Skip to main content

View Diary: Abbreviated Pundit Round-Up (149 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Not creationism. (8+ / 0-)

    Creationism is wholly batshit stupoid-crazy.

    "Self Defense in the HOme" is a very real and very BASIC consideration. It's real. Shit does happen.

    Just not very often: the gun as a self-defense thing to prevent X, Y, and Z is not 'false' - it's just not remotely what is is considered to be by some.

    Propaganda takes an element of reality (smoking marijuana can harm your lungs) and blow it into this huge nightmarish talking point (marijuana causes cancer like nothing else!!!!) which is almost wholly false. Compare it then to something tobacco (350000 deaths per year): with ZERO deaths per year one must wonder - if tobacco kills so many people why are they using potential lung irritation as an excuse to blow $20 billion a year achieving less than nothing?

    Similarly, the NRA MYTHOLOGY about daily gun battles in our quest for work and food blows a tiny reality - measured in the post above: 1 SD shooting for every 22 non-self-defense discharge of a gun. So they do happen but rarely.

    Spending the bulk of one's life musing about the moment when you defend yourself from an armed assault on your humble home, building a religion to it is legitimately questionable but clearly based on the relentless repetition of these propaganda talking points.

    I do take seriously home defense and personal defense - I have spent a lot of time reviewing home security and such and while I believe I 'really should' have a couple shotguns "just in case", I am clearly able to sleep at night without them and I have been so slack about getting out to purchase them....

    The path of the righteous man is beset on all sides by the inequities of the selfish and the tyranny of evil men.

    by xxdr zombiexx on Sun Feb 03, 2013 at 05:40:56 AM PST

    •  Couple of years ago (0+ / 0-)

      we had a 2 month time of a guy going around pilfering stuff from freezers on porches. Then he started entering homes and stealing meds. Then guns. Several folks who had fallen asleep watching tv woke up to find him sitting on the couch with them.
      They couldn't catch him. He'd carry deer bladders, and use it to confuse the tracking dogs. They chased him up a lane right next to my property.
      I have to walk about 200 feet from the car to the house. At 11pm,coming in from work, was I happy to have my pistol in my hand? You bet.
      He finally got tired of it all and turned himself in. Good thing, because most of us, in my neighborhood anyway, were going armed.

      Only thing more infuriating than an ignorant man is one who tries to make others ignorant for his own gain. Crashing Vor

      by emmasnacker on Sun Feb 03, 2013 at 06:12:45 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  I think the dismissal of home defense (0+ / 0-)

      by the pro gun control gang is disingenuous.

      They love to tout statistics like this:

      They found that these weapons were fired far more often in accidents, criminal assaults, homicides or suicide attempts than in self-defense. For every instance in which a gun in the home was shot in self-defense, there were seven criminal assaults or homicides, four accidental shootings, and 11 attempted or successful suicides.
      But they refuse to look at statistics that show assault style weapons are responsible for only .6 of the murders by gun in this country.

      If someone feels more safe having a gun in the home for self defense, it is really no one's business to tell them otherwise.

      •  No one is telling people they can't have (15+ / 0-)

        guns in the home for self-defense (although most gun-control advocates and opponents alike agree than no one needs a home arsenal).  But everyone should understand that having guns in the home is far more likely to cause the untimely death of a resident or provide the opportunity for criminal involvement.

        "In this world of sin and sorrow there is always something to be thankful for; as for me, I rejoice that I am not a Republican." - H. L. Mencken

        by SueDe on Sun Feb 03, 2013 at 06:36:45 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

      •  Strawman? You bet (7+ / 0-)

        Under your logic, the shootings in Connecticut, Colorado, and anywhere else are 'no one's business'.

        Control of gun ownership and distribution was always and has more so become EVERYONES business.

        You're standing on the wrong side of history.

        •  logic fail.. (0+ / 0-)

          what someone does in the privacy of their own home is not comparable to killing 26 people in cold blood.

