Projection
In addition to being violently angry, this person cannot read. Of course, if I looked like this, I’d probably be angry too.
Update: I wonder how this gal(?) will react when tomorrow the Brady Campaign releases a presser that dances in the blood of the dead? Think we’ll see the same righteous indignation (and fabulous hair color!) then?
Update: Blood dancing already under way.
And don’t bother commenting at the first link. I’ve been told Reasoned Discoursetm has already broken out. Personality and looks! Someone snatch this filly up!
Update: Being told it’s a dude. And here’s the comments he (srsly?) doesn’t want you to see.
July 27th, 2008 at 9:17 pm
That is one B.U.W.
July 27th, 2008 at 9:29 pm
That’s a MAN, baby!
July 27th, 2008 at 9:32 pm
Reasoned Discourse ™ so thick, you can cut it with a knife!
July 27th, 2008 at 9:32 pm
Someone already snatched her up. She has a wife.
Her wife is from England, and she grew up in Cali. Poor thing just cant help herself.
July 27th, 2008 at 9:33 pm
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WmFBOVZ6BLM
July 27th, 2008 at 9:33 pm
Ah yes, the tolerant, open minded anti-gunners. For those who want to see that whole exchange, look no further than here.
What a bitch/bastard!
July 27th, 2008 at 9:37 pm
I think I just threw up a little in my mouth.
July 27th, 2008 at 9:39 pm
A little more warning would’ve been nice before that picture.
July 27th, 2008 at 9:46 pm
It’s the next tubgirl.
July 27th, 2008 at 10:03 pm
I’m gonna debate the “he’s a dude” part. He(?) lists his sex as “other” on his flicker account, and is the editor of a gay/transgendered news magazine.
He also blogs and comments about transgender issues.
July 27th, 2008 at 10:13 pm
Mopar,
I think he’s a man in transition. He talks about seeing a shrink, going to group meetings, and is clearly trying to grow the hair to be more feminine. Not to mention he considers himself a feminist.
I’m hesitant to use the word she simply because from what you can see and the statements, he isn’t someone I would consider completely mature identifying as a woman. Believe it or not, I actually have experience in trying to figure out people’s lines for transition because of one of my jobs at my alma mater. We’d get calls asking if we accepted men who wanted to be women.
July 27th, 2008 at 10:32 pm
Bitter, I was originally thinking it was the other way around (F to M), but I think you are right. Old wedding pics are far more masculine the recent ones, and it appears Kynn is now divorced. (As an aside, it’s almost scary the amount of personal info out there on the net!)
But while trying to determine the sex (or lack thereof!) of this person has been fun, it really isn’t important. The fact that a transgendered person who probably deals with more closed-minded people daily then just about anyone can’t even see how closed-minded they are being themselves just bowls me over.
July 27th, 2008 at 10:44 pm
Hmmmm.
“Sister Golden Hair, surprise!
So, as threatened, here’s a picture of me with the somewhat subtle light gold highlights in my hair. They really blaze in the sunlight, though, and give my hair a more vibrant look than my original, dark-blonde color.”
Jesus H.!! Those pictures literally made me flinch.
Vibrant? *cough*. Ok if you say so.
July 27th, 2008 at 10:46 pm
Hmmmm.
Funny thing about that argument about people carrying firearms being able to stop crimes … that’s precisely what armed police do.
July 27th, 2008 at 10:48 pm
As an aside, it’s almost scary the amount of personal info out there on the net!
Yeah, but I don’t really care that much what you know about me or don’t know about me. The fact that the site owner and commenters here chose to attack me for my appearance, my gender identity, and my marriage says a whole lot more about your side than mine.
I mean, at least I’m upset about a position you guys seem to hold — that if the Unitarians had just been armed, they could have blown away the killer — rather than deciding you’re wrong because you’re ugly. (PS: I’m also fat, if you’re really reaching for ways to make personal attacks.)
Now, as for whether I called all gun owners stupid and/or evil? Nope, I never did; re-read my comments.
I think calls for more gun control based on a single incident are as stupid as calls for arming Unitarians (to defend themselves against, well, guys like some of you out there). But I find the Brady Gun Control folks you link to a lot less offensive than the half-dozen-or-so conservative blogs I linked to. The Brady people aren’t actually doing anything in that particular post than just linking to news stories.
There were posts by conservatives, gun nuts, whoever, where they weren’t jumping in with knee-jerk victim-blaming, and weren’t prattling on about a fantasy scenario in which a liberal, anti-violence religious group brought along weapons to a children’s play in church just in case they got attacked.
There were posts by people whose views on guns aren’t like mine at all (and note that you don’t really know my gun control views), but which were full of compassion, understanding, and humanity. Then there were a large number of posts which basically say “haw haw, it’s what happens when you’re so dumb as to not bring a gun to church.”
Was I rude to you on my obscure little LiveJournal? Maybe so — although not directly, personally rude (except arguably against Mr. Uncle there, lumped in with part of a larger trend), but geez guys, I’m nobody you’ve ever heard of (except for one time I helped you figure out that John Kerry was being quoted out of context), so can you explain why you’ve jumped right to the appearance- and gender-based personal attacks?
Did li’l ol’ queer me really upset you big strong gunslingers that badly?
July 27th, 2008 at 10:54 pm
“Now, as for whether I called all gun owners stupid and/or evil? Nope, I never did; re-read my comments.”
No, just:
“pompous, idiotic gun-fetishists”
“Right-wing gun nuts are fucking assholes.”
July 27th, 2008 at 10:59 pm
Yup, that’s what I wrote.
What, you guys have a thin skin about that? Surely you’re not all crying in your beer that some genderqueer Arizonan you don’t know said mean things about a group that includes you? Surely you have said mean things about, I dunno, liberals.
I mean, really. Do you want a hug? I can even modify that, if you like, so it just says either “Right-wingers are fucking assholes” or “SOME right-wing gun nuts are fucking assholes,” whichever makes you feel less butthurt by a naughty, mean, ugly liberal saying her naughty means on her LiveJournal, which you’ve never read before.
Toughen up a little, folks! I didn’t mean to scare you all. Don’t worry, I’m not violent.
July 27th, 2008 at 11:21 pm
Yup, that’s what I wrote.
Which would mean you lied when you said Now, as for whether I called all gun owners stupid and/or evil? Nope, I never did; re-read my comments.”
Which yep, that’s exactly what you did.
Since you’re a self-admitted liar who has missed the far bigger point here, there’s little point in trying to have anything other than “Reasoned Discourse” (r) ™ with you.
July 27th, 2008 at 11:25 pm
I didn’t pipe up. I don’t care what your gender is. I could care less of your appearance. Hell, I’m not even particularly a right-winger, and if a few personal decisions had gone differently I could very well have been sitting in that congregation today, lord knows I’ve considered it more than a handful of times.
You apparently think I’m just a “gun fuck” because I happen to respect and like firearms, as hobby and employment, and see them as nothing more than tools. Yeah, I can take offense at that.
I did make a few comments on the Knox news-sentinal page, pointing out that today isn’t for politics. I meant it.
All I see nowadays are people who are so obsessed with getting their frame of reference respected… of making the world revolve around them, that 200 people who were traumatized by a lunatic, not to mention the 6 that are wounded and 2 dead, are basically getting thrown under the bus. I think Lumpy should have stayed off the air. I think the first person to pipe up with a pro-gun argument should have stayed silent, and I think the first who said guns were a problem here should have kept it to themselves as well.
It wasn’t even 12 hours until this became politicized, and everyone should be ashamed of themselves. *EVERYONE*. I quite literally get sick of all the polemics. Nobody has a sense of shame anymore these days.
What what do I know, I’m just a gun fuck.
July 27th, 2008 at 11:26 pm
Family members of mine (no injuries) were present a the church during this shooting. While I am deeply saddened by the deaths and injuries, I resent the anti-gun nuts using this incident in an attempt to rob us of our constitutional rights.
Thank you, SayUncle, for carrying on the good fight.
July 28th, 2008 at 12:01 am
There’s an old saying, that you can catch more flies with honey than with vinegar. We’re not the ones who cracked out the vinegar.
July 28th, 2008 at 12:27 am
This person needs to have an article of his or her own on Encyclopedia Dramatica. As the saying goes, Oh exploitable!
The face pic alone is enough to frighten small children.
Get to work, Anonymous!
July 28th, 2008 at 12:40 am
P.s. I wrote the above before I’d read the previous comments. Being trans-gendered is one thing; being crazy and posting a pic of yerself in which you look, frankly, ugly, is another.
Kynn, you have a lot of working and studying to do before you’re fit to lick Zoe Brain’s shiny new pussy.
(That’s http://aebrain.blogspot.com)
July 28th, 2008 at 12:43 am
Which yep, that’s exactly what you did.
No, I said that I don’t tolerate people who are stupid or evil. And I also said that anyone who reads my LJ and then says they thought I wanted to have reasonable dialogue with them is either stupid or (evilly) lying.
That’s a far cry from saying that all gun owners are evil and stupid. Learn to read, please! I write pretty clearly.
You apparently think I’m just a “gun fuck” because I happen to respect and like firearms, as hobby and employment, and see them as nothing more than tools. Yeah, I can take offense at that.
Actually, I called “gun fucks” anyone who pipes up to say, “Gosh, you stupid Unitarians should have been armed because that would have solved the problem!” If you think that, then yeah, you’re a gun fuck. Doesn’t matter if you like or don’t like firearms.
If you don’t think that, but you love the living daylights out of guns and think they’re the bestest tools ever and a great hobby and source of employment, then you’re not a gun fuck. Surprise! Not all gun owners are gun fucks. Gunfuckery only happens when people jump up and make up bizarre fantasies that blame the victims — who were probably liberal pacifists, or leaning that way — for being killed.
On my LJ, someone tried to post a comment that talked about what “my side of the fence” was doing versus “his side of the fence.” The truth is that today, someone from your folks’ side of the fence (someone who likes guns) hopped over that fence and blew away folks from my side. And then some of the people among you, including people on this very site, basically went neener-neener at the victims while they were still in critical condition.
