations.

As I said before: One is completely unconstitutional; the other is completely ineffectual.

Suggest another law. Here's my suggestions: Enforce existing laws on the books -- the types that would have kept Cruz from getting his guns, the VA Shooter from getting his; that would have stopped the FL night club shooter before his shooting and that would have stopped the Boston Marathon Bombers before theirs.

All four of those are examples where if the government had *followed laws we already have*, mass murders could have been prevented.

Drago said...

MS: "The problem might be ARM is that you've *never had to actually persuade someone* on this before"

Leftists are unable to "persuade" anyone of anything.

Primarily because every single idea they espouse runs counter to logic, reason and the entirety of the human experience.

Which means they must always precede from 2 rhetorical elements:
1) Received Wisdom, which requires no logical foundation and no explanation (H8ters!)
2) History must begin anew each day

It is simply easier for leftists to plough up some earth and bulldoze one's political enemies into the large pit or, in a pinch, shove the recalcitrant types into re-education camps and gulags.

Which is why that very things happens every single time the left takes command of a nation.

But only every single time.

Just picture anyone trying to have an antifa type "explain" something in a "persuasive way"...

LOL

They are leftists to begin with BECAUSE they will never be capable of reasoned persuasion.

QED

Matt Sablan said...

Hell, had we been enforcing existing laws -- the baseball field shooter probably could have been stopped too; though the Las Vegas shooter may not have been able to have been stopped by mere enforcement of what we already have.

Quaestor said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
langford peel said...

Epic melt downs by libel shit stains are very entertaining.

buwaya said...

Crime is not really the point actually.

You can have countries with immensely more crime, but that are nevertheless politically conformist. Brazil and Venezuela, say, and I mean Venezuela pre-Chavez.
Crime is the result of social and economic conditions, and cultural values.
Crime is a selfish thing (mostly), an undisciplined thing.
This does not translate into a political issue, a tendency to oppose or rebel or demand clean government.

It is telling that "gun control" in both the US and Australia was aimed, not at the criminal class that actually kills people with guns, if they have them, but at the extremely-non-criminal class that is a political threat.

Drago said...

ARM: "The arguments surrounding gun control are well established by now."

And right on cue, here comes Mr Received Wisdom.

No outlining of fundamental premises, logical inferences, real analysis/outcomes, etc.

To even begin a "discussion" you are required to ACCEPT (!) every lefty premise.

Did you ever try to convince a communist of the folly of Soviet farming strategies? LOL

Beloved Commenter AReasonableMan said...

Drago said...
Leftists are unable to "persuade" anyone of anything.


A majority of citizens favor more gun control.

chickelit said...

Mockturtle notes: “Funny how, when someone runs over a bunch of people with a large vehicle, no one ever blames the availability of trucks.”

Indeed. Even more remarkable since there is probably a correlation between truck ownership/truck driving and political party. It’s quite analogous to gun ownership. Guys like ARM don’t drive trucks—they drive hybrids and other politically correct vehicles.

Matt Sablan said...

A law that might be worthwhile, and would have stopped several: Allow psychologists to breach patient-doctor confidentiality when they have a legitimate fear of their patient harming themselves or others.

Oh wait, they can already do that -- and in several cases (most notably, the VA Tech shooter), DID do that, and the government failed to flag the individual to prevent a legal firearm sale.

«Oldest ‹Older   1 – 200 of 404   Newer› Newest»