          Control of gun ownership and distribution was always and has more so become EVERYONES business.
          I can't argue with this..  Just as licensing drivers and autos and state insurance laws protect the public.  But that's not what I was arguing.  I was saying their is a concerted effort by the gun control folks to minimize and dismiss people's perceived need for home defense.

          As far as history goes.. I don't worry about it.  I'll be.. well, history by then!

          •  You miss my point (6+ / 0-)

            Guns that may start in 'their home' become guns that commit these crimes.  Connecticut being a perfect example.  You can't draw a line between the two incidents.  And the type of gun has little bearing on the case - the Connecticut shooter would have - without question - still killed people with a handgun or a shotgun.  Maybe not as many, but dead is dead.

            So claiming that the 'perceived need' justifies gun ownership is a false belief for all the reasons the diarist and many others document.  I'm glad you support controls but your comments minimize the impact of the existence of guns.  

            I'm not advocating the destruction of all guns just as you aren't advocating unrestricted ownership however your direct and unrelenting justification of ownership for a marginal if not false use case  removes you from the reality-based community in my opinion.

          •  The guns used at Sandy Hook were kept in the (4+ / 0-)

            privacy of someone's home, right up until they weren't. Remember?


            To put the torture behind us is, inevitably, to put it in front of us.

            by UntimelyRippd on Sun Feb 03, 2013 at 08:59:45 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

          •  No. Your logic fail. (0+ / 0-)

            Guns are guns.

            You're separating bad guns and good guns by whether they've already been used in a shooting. Which is too fucking late.

            Cart before horse.

            Your Fail.

            "What could BPossibly go wrong??" -RLMiller "God is just pretend." - eru

            by nosleep4u on Sun Feb 03, 2013 at 10:38:38 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

          •  logic fail (0+ / 0-)

            Because the consequences of gun use DON'T stay in the privacy of one's home, impinging ONLY the rights and freedoms of the person who decides to keep a gun.

            For almost anyone who feels the slightest desire or need to keep a gun in their home, for ANY reason...

            The home is where the guns are.

            1. It is also where most people live.
            2. Where people of all ages typically let their guard down.
            3. Where children play.
            4. Where adults conduct "private" squabbles.
            5. It is where people keep medicines, and take medicines that may impair their judgment or function in various ways.
            6. It is where people visit, people who themselves or their children may have no experience with safe gun handling.
            7. It is also where people eat and drink significant quantities of alcohol.

            The privacy protection principle is strong, but the logic fails because the consequences of gun USE do not stay "in the privacy of one's home."

            The proximity of a gun, can too easily transform a moment of inattention or poor judgment or momentary loss of impulse control into wrecked lives and communities.

            And I'm not even including the right to carry.

      •  Even if children are at risk? n/t (0+ / 0-)
      •  The statistics are quoted in order to educate. (6+ / 0-)

        It doesn't have to take.. there's no Constitutional requirement for any citizen to make educated decisions about such matters, while civilian gun ownership is legal.  

        It is important for everyone to understand that the most likely human victim of any gun brought into the home will be a family member, but if folks want to take that risk, our country allows it.

        When extra-terrestrial beings make their first appearance on our planet, and ask for representatives of our species to best exemplify humanity, I'm sending a nurse, a librarian, and a firefighter.

        by Wayward Son on Sun Feb 03, 2013 at 06:42:30 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  True (0+ / 0-)

          And I am saying it is important to educate the public that banning assault style weapons will do near zero to stop violent gun crime.

          Tightened registration will do lots more.  

          Education is fine.. people should know all the facts.

          •  In the words of Jon Stewart.. (5+ / 0-)

            There are no laws that fix all of the problem, but that's not a reason to avoid making any laws at all.  

            When extra-terrestrial beings make their first appearance on our planet, and ask for representatives of our species to best exemplify humanity, I'm sending a nurse, a librarian, and a firefighter.

            by Wayward Son on Sun Feb 03, 2013 at 08:23:53 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  Umm.. yes, it is. (0+ / 0-)

              Pointless laws made for show that will cost the nation billions of dollars should not be passed.