But since I pointed that out, and — horrors! — called those people “gun fucks,” you rounded up a posse or something, and started making fun of my appearance? What?
It wasn’t even 12 hours until this became politicized, and everyone should be ashamed of themselves.
Well, that’s exactly what I’m saying. I didn’t politicize this — it’s folks who said things like “It wouldn’t surprise me if the Tennessee Valley Unitarian Universalist Church is posted “gun-free,” given this and this.” and “There’s a dependant variable here somewhere, and I think it has something to do with being shot at whether we carry to church or not.” who made this about gun control, y’know? (Those are both comments from this site.)
While I am deeply saddened by the deaths and injuries, I resent the anti-gun nuts using this incident in an attempt to rob us of our constitutional rights.
I just want to point out that despite SaysUncle’s bizarre framing of the issue — as one about my gender and whether I’m ugly or not — I’m not someone who is trying to use this incident to do anything about anything. You look at my post, and you’ll find that I’ve not called for any changes in gun control or the like, and in fact, I reject the idea that single incidents like this should be used to determine policy of any kind.
There’s an old saying, that you can catch more flies with honey than with vinegar. We’re not the ones who cracked out the vinegar.
I’m so sorry I hurt your feelings, Sebastian. I apologize profusely; I had no idea you were such a sensitive soul! Do you read my LJ regularly? Did you want some more sugar from me? What? Work with me here.
This person needs to have an article of his or her own on Encyclopedia Dramatica.
You’re too late on that one.
The face pic alone is enough to frighten small children.
I’m sure all of you out there are gorgeous!
July 28th, 2008 at 12:46 am
P.s. I wrote the above before I’d read the previous comments. Being trans-gendered is one thing; being crazy and posting a pic of yerself in which you look, frankly, ugly, is another.
Dude, I’m sorry you think I’m ugly. I had no idea that you were that interested in how I look. Some kind of trannychaser or something? Really, the obsession here with my gender, my hair, and my appearance is kind of startling. Don’t you want to argue with me about gun control or something?
Oh, right. SaysUncle is the ringleader, and he basically declared fair game on my appearance and gender. There are some reasonable people here — like Dr. Strangegun — don’t you folks get embarrassed when “your side of the fence” decide the best argument you’ve got is “dogpile on the ugly trannyfag”?
July 28th, 2008 at 12:53 am
You know, one doesn’t have to be anti-gun (I’m not, and I quite enjoy target shooting when I get the chance) or a raging leftist (yeah, guilty as charged) to understand that:
1. Using other people’s tragedies to push your own political views is pretty much an assholish move. Kynn wasn’t trying to take your guns away, she was calling you out for your smug comment that you, somehow, could have prevented this from happening.
2. Guns and young children really aren’t a good combination, and there are usually young children at churches. Honestly, what’s the statistical probability of some nutjob busting into your church and shooting it up, versus the probability of your toddler having an accident with your handgun?
3. Your dream scenario of being able to expertly take down a shooter is pure fantasy. I know, because—well, I’ve shot guns, in a very controlled, calm environment, where I can concentrate completely on my safety, the safety of those around me, and the target. A bunch of panicked folks with guns shooting around wildly might not have stopped the shooter. It might have, but it also might have resulted in even more deaths.
The point is: You don’t know. You think you know, because you’re paranoid that the vast leftist conspiracy is going to take your guns away. (Meanwhile, you’re probably ignoring the government in power that is quickly and openly taking your privacy and civil liberties away—and what good will your guns be after that process is complete?) And you’re so paranoid that you’re willing to capitalize on tragedy to make your point.
Guess what? It makes you look like silly. It makes you look like a bunch of frightened little boys cowering behind their penis-substitutes. It makes responsible gun owners look bad. If you’re not concerned about looking like an asshole because you don’t care about the suffering of the victims, their families, and their communities, you at least might want to care about how embarrassing it is to have your full-on douchebaggery hanging out for the whole internet to see.
July 28th, 2008 at 1:10 am
Dude! (or Dudette) _I_ don’t post pics of myself on the Web for many reasons, one of which is that I am, to be charitable to myself, not very good-looking.
Look at the pic Zoe puts up. She’s good-looking, and has taken care to, like, comb her hair, and all.
July 28th, 2008 at 1:16 am
Dude! (or Dudette) _I_ don’t post pics of myself on the Web for many reasons, one of which is that I am, to be charitable to myself, not very good-looking.
Eh, it’s the web. People put pictures up, and not all pictures are good. I took the picture with my cell phone at arm’s length with the wind blowing, to show off the hair color. I mean, for fuck’s sake, why is that what you’re worried about? (Other than Mr. Uncle there decided that it’s fun for you all to mock me?) I mean, at the very least, you could accuse me of trying to steal your gun or something.
I understand you’ve got a crush on Zoe, and that’s fine, but I’m not here to look gorgeous or anything. I’m just me, and I really don’t give a fuck if you think I’m ugly or not. Life’s too short, you know? So, for you, Justthisguy, on the topic of whether or not you personally find me attractive: Fuck off already, ‘kay? Thanks.
July 28th, 2008 at 1:24 am
I’ve pretty much said what I’ve wanted to say here, so if anyone wants to talk about anything else, drop me a note at kynn@kynn.com. And hey, Mr. Uncle, if you’re really upset that I misread you, you could have just emailed me instead making a sexist slam that turned into a trannybashing party. I’m just sayin’.
Be well, all!
July 28th, 2008 at 1:37 am
Using other people’s tragedies to push your own political views is pretty much an assholish move. Kynn wasn’t trying to take your guns away, she was calling you out for your smug comment that you, somehow, could have prevented this from happening.
Which is something we’ve been dealing with for a long time. Some of us aren’t sitting around and being quiet about it anymore when an area that’s either explicitly antigun or traditionally is targeted, because that’s what we said was going to happen.
And those tragedies are then used to attack us. Ever heard of the Brady Center? Or the Brady Gun Control Bill? (Which wouldn’t have stopped Hinckley from getting the revolver he used?)
Is it in poor taste? You may well think so. Hell, I even agree.
But the use of tragedy to push policy has a very long history. At the very least, you’ve got to go back to 1934 and the National Firearms Act. 1934. Why was it passed? Was there a serious threat? Or were there a few highly publicised situations?
Guns and young children really aren’t a good combination, and there are usually young children at churches. Honestly, what’s the statistical probability of some nutjob busting into your church and shooting it up, versus the probability of your toddler having an accident with your handgun?
It’s a divide by zero error.
I’m not spinning the gun around my finger because I’m bored in the sermon.
But, heck, why don’t you ask Jeanne Assam? How many children has her gun killed?
You don’t know. You think you know, because you’re paranoid that the vast leftist conspiracy is going to take your guns away.
Gee, just maybe because that’s exactly what they’ve been trying (and succeeded for years with!) using illogical, overheated rhetoric like “versus the probability of your toddler having an accident with your handgun”. I live in a state where until “progressive” thought made it “rude” it was not only customary, but expected that you’d wear your gun to church on Sunday. How many kids were killed for the first 120 years with almost all the men (and no small amount of the women) wearing guns? In non-safetied, open carry, using guns without any “safety” mechanisms? Versus concealed carry today?
Since it’s so obvious that we’re in fact wrong, surely you can point us to all the many children killed in church from the 1700s through the late 1800s…… right? Surely? Surely you’re not mad at us for mistating the case at hand while you use mistated facts? Right?
Funny thing happened when the Leftists showed up and assured us they actually didn’t have an opinion…..
July 28th, 2008 at 2:04 am
Seriously, you guys need to upgrade your mandar. I could tell that was a man from the moment I saw him/her/it. The chin and jaw just give it away.
Anyway, not worth the overreaction on either side. I wouldn’t have dignified that whining with a reply.
July 28th, 2008 at 2:04 am
So, does Kynn own a comb, and is not afraid to use it?
July 28th, 2008 at 2:37 am
Using other people’s tragedies to push your own political views is pretty much an assholish move
So you concur that the Brady Campaign and the VPC are assholes, along with a large portion of Congress, mayor’s offices, other elected officials and the media.
Welcome.
Honestly, what’s the statistical probability of some nutjob busting into your church and shooting it up, versus the probability of your toddler having an accident with your handgun?
The statistical probability (as opposed to some other form?) of the first case is imponderable since I have no data with which to derive a credible analysis. However, I can state with confidence that the chance of either of my toddlers gaining access to my handguns is nil. Whether I choose to carry a firearm lawfully in church or elsewhere is none of your business. (Do you have a point or is this simply a clumsy attempt to justify an imposition of your values on mine?)
Your dream scenario of being able to expertly take down a shooter is pure fantasy.
As evidenced by your admitted ineptitude with firearms or your ignorance of current events? I can cite at least one case, locally, in which a mass homicide was prevented by one person with a CCW permit who fired one round. Numerous similar events are well-documented. Kindly provide a single example of a CCW permitee making things worse in a mass shooting situation.
The point is: You don’t know. You think you know, because you’re paranoid that the vast leftist conspiracy is going to take your guns away.
As non sequiturs go, that’s not even entertaining.
(Meanwhile, you’re probably ignoring the government in power that is quickly and openly taking your privacy and civil liberties away—and what good will your guns be after that process is complete?) And you’re so paranoid that you’re willing to capitalize on tragedy to make your point.
First, thank you for your considered and well-qualified psychiatric analysis and opinion. (In considering the depth and scope of paranoia present, should a therapeutic trial of ziprasidone be undertaken or will haloperidol be necessary?) Do you charge by the misrepresentation or is there a discount for the complete straw man package?
If you’re not concerned about looking like an asshole because you don’t care about the suffering of the victims, their families, and their communities,
(See the link to the Brady Campaign, above.)
you at least might want to care about how embarrassing it is to have your full-on douchebaggery hanging out for the whole internet to see.
We weren’t the ones to hang out the ad hominems for the whole internet to see, Sparky. But you might want to examine why the opinions of a bunch of asshole, paranoid, silly, frightened, embarrassing, douchebag gun fucks matter so much to you that you chose to comment here.
July 28th, 2008 at 3:20 am
Justthisguy - I’m straight, so she doesn’t appeal to me.
Also, politically, we’re about as far apart as it’s possible to be. I’m so not pro-Palestinian I did some work for the IDF at Haifa Naval base not that long ago.
But I tell you this, she has more courage in her little finger than I do in my whole body. I transitioned because my body went weird. She has the guts to do it herself, despite unemployment, despite divorce, and despite a face that is not her fortune.
But you know what? I looked not as good as she does now, just 40 months ago. And if I’m any judge of bone structure, even a minor set of FFS surgeries and a lot of weight loss and you’d say she’d look not just OK, but really good.
Compare with the photo sequence here. Yes, she’ll look better than me, even without FFS
As for combing - this gal doesn’t look too bad, does she?
I’m sorry, and again her politics and mine are completely different. But as a human being, she’s a better, or at least more courageous, person than I am. And I’m not chopped liver.
July 28th, 2008 at 4:28 am
2. Guns and young children really aren’t a good combination, and there are usually young children at churches.
My young children are better shots than i am, my 9 year old can out shoot his old man on even my best day. I suspect it is because he never developed the bad habits i have.
my 2 year old knows that guns are dangerous, “hot” is the term he uses, because we have taught him not to touch hot things. He is never alone with any guns anyways so its not a problem. unless he can pick a master lock or a gun safe, he’ll never touch the guns without my knowledge. When he hits about 3 1/2 - 4 years old, I will take him shooting and teach him all he will ever need to know about guns.
my 8 month old is too young to know anything about them so she has no real exposure in the whole thing, nor does she need it yet, she is still mastering the whole not drooling on your feet thing.
July 28th, 2008 at 7:02 am
Well, we have certifiable Reasoned Discourse, we have childish, churlish, and generally idiotic name-calling (and then accusations of “thin skins” when those targetted call him on it), and copious ad hominem attacks that have no bearing whatsoever on the actual debate that he was skirting around.
Yup, sounds like your typical anti-rights, anti-self-defense, anti-guns kind of person.
Which is just all manner of ironic, considering this particular person would supposedly be all about acceptance, tolerance, understanding, and such things. I think someone needs to sign him up for Hypocrites Anonymous.
All I know is that this shooting, has solidified an already firm desire to carry in my mind. Now it is just a matter of time.
July 28th, 2008 at 7:40 am
ok, if i ignore the personal cheap shots at a transperson early on in the process — which is smart of me, since it weeds out almost 90% of this thread — then what i’ve got left is us gunnies saying we don’t appreciate the Reasoned Discourse(tm) and the Discourser carrying it on regardless, quite unable to support her position.
even coming over here to berate us, which i’ll admit is gutsy, she states no actual support for her position. she does manage to call us all evil and right-wing, the latter of which is as much of an insult to myself as the former, and to deny she’s called us any such thing, but no coherent logic. ho hum, when did we last see this sort of erudite debate before…? that’s right, last time there was a highly publicized shooting. now whose points does that serve to prove…?
July 28th, 2008 at 7:50 am
Oh what fun. Or not.
I’d like to point out there’s been scant mention by either side of this, er, “discussion” of the straight up heroism displayed by members of the congregation who reacted to the attack in such wise as to stop it.
As a former member of a UU congration — and a rather broad cross-section of humanity it harmlessly was, most people bein’ rather more able to get along without name-calling than the present example suggests — I was not surprised to find that some folks stood up to the goblin; the Unitarians I knew had plenty of courage and sincerity.
–And I believe a lot of people of the gun, on reading the news story, sincerely wished those brave individuals had had better tools at their disposal to end the danger. Anti-gunners think this is “blaming the victim,” but that’s not the case at all. Blame — all the blame — falls on the loony who decided to shotgun a church-ful or people. Please note his shotgun’s innocent, too, just as matches and kerosene don’t cause arson. It’s the hand that trips the trigger that bears the responsibility.
Bad stuff was done by a bad and/or crazy man. Brave people stopped him — people who were armed by their willingness to defend their friends, their children and their peace. Guns? The miserable rat could have as well had a sword. Or matches. Or phosgene gas.
Kynn, it’s not the tool that’s the problem. And the rest of us? It’s highly likely it wasn’t the “gun free zone” sign most UU congregations put up (after, at least here, long, heated and comprhensive debate), either. It’s the crazy/evil due with murderous intent that’s the problem and it’s stopping him, quickly, by whatever means happen to be readily available that’s the solution.
Name-calling won’t change that. Right-wing, leftie, pretty, ugly, big effing deal. Go smile at a child or be nice to a stray critter; go stand up, in whatever and however way you can, when evil people try to harm those around you. And could ya at least please tryworry a whole lot less about the thoughts your neighbors might be thinkin’ or what their hobbies and interests might be?
July 28th, 2008 at 8:10 am
That’s rich right there, given that you attacked an entire group of people. And you said enough about your side for me with your hateful rhetoric.
Hey, notice what the site owner isn’t doing? Deleting your comments.
Yes, you did.
July 28th, 2008 at 8:15 am
BTW, you’re the Kerry guy?
Small internet.
July 28th, 2008 at 8:44 am
One point I did not see (and I read the whole thing and now I need a shower…) is mention of the concept of ‘deterrent’. If a building does not have a “no guns” sign, then a rampaging psycho will have to consider that some of the people (intended victims) will be armed.
The world will never know how many crimes have been prevented because the possible perpetrator considered that the intended victims may be armed.
Also, @ Roberta X: Great comment.
July 28th, 2008 at 8:49 am
And for the record, I had no idea about any transgendered anything. I didn’t get that far. I saw the frothy-mouthed hysterics and the pictures of FABULOUS hair.
July 28th, 2008 at 9:01 am
“Do you want a hug?”
Do you want a soldering-iron in the eye?
Are you fucking kidding me?
July 28th, 2008 at 10:34 am
Apparently we’ve misunderstood Kynn. He doesn’t want to discuss it on his Live Journal, but he has no problem doing it here or at my site.
He also wants to know how I look in a dress.
That’s not a very flattering image of me that JadeDouche offered him, but hey…I think the Jos A. Banks look is more “me.”
July 28th, 2008 at 10:44 am
So, just one more question for y’all (since you’ve carefully managed to miss my point entirely and seem utterly unaware that there are frequent fatal accidents involving young children and guns):
If you practice gun safety and keep your weapon unloaded and locked up when you’re not using it to avoid having your two-year-old blow his own brains out, what do you plan on doing if the proverbial armed robber shows up in your bedroom at 2 am?
July 28th, 2008 at 10:47 am
Sabotabby, your point has been addressed many times. Not rehashing it here. do some research.
And more involving household items.
I have one that is accessible to me and not children. There are many methods for doing so. Again. Not rehashing it here. do some research.
July 28th, 2008 at 10:51 am
I guess I don’t get why you’d have a public LJ, with comments enabled, link to plenty of gun communities (thereby letting them know you’re posting stupid shit) and then flip out when someone tries to discuss your close-minded and ridiculous views.
Doesn’t make sense. Unfortunately, it’s an all too often occurence, where someone believes that they have the right to a soapbox (they do), but also a right not to be confronted about what they say on said soapbox (they don’t).
Anyway, I do wish that someone at that church had been armed and able to end the situation with less loss of life.
And sabotabby, yes, kids die from guns. And pools, and drain cleaner. Having pools or drain cleaner around kids isn’t, per se, a dangerous thing. However, when a kid is not taught proper respect for dangerous items, is left alone, tragedy happens.
Armed parishoners aren’t going to be leaving their firearms on the floor for this kids to grab. They’d be in (likely) concealed holsters.
Your point (about kids and guns in this situation)…just doesn’t make any sense.
July 28th, 2008 at 10:56 am
sabotabby,
Bullshit.
How many a year are there? Do you know? Would you care to guess? Let’s call “young” between ages 0 and 10. Do you think it’s one per hour? Per minute? Per week?
I know the numbers, do you? Or are you just pulling an supposition- and emotion-laden quote out of your ass?
July 28th, 2008 at 11:04 am
(I’ll give you a hint: The CDC has the numbers. Being all scientific-like, it’s all broken out by age, accident, suicide, homicide, whatever. Since you said “accident” and “very young”, we’ll go with the 0-to-a-generous-10, where we can be fairly certain that the data is less corrupted. Beyond that age, it can be hard to tell if Bobby’s gun accidentally went off when Gerald shorted him on a dime bag, or Stephanie’s gun accidentally went off after her third listen to a Trent Reznor album during a messy breakup.)
July 28th, 2008 at 11:26 am
Sure—here are recent statistics from the NRA, which I’m sure you can’t accuse of anti-gun bias:
In fact, on average there is just under one firearm-related death among children per day, including one accidental death every 5.8 days.
Now, the NRA considers this statistic acceptable, especially since deaths are decreasing. I beg to differ, especially since it’s pretty hard to prove that having guns in a house with children has a net gain in terms of lives saved.
Incidentally, I’m not sure why you guys think that teen suicide isn’t also tragic and a good argument for not having guns around children. Just recently, a friend’s cousin grabbed the gun of his father—an RCMP officer who took every possible safety precaution—and blew his brains out. If you think that the father wasn’t incredibly wracked with guilt over having, through no fault of his own, provided the instrument of his son’s death, I ask you to have a moment of empathy.
No, this doesn’t mean that I think that guns should be banned. But it does mean that I think it’s as irresponsible to have guns lying around your house or be packing heat during a children’s play as it is to leave your swimming pool unattended or to drive drunk. I don’t think swimming pools should be banned either (cars are a whole ‘nother story). But people ought to be responsible with deadly weapons.