              Laws made simply to make the gun control and the "we gotta do something now!" contingent in this country happy are inherently bad laws, because they will do nothing to stop violent crime.

              •  Inconsistent (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:

                So perceived risk is enough of a justification for a system of gun ownership that statistically is almost 30 times more likely to result in suicide, accidents, assaults, and murder, but perceived benefit is not enough of a justification to outlaw personal ownership of assault weapons?  And the only reason stated for opposing this law is that assault weapons are rarely used in violent crime?  When they are, the result is catastrophic.  

                •  Gun ownership doesn't need justification (0+ / 0-)

                  It is an inalienable right.

                  Laws that seek to limit those inalienable rights do need lots of justification.

                  Gun violence in this country is done with handguns and some shotguns and some rifles.

                  99% of guns in the home are not assault rifles. They need no justification.

                  I stand by my statement.  A law that purports to be needed to stop gun violence that does not address the weapons that are responsible for 99.4% of gun violence is a bad law.

                  And let's be clear here.  I am not against the limit on magazine size, stricter registration and closing gun show loopholes.  Those are all good things and will go much further in curbing gun violence than a silly ban on assault weapons.. especially one with as many exemptions as some of these proposed laws have.

                  Some say, if it stops even one death it is worth it.  No.  It is not.  Billions of dollars and a whole new bureaucracy to save a handful of lives per year is not worth it.

                  If that were the case we should be banning swimming pools and home chemicals that kill children in homes by and order of magnitude more than firearms. (and several orders more than assault weapons)

                  We need common sense laws.. and gun safety eduction.. maybe make a home gun safety course mandatory.  But bans on guns that kill a handful of people per year is stupid.

                  Selected Causes of Death, Ages 0-19, per 100,000 Population (2007)    
                      Cause           Number of Deaths     Mortality Rate    
                            Natural           36,272    
                            Perinatal Conditions       14,570
                            Congenital Anomalies        6,896    
                            Neoplasms                   2,302         
                            Respiratory Disease         1,442        
                            Circulatory Disease         1,666
                            Nervous System Disease      1,609     
                            SIDS                        2,453    
                      Unintentional Injury             11,560     
                            Motor Vehicle               6,683     
                            Drowning                    1,056
                            Fire/Burn                     544    
                            Poisoning                     972         
                            Suffocation/Strangulation   1,263
                            Firearm                       138    
                      Homicide                          3,345         
                            Firearm                     2,186     
                      Suicide                           1,665     
                            Firearm                       683     
                            Suffocation/Strangulation     739
                            Poisoning                     133

              •  Wrong. And effectively Nasty. (0+ / 0-)

                You equate imperfection with pointlessness.

                And that sir, is so wrong as to be vile & reprehensible:

                According to your "logic", there should be no regulation of anything, no improvements in the human condition, unless it instantly achieves perfection.

                Slavery should not have been outlawed because Jim Crow followed ... according to your logic.

                You posit a nasty and horrid argument. Back off.

                "What could BPossibly go wrong??" -RLMiller "God is just pretend." - eru

                by nosleep4u on Sun Feb 03, 2013 at 10:44:19 AM PST

                [ Parent ]

      •  But it IS the weapon that (0+ / 0-)

        makes possible MASS shootings. It enables fantasists, including those with serious psychotic disorders, to mow down groups.

        In Tucson the gunman sprayed 30 shots before he fumbled changing the clip and was disarmed. Had he only had a 10 round clip the carnage would have been much less.

        I've never heard of a defense of home report with the householder having an assault style rifle.

        But just wait till this newly trendy home accessories falls into the hands habitual criminals and those with serious mental disorders.

        Oh, wait, one did in Newtown on 12/14/12.

        I'm asking you to believe. Not in my ability to bring about real change in Washington ... *I'm asking you to believe in yours.* Barack Obama

        by samddobermann on Sun Feb 03, 2013 at 02:55:23 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site