I ask again: If your gun is properly unloaded and locked up, how are you going to fend off the armed robber at 2 am?
July 28th, 2008 at 11:30 am
You lose.
July 28th, 2008 at 11:33 am
since you’ve carefully managed to miss my point entirely
No, we called out your straw man for the straw man it was.
Tam’s asked you specific questions, I expect she’ll get the same answer I did when I asked you what you’d ask Jeanne Assam.
what do you plan on doing if the proverbial armed robber shows up in your bedroom at 2 am?
… Which is the same “What good can you expect to do” that you tried earlier, thus “so why bother having guns”.
Again, ask Jeanne Assam. Or any of the children who were behind her.
I grew up in a house with loaded weapons. As did all of my contemporaries. Notably, we didn’t have to deal with burglars at 2 AM where I grew up. A little bit of planning, training, and forethought goes a long way.
July 28th, 2008 at 11:34 am
Kynn’s posting was intemperate. But here in the comments, she was polite, despite the transphobia and liberal bashing. Now liberals could do with hitting with a clue-bat, but not nastiness, and certainly not literally bashed, as many transpeople are.
Now a quote : Press Conference
Under those circumstances, I’d be tempted to be a little intemperate too.
Your reaction to her insults is natural, and not unreasonable. But I think that if you had the faintest clue about the situation we face, you might cut her a little slack. You don’t, and I can’t really fault you for that.
And she should realise the difference between gun-toting men who openly despise liberals and GLBTs, and gun-toting men who openly despise liberals and GLBTs, and use a shotgun on them. But you can see how that might be a little difficult sometimes.
July 28th, 2008 at 11:45 am
I beg to differ, especially since it’s pretty hard to prove that having guns in a house with children has a net gain in terms of lives saved.
It’s very easy. Look at the crime rates where the guns are outlawed, and where they’re not. Notice the deaths of children. Almost all of those “firearms-related deaths are where?
Incidentally, I’m not sure why you guys think that teen suicide isn’t also tragic
Who said we didn’t?
and a good argument for not having guns around children.
Because it’s not? Of the teens I know who committed suicide, just one used a gun. (Which has very little to do with children.) Teen suicide and guns aren’t related. Unless you’re using emotion rather than logic to deal with the problem (Funny how we keep getting back to this point.)
Just recently, a friend’s cousin grabbed the gun of his father—an RCMP officer who took every possible safety precaution—and blew his brains out.
Just to be pedantic, obviously he didn’t take every possible safety precaution.
If you think that the father wasn’t incredibly wracked with guilt over having, through no fault of his own, provided the instrument of his son’s death, I ask you to have a moment of empathy.
I have a lot for him, being the father of a son who took that step. I’ve been near that situation before, and it’s one I wouldn’t wish upon almost anyone. One of my best friends committed suicide, and I helped his parents with his effects. He didn’t use a gun, by the way. He used a plastic bag.
But it does mean that I think it’s as irresponsible to have guns lying around your house or be packing heat during a children’s play
But you’ve failed to demonstrate how that’s negligent or dangerous, other than you think guns are just dangerous and emit mind rays that destabilize people. (Sounds like the view that many imams have about women’s hair, actually.) How is it irresponsible to be carrying a gun around children?
And what happens if, oh, say, a shotgun-wielding asshole burst in to the children’s production of Annie? Have you thought for a moment about what the logical end point of your view is?
Cops shouldn’t be around children? No guns? So only.. people with bad intentions should be allowed around children? What?
But people ought to be responsible with deadly weapons.
To quote a great swordsman: You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.
July 28th, 2008 at 11:48 am
it’s certainly tragic. what makes you think we (collectively) feel otherwise?
because teenagers are quite smart enough to kill themselves even without guns. also, because there is no lack of “sufficiently easy” methods of dispatching oneself — the main obstacle to suicide is the instinct of self-preservation — removing guns from society (as if we ever could!) would not solve this problem, while it would create other ones. the very effort would be a societal problem in itself.
no, he obviously did not take every possible precaution. even your own two-in-the-morning argument hinges on the fact that he could have done more. i agree, he could have — and that almost certainly without locking the gun up to the point of uselessness in the gravest extreme.
July 28th, 2008 at 11:48 am
I have a lot for him, being the father of a son who took that step.
To clarify: I have a lot of empathy for him, since he is the father of a son who took that step. (Not claiming that I am, just to be clear.
July 28th, 2008 at 11:48 am
Zoe, Kynn came here and lied about what he did or did not say. After he’d stated fuck gun fucks. It is intolerance and bigotry.
I confess, I made fun of Kynn’s appearance before realizing he was a work in process. Oops, my bad. Doesn’t change my feelings regarding appearance just means that I probably wouldn’t have said that had I known.
And a few posts up, we address the press conference.
Ditto. As I said elsewhere: I would gladly take up arms to defend your life from whatever hate-filled idiots wished to do you harm over your choice to alter your body.
We face quite a bit of intolerance from the tolerant left for our views. I support a GLBT group, myself. And am pretty open on this site as supporting gay marriage, a position that my pro-gun friends here take issue with often. But they do not resort to yelling fuck you you gay fucks.
July 28th, 2008 at 11:56 am
The irony is… I’m neither liberal nor gay. But to people with beliefs like this nutter’s, they wouldn’t see that, would they?
For the record… I believe in a licensing system for cars. The vehicle should be inspected for safety, not operable by minors (except under adult supervision), and the user should be licensed and have to pass a safety test. If they misuse the vehicle, be it criminally or carelessly, the license should be withdrawn. There should be separate license categories for Formula 1 and other high-performance cars, and they should be kept off the streets, and in the hands of experts only.
Guns are almost as lethal as cars, so should be treated in a similar way.
I also believe that a society that finds it necessary to have firearms for self-defence has a serious law and order problem. Finally, if the problem exists, banning guns is about the worst thing you can do. Better that they’re not necessary, but if they are necessary, then they are necessary.
July 28th, 2008 at 12:05 pm
Licensing and registration do not work. Ask Canada and DC.
Then why are police armed?
July 28th, 2008 at 12:15 pm
SayUncle - as a personal favour to me - please call her, “her”. I know it’s a small thing, but it’s important.
The rest of your post I have no issues with. Bigotry and blindness to the fact that the other side may be wrong, but probably has some right on their side too, that’s all too human. It happens on both Left and Right, but what really rankles is that the Left is convinced they don’t suffer from it, and are thus hypocrites too.
We need to do more listening, and insults just get in the way there.
There were remarkably few though, in the comments section anyway. I’d prefer to overlook the original post referred to. It didn’t help, and was a product more of emotion than thought. It should have been called out. The appearance stuff was not helpful either, but we’re all human.
Perhaps we can put past mistakes aside, and have a decent debate on this. I’m Australian, so there’s cultural nuances (GOD I hate that word!!) I’ll miss, and a solution that would be good here may be useless in the US - and a solution in one part of the US may not be good for all of the country.
July 28th, 2008 at 12:19 pm
how on earth do you design a car so that no 17-year-old can operate it?
why? what actual, current, pressing, societal problem would that solve? do we have a spate of NASCAR crash-and-burn incidents plaguing our streets and highways that i’ve somehow overlooked?
my neighbor owns a speedboat, one of those tiny little things you don’t so much pilot as “wear”. i don’t think he’s any kind of licensed expert; judging by his house and back yard, he’s more likely just a blue collar guy who likes to race a speedboat every so often. why on earth should he not be allowed to, if he pleases, so long as he hurts noone else with it? and what for should i not be allowed that semiauto AK-clone i keep meaning to buy, if i ever get the money for it? i’ve never killed anything with a backbone, rifle or no, and nor do i ever wish to.
prior restraint has some uses, but this doesn’t seem like a useful or sensible use of it. what good would such restrictions do us?
you mean, anybody can own and drive any car/gun they please to, so long as they keep it on their own private property and off the public roads — no license, registration, or background check needed, until you want to drive in traffic where you may encounter other drivers? sure.
you mean, the license tests needed to carry a gun/drive a car in public should be easy enough that most 16-year-olds can pass them with a few weeks of training, at no more than reasonable expense, and then be good anywhere in the nation without exceptions, renewable more or less for life with minimal effort? great, thanks. i might be a tiny bit stricter than that if i were king, but i’m not.
you mean to do away with criminal background checks before purchasing firearms, and with ownership bans for felons and certain misdemeanors? um, i’m not sure if even i would agree with that. i’d rather that society be stricter than you on this point.
in the vast majority of the country, it isn’t necessary to own guns. guess what? need has nothing to do with it. not in a free country, anyway.
(damn, i’m getting pissed off with that ancient “but you don’t need it!” trope. i used to have more patience for it, but it’s really worn me out lately.)
July 28th, 2008 at 12:23 pm
That was rather the point.
BTW, I’m all for regulating guns like cars. For the reasons Nomen just illustrated.
Sure. Irrelevant to me.
July 28th, 2008 at 12:28 pm
Why are police armed? Because a government that cannot protect its citizens is dysfunctional. If a substantial proportion - say 1% - of crims have firearms, the police need to be armed, and heavily. “Peace through superior firepower”.
Ideally, armed police should be as rare as SWAT teams, in fact, firearms should be “special weapons”. But the US is nowhere near that stage, and culturally, probably will never be. Probably should never be, an armed society is part of your cultural heritage.
But barring some means, either legally or socially, of stopping all but a tiny fraction of crims from being armed, an armed police force is essential.
In the UK, it used to be that only a few professional crims had guns. Use of a gun in a crime meant 15 years without the option. 30 if it got fired. Now… the police aren’t armed, but the crims are. And the populace is disarmed and without government protection. The worst of all worlds.
July 28th, 2008 at 12:33 pm
Hmmmmm.
@ Kynn
“Yeah, but I don’t really care that much what you know about me or don’t know about me. The fact that the site owner and commenters here chose to attack me for my appearance, my gender identity, and my marriage says a whole lot more about your side than mine.”
1. Dude you’re ugly. Get used to it because it ain’t going to change.
2. My issue with you is your complete inability to debate.
3. Another issue is your complete inability to actually comprehend the issue at hand.
July 28th, 2008 at 12:35 pm
Nomen Nescio - you missed my point, sorry I wasn’t clearer.
Needing a gun for self-defence is a sign that the government isn’t doing it’s job.
Having a gun, to target shoot, hunt, or just because you want one, that’s another matter. Why should it be illegal?
It shouldn’t be effectively compulsory though, which it would be if it’s needed. Freedom means the freedom to remain unarmed, and still secure in one’s person and property. If that freedom is not enforced, then a lesser quality freedom is one where everyone is forced for their own safety to have a weapon, and is allowed to too. Unfree means you’re forced to have one, and yet forbidden to by law.
July 28th, 2008 at 12:40 pm
memomachine - before I go to bed (it’s past midnight here)…
You want to make a bet on that?
July 28th, 2008 at 12:40 pm
So, you didn’t really mean it when you said:
July 28th, 2008 at 12:42 pm
Hmmmm.
@ Kynn
“I’ve pretty much said what I’ve wanted to say here, so if anyone wants to talk about anything else, drop me a note at kynn@kynn.com. And hey, Mr. Uncle, if you’re really upset that I misread you, you could have just emailed me instead making a sexist slam that turned into a trannybashing party. I’m just sayin’.”
So let me get this straight.
You gratuitously insult gun rights proponents, who traced back your linking to them, who dared leave comments on your blog. Then you eliminate their comments leaving only your replies. And then institute a personal policy of erasing any new comments.
Now you’re inviting these same people to send you email?
Why the heck would anyone bother? Doesn’t this behavior strike you as somewhat deranged?
Lessee now:
Gun owner: I think you’re wrong and someone with a firearm could have taken down the shooter perhaps without anyone else losing their life.
Kynn: You rotten bastard gun owners die die die!
Kynn: Oh and if you want to continue this discussion send me an email.
An untrammeled absurdity.
July 28th, 2008 at 12:46 pm
Hmmmm.
@ Zoe Brain
“You want to make a bet on that?”
Sure.
Sorry but the underlying bone structure simply does not look right. *shrug* maybe other people think differently. But I spent years drawing and painting and the perspectives are off compared to born women.
July 28th, 2008 at 12:54 pm
Hmmm.
@ Nomen Nescio
“how on earth do you design a car so that no 17-year-old can operate it?”
1. I don’t agree with the above point. Personally I think 17 year old should be allowed to drive cars. Personally I think 16 year olds should be considered adults with all duties and rights.
I also think most American families coddle their kids to the point where a 25 year old is barely an adult.
2. So how would you design a car so that no 17 year old can operate it?
Easy. Build the ignition technology so it requires the insertion of a smart card driver’s license. No license, car doesn’t start. If you’re too young, all personal data encoded on the driver’s license, the car doesn’t start.
*shrug* it would also be a very effective anti-theft device and would cost about $100 to add to a car. Particularly if you could program a car to only operate with a set of allowed or authorized driver licenses.
But that would cut down on car theft and that’s probably all that’s keeping the Big Three alive.
July 28th, 2008 at 12:55 pm
in theory, i agree completely with this point. in practice, it’s not that simple.
in practice, the latter sentence is so generalized as to be near useless. “the government should protect the citizens” is eminently sensible, but it can’t be applied to any one specific situation; protect which citizens, from what, and just how?
some folks make much hay of the fact that the police forces (in the U.S., specifically) have no legal duty to protect anyone, from anything, or even to show up if you call the emergency line and explain you’re in imminent danger. there is plenty of good judicial precedent to this effect, going all the way up to the supreme court, and some folks are quite shocked to hear of it. but it makes perfect sense — how could the police possibly protect everyone, always? you’d need a cop in every room and on every corner. that’s a prospect as dystopian as it is impossible. of course they have no duty to help me.
which means that, if i want any kind of protection, i had better provide it myself. the cops will certainly help as they’re able, but they can’t show up immediately even if i’m able to call them, and they might not have the resources to show up at all — until they do, i’m on my own. surely this is common sense?
i own a fire extinguisher, even though it’s vanishingly unlikely my house will ever catch on fire. it’s even less likely my home will ever be invaded by anybody who might need shooting; that might be why i don’t keep the shotgun loaded in the bedroom. i still own a shotgun, though. (well, i have access to it, it’s only “mine” in the sense of marital property. maybe i should get my own some day.)
if i ever needed the fire extinguisher, i’m sure the fire department would happily come out to help me. but they can’t already be there when needed. the fire extinguisher can, and the shotgun likewise is.
July 28th, 2008 at 12:58 pm
For those who ask why I feel that you guys don’t feel that teen suicide is tragic, I refer to Tam’s comment here. If you all disagree with her, cool.
Because gun-owners, like everyone else, are human and make mistakes. Friendly fire incidents happen in war between soldiers who are about as well-trained as you can get. In a chaotic, terrifying scenario like the one we’re talking about here, what are your chances of keeping a cool head? Of not hitting someone with stray bullets?
And no, I don’t like the idea of armed cops being around children. The last incident of an armed cop murdering a child in my country was, I believe, last week. I don’t trust the State to have a monopoly on force, which, incidentally, is why I’m not anti-gun.
Anyway, I’m about to give up on you lot, as I have other things to do today, but I’m going to give this one more crack.
I am not, personally, anti-gun. I oppose my city’s current plan to change zoning by-laws to make firing ranges illegal. I opposed my university’s move to close down its 80-year-old firing range, which was where I did my target shooting, after the tragedy at Virginia Tech. I get pretty annoyed when legal, responsible gun-owners get punished for the actions of homophobic terrorists like the man who shot up the Knoxville Church.
But let’s go back to the original point that Kynn was commenting on. The argument proposed by SaysUncle is that had the UUs been packing heat at this children’s play, they could have prevented this tragedy. Since the death toll as it stands is two, for this argument to hold any water, the death toll in SaysUncle’s hypothetical scenario has to be less than two. Because I’m a generous sort of person and the shooter appears to be a class-A-asshole rather than a person with a mental illness, let’s exclude the death of the shooter from this scenario.
So a guy walks in to your church, packed with parishioners and their children, and starts firing. Chances are he’s going to hit someone. But miraculously he doesn’t. You are packing. You manage to get everyone to duck so that you have a clear shot. You shoot the gunman. None of your bullets go astray and hit a bystander. He is killed instantly and doesn’t have a chance to squeeze off any other shots. You take him down perfectly, the death toll is one, and that one dead person is a son-of-a-bitch who deserves to die.
All I am arguing is that this ideal scenario is only one possible scenario. There are others. You have to be an utter ideologue who has never fired a gun not to imagine that there are other, more deadly, scenarios that are possible. To make that smug, initial statement: “This is why I carry a gun to church,” is to deny the existence of those other scenarios.
But I see still one more problem in that statement, the statement that says flat out: Guns will solve the problem of gun violence.
Have you? Have any of you? Because your argument, to anyone half-rational, is this: People who don’t carry guns deserve to get shot.
So I ask you: What about kids? What about those with physical or mental disabilities that prevent them from using a gun safely? What about those too poor to buy guns? And what about those who, like most Unitarian Universalists, are pacifists who don’t want to carry guns? None of these people have the right to safety?
You’re concerned about your freedom to bear arms. Fair enough. I don’t blame you there, even though I think that your far-right government is very unlikely to take your guns away (at least until the American underclass starts showing some backbone). But you feel threatened anyway. Fine. You should have the freedom to own guns.
But—and this is very important—people also should have the freedom not to own guns. It’s this freedom that you deny them when you say that they should have gone to a children’s play at a church armed. That’s a freedom that you have no right to demand be taken away from them.
And it’s this implication that makes you a victim-blaming asshole.
July 28th, 2008 at 12:59 pm
Hmmmm.
“some folks make much hay of the fact that the police forces (in the U.S., specifically) have no legal duty to protect anyone, from anything, or even to show up if you call the emergency line and explain you’re in imminent danger.”
What really shocks people though is if you follow up by telling them that on the other hand every private citizen has a positive duty to help protect the police. Failure to do so can, and has, resulted in prison time.
All in all it’s a pretty simple an straightforward thing. No matter how quick the police are, when dispatched to a crime, they can never beat a victim to a crime scene. Invariably the victim is always there first.
Funny how that works.
July 28th, 2008 at 1:02 pm
Zoe, I think what we have here is a fundamental difference in how we think the government should factor into the safety of its citizens.
I cannot speak for my fellow “gun fucks”, but here is how I feel on the situation: There is absolutely no feasible way a government can guarantee the 100% safety of 100% of its citizens 100% of the time. Period. Full stop. The only way you could come close is to deputize 50% of the populace, and attach them to the other 50% as bodyguards, but, still, the human element will insert itself into the problem, in the form of people dodging their guards, corrupt deputies, etc.
So, if it is impossible for a government to completely, absolutely guarantee my safety and the safety of my wife, why should I not, therefore, take steps to at least add to my own safety? I am not foolish or naive enough to believe that carrying a gun will always make me perfectly safe, but I am also not enough of an idiot to believe that it would not help my odds. And a few hundred dollars for hardware and training is a small price to pay for that augment.
But, continuing on the self-defense problem and governments, did you know that, here in America, the police bear no responsibility to protect individuals? See here, here, and other judicial precedents. So if the police (and therefore, the government) are not going to protect me, then who is?
Me.
And, you know what, being a responsible grown adult of legal age, I am ok with that.
July 28th, 2008 at 1:05 pm
memomachine: i understood the “car that no minor can drive” to be an analogy to the hypothetical “gun that no wrong hands can fire”. i don’t like either idea. i think either actual thing (if made) would merely invite people to break the hypothetical prevention mechanisms, likely and conveniently becoming criminals in the process (what do you wanna bet?), and i think the “smart gun” would be certain to get people needlessly killed.
July 28th, 2008 at 1:06 pm
No, it really is not. Sorry. But that is a cute (and highly flammable) strawman you made there before you scampered off for the safety of your own bubble.
Oh, and Nomen, stop stealing the thunder of my comments while I am writing them :P.
July 28th, 2008 at 1:14 pm
All I am arguing is that this ideal scenario is only one possible scenario.
No, you explicitly said that merely having a gun around children was “irresponsible” and was endangering them.
Trust me, I know far more about “scenarios” than you’ve thought up in the last few hours.
But the scenario you prefer, demand, and would legislate means that innocent people, including children, get killed.
Because your argument, to anyone half-rational, is this: People who don’t carry guns deserve to get shot.
That’s not our argument.
It’s not. So if that’s what you’re arguing against, there’s the problem. (Despite this not being a new concept.)
Our point is there are no magical safe areas. You can’t put a sign up, and keep people out and stay safe behind your talismanic sign.
Virginia Tech? Where concealed-carry permittees weren’t allowed to carry their guns? That’s where the guy who wanted to get his name in the record book headed for.
Yesterday something similar happened. A guy who wanted to make a point/get famous/make a stand went somewhere where he knew he wouldn’t face opposition. You’re saying that that’s the proper, the responsible situation.
That’s the argument you’ve made. I’m not inferring anything or misstating your case.
It’s this freedom that you deny them when you say that they should have gone to a children’s play at a church armed. That’s a freedom that you have no right to demand be taken away from them.
And it’s this implication that makes you a victim-blaming asshole.
The fact that that’s not what was said I guess means we’re not.
But you know what? They’ve got the freedom to do what they want to. I’ve never claimed otherwise. My complaint is the people who insist that I must rid myself of those “irresponsible” (to use your own feelings) firearms if I’m to go to service among other places.
No place is safe.
That’s your ignorance and failure to imagine the scenarios that have been acted out multiple times showing. “Oh, you shouldn’t have a gun here, or here or here.” Why, is it safe there?
Is it safe for me, for instance to check into a flight at an airport, having disarmed as per the law?
Not if that’s where a terrorist thinks a good place to shoot people is. You can’t find anyplace that’s actually safe.
What our reaction is is the constant drumbeat of people saying it’s irresponsible, illegal to carry a gun, certainly you don’t need one in CHURCH (for one example).
Well yes, yes, sometimes you do. And when the guy kicks the door in with the shotgun in his hand, it’s a bit late to say “Gee, should have carried today.”
So you set people up for future tragedies with your ignorant emotional opinions.
That’s what makes you a tragedy-encouraging asshole.
July 28th, 2008 at 1:23 pm
Learn to read.
July 28th, 2008 at 1:40 pm
Hmmmm.
@ sabotabby
1. “Because gun-owners, like everyone else, are human and make mistakes.”
So. Your point is that the mere *possibility* of a mistake requires everyone, BUT the criminal, to be disarmed? That’s ridiculous.
2. “In a chaotic, terrifying scenario like the one we’re talking about here, what are your chances of keeping a cool head? Of not hitting someone with stray bullets?”
This isn’t a war zone filled with snipers. We’re talking regular normal situations where an armed criminal shooter appears and is immediately identifiable.
Plus there have been many instances where a regular person carrying a firearm did in fact shoot the criminal without injuring anyone else.
3. “And no, I don’t like the idea of armed cops being around children. The last incident of an armed cop murdering a child in my country was, I believe, last week. I don’t trust the State to have a monopoly on force, which, incidentally, is why I’m not anti-gun.”
So you’re not “anti-gun”? But you just don’t want anybody with a firearm near other people?
That’s illogical. You’re making claims about being pro-something that you obviously abhor. And that’s dishonest.
4. “Anyway, I’m about to give up on you lot, as I have other things to do today, but I’m going to give this one more crack.”
*shrug* up to you. World won’t end either way.
5. “But let’s go back to the original point that Kynn was commenting on. The argument proposed by SaysUncle is that had the UUs been packing heat at this children’s play, they could have prevented this tragedy.”
This image you’ve got of a hundred armed people in a church all shooting in every direction is not only silly but ridiculous. Its a buffoonish, cartoonish depiction of responsible gun owners that could come right out the Brady Campaign. Again another point of dishonesty on your part.
The reality is that a member of the congregation near the door of the church would’ve have seen the shooter walk in with a shotgun. That person would have drawn his pistol and, at point blank range, shot the man dead.
No large mass of armed people blindly shooting up their church, families, friends and priest. The idea of which is not only absurd but insulting as well. Instead the first man to tackle the shooter could have shot him rather than take a fatal shotgun blast to the body.
6. “You take him down perfectly, the death toll is one, and that one dead person is a son-of-a-bitch who deserves to die.”
Guess what? This scenario, in various forms, has been played out in real life many times over.
7. “To make that smug, initial statement: “This is why I carry a gun to church,” is to deny the existence of those other scenarios.”
And your clear anti-gun position has to posit that gun owners are not only trigger happy but dumb as fucking boot. Or else your entire argument collapses.
8. “But I see still one more problem in that statement, the statement that says flat out: Guns will solve the problem of gun violence.”
Another idiotic trope. Is this meant to be somehow sublime? Relevant?
Gun violence exists because there are crazy people and/or criminals. In those countries that don’t have as many firearms they use knives. Or hasn’t the knifing fad going on in the UK escaped you?
Tell me. Do knives solve knifing? Sounds pretty damn dumb doesn’t it?
Here’s a clue: Guns don’t solve gun violence. They solve criminal conduct. Generally fatally or, if the criminal is smart, by holding the criminal for the police.
9. “Have you? Have any of you? Because your argument, to anyone half-rational, is this: People who don’t carry guns deserve to get shot.”
Logic is a distant friend, hardly known. Isn’t it. Because that endpoint is not the logical conclusion at all. In fact no logic was used, or misused, in the creation of this silliness because involving logic at all would’ve gotten in the way.
10. “So I ask you: What about kids? What about those with physical or mental disabilities that prevent them from using a gun safely? What about those too poor to buy guns? And what about those who, like most Unitarian Universalists, are pacifists who don’t want to carry guns? None of these people have the right to safety?”
If you have a college degree I highly recommend you return to each and every professor you’ve ever studied under and slap the living fuck out of each of them.
You were ripped off.
Because the above quote not only has absolutely no relation to anything, it clearly departs from the line of your assertions. And it basically makes no frigging sense whatsoever.
btw: sorry about the language. but I’m a computer programmer so my life revolves around logic. And when people crap on logic like this it really irritates me. If you want to have a ludicrous opinion the go right ahead, you’re allowed.
Just don’t try to justify it as being logical.
11. “But—and this is very important—people also should have the freedom not to own guns.”
Each and every single person on Earth has the implicit right to kneel, bend their head and take a bullet in the back of the head. Each person has the right to lie supine with knees spread. Each and every person has the right to stand in abject terror with hands raised and the sure and certain knowledge that personal death is very near.
Or you could try it the other way.
12. “And it’s this implication that makes you a victim-blaming asshole.”
Are you done now you complete imbecilic dumbass?
Or are you going to inflict your persona brand of stupidity on everyone again?
…
Sorry folks. But this was an incredible combination of dishonesty, illogic and out and out stupidity. What an irritating person.
July 28th, 2008 at 1:57 pm
Ok, i’ll be the bastard, cause that’s how i roll.
1. That dude- err…chick is ugly. Whoever hit her with the ugly stick had a swing like Ted Williams. Wha? it’s not nice to do that? Well, don’t call me a “fuck”, Frankenstein.
2. Again the “penis substitute” thing. It’s more of an arm-substitute, cause i don’t throw things with my penis. But not for a lack of trying. Still can’t reach 800+feet/second with either, though.
3.Teen suicide isn’t tragic. It’s stupid. And like I say about all stupid people who do stupid things: “What a frakking idiot”.
4. The guy was crazy. Shooting liberals in a church? Sheesh. Everyone knows the only way to deal with liberals is re-education camps and deportation to socialist countries. Venezuela, for instance.
July 28th, 2008 at 2:05 pm
Zoe Brain Says:
Or perhaps the “job” is impossible for the government to do at the resource level it has been given via taxes. Or perhaps the morals of the people will not permit those convicted of first degree murder to be killed (or to a higher extreme, hands being cut off for pickpocketing, public hangings, and stoning of prostitutes). There are some very effective anti-crime measures that would not at all be tolerated in a free country.
That’s an encouraging sign. I hope you do a bit more thinking about this. BTW, you do know that there were massive confiscations of firearms in your own country during your lifetime, right? You also must know, or could confirm for yourself that the crime rate has not gone down due to the government confiscations. Indeed, it has gone up in your country.
But I suppose the firearms registration system that was in place DID have some use. It was extremely effective in getting the majority of lawfully registered firearms turned in to the government for destruction. Didn’t do a damn thing for all the unregistered firearms in the hands of evil people, though.
In a land of sunshine and rainbows, it shouldn’t be effectively compulsory that people have to have motorcycle helmets, life jackets, fire extinguishers, or the like. However, in the real world bad things happen, and it’s wise to take practical measures to reduce risk.
However, there is an effective way to get your “freedom to remain unarmed, and still secure in one’s person and property”. You may be unaware of this country’s trend towards “shall issue” discreet carry licenses. The laws in these states generally state that if you qualify (generally non-felon, though there are sometimes other requirements), the government can not turn you down for a license. Since the firearms are carried discreetly, no one knows who is armed and the effect is an overall reduction in the rate of crime. You can take a look at the general trend of state laws over time right here.
In every single case, not a single state that has passed “shall issue” laws have seen an increase in crime. Not a single one. Again, many have seen substantial reductions in crime.
Being practically brainwashed from birth about such BS tactics as “the easy availability of guns” and “taking guns off the street”, I assure you that the idea that more guns = less crime is a bit hard to wrap ones head around at first. Keep at it.
July 28th, 2008 at 2:12 pm
“11. “But—and this is very important—people also should have the freedom not to own guns.”
Each and every single person on Earth has the implicit right to kneel, bend their head and take a bullet in the back of the head. Each person has the right to lie supine with knees spread. Each and every person has the right to stand in abject terror with hands raised and the sure and certain knowledge that personal death is very near.
Or you could try it the other way.”
Brilliant, memomachine, just brilliant. Thank you.
July 28th, 2008 at 2:45 pm
Zoe Brain,
Or the freedom to be smaller and weaker than an assailant. Or just a lone person in the face of a pack of bullies. Or the freedom to not have locks on one’s doors. Or walk the streets of any city at night wearing a skirt as short as one likes, and no veil, either. I mean if the government was doing its job…
The reductio ad absurdum works both ways.
I will postulate the natural counter to that: A government capable of keeping me perfectly safe is no government I’d wish to live under. If this means that I consider carrying mace or a taser or a .38 to be a proposition worth mulling, well, that’s a price I’m willing to pay.
After all, people get shanked in maximum security prisons every day, and they have more government than any sane person would want, right?
July 28th, 2008 at 3:14 pm
“Needing a gun for self-defence is a sign that the government isn’t doing it’s job.”
Having a gun for self defence *is* government doing it’s job; you and I are the base level constituents of American governance. I am government, you are government, Tam is government, where local and county statute, state law, and federal law do not supercede.
July 28th, 2008 at 3:25 pm
I can’t fit an armed police officer in my pocket as well. So I guess we will both continue to carry.
July 28th, 2008 at 3:40 pm
“Each and every single person on Earth has the implicit right to kneel, bend their head and take a bullet in the back of the head. Each person has the right to lie supine with knees spread. Each and every person has the right to stand in abject terror with hands raised and the sure and certain knowledge that personal death is very near.”
Sounds good to me. Which one of you clowns wants to practice that right? Feel free to contact me here!
I’m a liberal gun nut and I agree completely that people have a right to own guns, but blaming the victim is really, really low and pathetic. This homophobic right-wing clown is one of yours, by the way, so don’t forget that.
July 28th, 2008 at 3:44 pm
Foley, show me where we blamed the victim.
July 28th, 2008 at 3:45 pm
Foley, so far as I read here, neither Say Uncle nor any of the follow-on commenters blamed any of the victims of this atrocity. If I am in error, however, pick out the comment you are referring to, and indicate where its author does.
Futhermore, speaking as a conservative, and possible “right-wing clown” (I have no idea what your particular definition may be), I take a considerable amount of offense at your disgusting allusion that this crazed murderer bears any similarity with any other conservatives, right-wing-types, or anyone else except other crazed murderers.
July 28th, 2008 at 3:47 pm
Linoge, we’re pro-gun. we must have blamed the victim! else, worldviews don’t hold up.
July 28th, 2008 at 3:50 pm
I think you should have to get a permit to not openly carry a firearm.
By not carrying, you are placing a burden on society … you are forcing everyone else to pay extra taxes to hire more cops to defend you.
Either a paid for permit … or maybe an extra police-force sales tax surcharge for purchasing any goods while not openly carrying a holstered pistol.
July 28th, 2008 at 4:05 pm
I’m referring to the “if only they all had guns” silliness. Politicizing a tragedy like this, on either side, is simply disgusting.
As for him being a right-wing clown, he hated liberals, he hated gays, he was obsessed with the Confederate south - doesn’t sound very liberal to me. The only difference between this guy and, say, Ann Coulter or Michael Weiner is that they haven’t killed anyone. The rhetoric and hatred is the same, this guy was just lacking in basic personal control.
July 28th, 2008 at 4:11 pm
I ask again: If your gun is properly unloaded and locked up, how are you going to fend off the armed robber at 2 am?
Why is it that most of your attempts at argument require that the reader adopt your ill-informed view of the world before all else?
First: No one, armed or not, is going to be in my bedroom at 2 am, unannounced. My home security doesn’t begin with a firearm, it ends with it.
Second: My firearms are well secured, but accessible within 5 seconds while I’m awake and less than 15 if I have to arouse from sleep.
I’m not going into further detail, because (as before) my preparations are none of your business. If you spend 5 minutes looking about, however, you’ll find plenty of products (GunVault and VisuaLock come to mind) that should address your question.
That you haven’t bothered to do so is one more example of your shallowness of thought, but don’t worry — you can always try to hide that by name-calling.
July 28th, 2008 at 4:11 pm
Then you’re in the wrong place.
have you sent an email/left a hateful comment threatening the folks blaming the ‘gun culture’?
July 28th, 2008 at 4:27 pm
It should learn some manners.
July 28th, 2008 at 4:27 pm
Foley: then not only are you in the wrong place, you are misunderstanding the message in question - both the one you quote, and the one actually indicated on this weblog. Additionally, something tells me (call it a very well-founded hunch) that us “right-wing nuts” are not the only ones “politicizing” this event.
As for your comment concerning Coulter and Weiner and, apparently, all of the other right-wingers out there, it just falls in line with your previously-disgusting allusion. Primarily, killing someone is a massive step, and that this shooter has decided to do so and that Coulter et al have not indicates that there is an equally massive difference between the two sets. But, like all good stereotypers, it seems you have no problem whatsoever lumping everyone of a certain type in with one particular whacko when it suits your needs, so I guess this should not surprise me.
July 28th, 2008 at 9:36 pm
Just checked in. Only Zoe mailed me, and you guys seem to be obsessed with my appearance.
What, were you going to ask me out or something? I’m sorta troubled by the way Mr. Uncle here is obsessed with my appearance.
I do wish you guys would quit lying about me, though. Someone said I’ve got a “new policy” about deleting comments — nope, sorry, my LJ has always been for friends-only comments with the rest screened. I sure didn’t make anything up for you folks.
I am pretty appreciative of the fact that you’re willing to defend my rights by shooting people, though. I know some particularly onerous anti-trans bigots — can I send some of you over to, you know, scare ‘em a little? Or is your gun use only limited to overthrowing the federal government for not supporting transgender equality? Let me know, folks.
Again, I’m really sorry that my obscure personal journal post, an expression of outrage and disgust at people from “your side” coming over and murdering people from “my side of the fence,” struck a nerve with you. If I’d known that Mr. Uncle was so obsessed with tracking incoming links (the one I used to link here says “2″ or something as the link text), I would have written it different — especially when I know you’re such sensitive souls. I apologize for insulting you poor gun fucks, and I especially apologize to the left-wing gun fucks who felt left out of my original rant. Hugs, everyone?
July 28th, 2008 at 9:39 pm
memomachine - this is getting OT but… you’re right and wrong.
You’re right. That’s why the underlying bone structure gets changed.
That involves grinding, repositioning, implants, and often titanium plates.
It’s not just a facelift, and it’s not for the fainthearted, trust me. It reconstructs the front of the skull. I’ve not had any surgery myself, Dr Suporn told me that the bits that really could have done with some change would be difficult and results marginal, and with the bits that were usually easy with a massive improvement, I already was an “after” not “before”.
There’s complications too from my brow sinus and nose having been smashed in with a crowbar at age 8. Gays have problems with being assaulted starting at puberty, TS girls get problems earlier. They don’t appear sissy, they just have all the wrong instincts, they “vibe wrong”.
July 28th, 2008 at 10:23 pm
Uncle,
Yes, I have.
Linoge,
I am not suggesting that it is the fault of Coulter and other nuts, just that this fellow agreed with the anti-liberal, homophobic beliefs of your average right-winger. If liberals are blamed for so-called eco-terrorists, then right-wingers are likewise blameable for the results of those who follow their ‘teachings’ as well.
July 28th, 2008 at 10:34 pm
Standard Mischief - we’re on the same wavelength.
I consider what happened here in Australia to be brain-dead and an act of vandalism. Many antique firearms were destroyed. Many disabled people whose only option was to use a semi-automatic weapon were disarmed. The hysteria got so bad, our Olympic shooting teams were nearly disbanded, as they couldn’t practice legally.
The most effective crime-reduction measure is not severe sentences, it’s high clear-up rates. That has its own problems too, but if a crim knows he has a 5% chance of being caught, not an 85% chance, whether he gets 5 years or 15 makes little difference to him. Note that conviction rates that are high but not reliable, where the prosecutor goes after someone they know is innocent, that massively diminishes confidence in the justice system, even if, especially if, conviction rates are high.
The fire extinguisher analogy is a good one though. The situation isn’t simple.
I have no problem with 5 or 10% of the population being armed and trained as deputies. I’m all for it. Call them a “well-regulated
militiapolice auxiliary”. I’d encourage another 5-10% to be volunteer firefighters so they can protect their neigbours’ homes not just their own. Or have paramedic training and equipment, simple first aid, lifesaving and CPR. Give tax breaks, or even just pay them. All must pass stringent security checks though, an have training kept up to date.At some point, you hit a trade-off. More weapons means more crimes of passion, accidents and suicides, but less violent crime. Fewer weapons means more violent crime, but fewer crimes of passion, accidents and suicides.
I feel we have to accept a trade-off. There will always be some violent crime. There will always be some gun-related deaths due to accidents. The trick is to minimise the need for weaponry, then see if we can find an optimum that minimises total deaths and assaults on persons and property. How you value property is a vexed issue. Would I kill someone threatening my child? No hesitation. Would I kill someone running off with 20c of mine, if that was the only way to stop him? Nope, even knowing that by not doing, I contribute to an atmosphere where crimes remain unpunished.
In my ideal society, crimes involving guns would be so rare that unarmed people would have a social obligation to rush the gunman, as was done by the “pacific” UUs. Knowing that the unfair risk they had to take meant fewer people dead from accidents in aggregate.
Part of the problem is social. If people have respect for the law, if it is seen as in the main, just, impartial, and effective, the need for weaponry diminishes. If seen as unjust, partial, or ineffectual, the need for weaponry grows. But respect must be earnt, and is all too easy to piss away (pardon my language) by serving the liberal cause du jour . In my lifetime, in the country I was born in, I’ve seen respect that once matched Japanese levels diminish to the point where I’d give serious consideration to being armed, law or no law. Better tried by 12 than carried by 6. I’ve also seen police systemic racism and corruption diminish, so the liberal moonbats aren’t completely wrong. A stopped clock is right twice a day, after all.
I really resent being forced to be a criminal.
The greatest failing of government is to fail at providing a legal system that is respected. But if the people won’t pay for it…
July 29th, 2008 at 12:51 am
Hmmmm.
@ Zoe Brain
1. “memomachine - this is getting OT but… you’re right and wrong.”
No I understood right from the beginning that it involved recontouring the skull, jaw, jawline, eyebrow ridge, etc. Unless you’re fortunate to have been born with largely a feminine structure any sort of permanent attempt at changing the persona would require extensive surgery.
2. “You’re right. That’s why the underlying bone structure gets changed.”
*shrug* but the change that is physically possible, at present, isn’t sufficient to truly impose the changes necessary to make the transformation … sufficient. Sorry trying to find the proper wording that conveys the concept I’m trying to communicate without being insulting.
People have different visions of themselves than reality. It’s just that some people have a vision that is dramatically different and they also have a desire to make that vision a reality.
3. “It’s not just a facelift, and it’s not for the fainthearted, trust me. It reconstructs the front of the skull. I’ve not had any surgery myself, Dr Suporn told me that the bits that really could have done with some change would be difficult and results marginal, and with the bits that were usually easy with a massive improvement, I already was an “after” not “before”.”
I’d say “congratulations” but that seems inappropriate. *shrug* sorry but I looked at the photos and the perspectives are just completely off to me. Both with a “flash” method and a detailed examination.
But that’s me. I told a professional artist friend that the jawline on sketch he’d done of his girlfriend was completely off and he remarked that I was the only person he’d ever known who had noticed it.
4. “There’s complications too from my brow sinus and nose having been smashed in with a crowbar at age 8. Gays have problems with being assaulted starting at puberty, TS girls get problems earlier. They don’t appear sissy, they just have all the wrong instincts, they “vibe wrong”.”
Sorry to hear that. I’ve encountered my own set of issues during childhood, which involved broken hands, so I know it sucks to be different.
*shrug* if life were easy people wouldn’t suicide. Living is a choice, and one we make every day. It can suck, but you have to endure it.
July 29th, 2008 at 8:10 am
Foley: Well, you continue to fail, and spectacularly at that. Not only are you going back and changing what you said (understadable, because it was a despicable, dishonest, and disgusting comment to make), but you are also failing on the “personal responsibility” test. *shrug* Oh well - this coversation was over before it started, but suffice to say that the shooter is responsible for, accountable for, and to blame for his actions, and no one else shares that with him. No one.
Then people like me will always elect to lawfully carry our own methods of self-defense with us. After all, it is somewhat hard to pocket a police officer.
July 29th, 2008 at 8:27 am
Linoge, I never changd what I said. He is personally responsible, no one else. I am simply saying that you all should be proud of him, he’s the physical embodiment of all of your beliefs and hatreds.
July 29th, 2008 at 9:16 am
In point of fact, Foley, you did, but now you are back to your standard, despicable, “he is just like you” crap, so I guess you have come full-circle.
The sad thing is that you probably actually believe what you write, despite knowing next to nothing about me, my beliefs, the shooter, his beliefs, or much anything else you write about. How consummately pathetic it is to feel justified lumping millions of people in together with a single crazed madman… I honestly feel sorry for you.
July 29th, 2008 at 11:23 am
Foley has a half a point, he’s just stating it very offensively.
there’s a certain strain of… i don’t know whether to call them “conservatives”… that’ve been making hay off of demonizing “liberals”, democrats, and leftists in general for quite some time now. need i mention the titles of certain books one ms. Coulter has made a good living off of, or certain of her similarly-minded colleagues in punditry and authorship?
see also David Neiwert’s much longer explanation of these matters here, here, and here. that last link is part one in a ten-part series; mr. Neiwert is one of the few folks in the blogosphere even longer-winded than i.
now you might say that this is all talk, but that’s what whatserface running PETA keeps saying about her (and her organization’s) support for ecoterrorists too. talk is not always harmless; talking about how your ideological or political opponents are subhuman scum who deserve killing does eventually lead to consequences. if you can blame leftists for wearing Che Guevara tee shirts and tar them with that man’s sins and failings, then by the same logic this murderer’s acts tar right-wing eliminationist pundits as well. sauce for the goose.
(now let’s see if all those links get my comment spam filtered or not…)
July 29th, 2008 at 11:23 am
sabotabby — “No, this doesn’t mean that I think that guns should be banned. But it does mean that I think it’s as irresponsible to have guns lying around your house…”
{shrug} You can think what you want, but it’s ultimately none of your fucking business. Do you understand? I don’t care what you think. You don’t count.
Have an ice day.
July 29th, 2008 at 11:34 am
Tam: “A government capable of keeping me perfectly safe is no government I’d wish to live under.”
Goddamned right. Or, as my friend Ed Rasimus recently put it: “I absolutely refuse to live in a world that’s made safe for children.”
July 29th, 2008 at 12:20 pm
I find it hilarious that people who are posting positively in a blog entry that sinks to attacking someones’ looks rather than their arguments are calling me ‘offensive.’ That’s irony you can only find in real life.
As for this guy’s beliefs, read this:
http://www.knoxnews.com/news/2008/jul/28/church-shooting-police-find-manifesto-suspects-car/
Falafel boy, Weiner and the lesser half of Hannity and Colmes were all found in his personal library. People who knew him said he had a hatred of ‘liberals’ (this was found in his letter, as well:
“Adkisson, 58, of Powell wrote a four-page letter in which he stated his “hatred of the liberal movement,” Owen said. “Liberals in general, as well as gays.”"
In other words, I know exactly what he believes so to claim I don’t is absurd on its face. He made it known to the public what he believed in both his letter, his library and his actions. Does that make it Falafel boy, Weiner, etc.’s fault? Of course not. I am just suggesting that right-wingers should embrace this man as their own because he is basically falafel boy and company, without the self control or good common sense that they have that keeps them from wanting to go to prison for killing people.
Further, I wasn’t referring to your beliefs specifically but to right-wing ridiculousness in general. If you’re not of the Hannity and Coulter crowd, then you’re not what I am referring to, it’s that simple. If you are, however, then you should love this guy. He killed some queers and liberals - no loss there, since they’re all evil, sinful traitors, no?
July 29th, 2008 at 12:22 pm
Lol:
immediately follows:
T’hee.
July 29th, 2008 at 12:53 pm
Looks are not the same thing as words spoken. Amazing, I know, but TRUE!
July 29th, 2008 at 12:54 pm
I know. Those fucking gun fucks.
You keep losing. Thanks for playing, though.
July 29th, 2008 at 1:42 pm
Wow! For a minute I thought my browser had been hijacked and rerouted to DU.
Who opened Pandora’s Box? (No sexual innuendo intended…)
July 29th, 2008 at 1:49 pm
Exactly where did I say “fucking gun fucks”? I’d love to see a quote.
It’s pretty obvious you haven’t actually read a damn thing I’ve said except what you ‘want’ to see, since I made it clear that I believe in gun rights and gun ownership.
You people are hilarious, though, I have to give you that. Maybe next time you can read what I actually write instead of jumping to assumptions?
It might help you avoid looking like you can’t read. Who knows? Maybe you might learn something too.
July 29th, 2008 at 2:03 pm
Err, what is it exactly you think this whole post was about, anyway? Hint.
Since you don’t get it, I’ll explain. Gather ’round the fire.
Once upon a time, a person of indeterminate gender said hey, if you say more guns could have prevented a tragedy, fuck you gun fuck. Said person linked to me, intimating I took the position that more guns could could prevent this incident. I did not. Said person also did so by becoming a frothy mouthed lunatic hurling expletives at a particular sub-culture I belong to: gun nuts. I, being slightly smarter than your average cracker, decided to give said person a taste of their own medicine by poking fun of their appearance. I did not know whether they were male or female so I guessed. Apparently, guessing gender wrong turned into an issue and not one I particularly gave a crap about. So, I let it slide. But it did have the rich, delicious irony of showing that said frothy mouthed lunatic also belonged to a particular sub-culture. The Greater Internet Fuckwad Theory ensues. From both sides. Clear as mud?
July 29th, 2008 at 2:06 pm
[quote]He killed some queers and liberals - no loss there, since they’re all evil, sinful traitors, no?[/quote]
From your perspective maybe, most of us “gun fucks” like to use ours for self defense (or just practice) rather than for assaulting those with whom we may not agree. Obviously you see things a bit differently.
July 29th, 2008 at 2:07 pm
And for the record, I’ve read everything you wrote. From you coming here and falsely accusing me and my readers of blaming victims to asserting that we think more guns could have prevented a tragedy. that, in addition to not understanding the whole looks thing anyway.
July 29th, 2008 at 2:12 pm
One more thing: Further, I wasn’t referring to your beliefs specifically but to right-wing ridiculousness in general.
Then go yell at them. Sounds like you’re coming here all holier than thou yelling at us for stuff we’re not advocating. I’m quite on record as supporting the rights of the GLBT community.
July 29th, 2008 at 2:39 pm
“I’m quite on record as supporting the rights of the GLBT community.”-Uncle
Me too. I don’t have to approve or be a member of that community because I am a member of a much larger community that they also belong to, the community of people. They should have every right people are born with. That isn’t hard to understand.
What is hard to understand is why these false charges keep being raised. Could it be without imaginary victimhood or imagined attempted victimization their illogical arguments get very short shrift, ergo they must wrap their opposition to our rights in a non-issue that wasn’t raised?
July 29th, 2008 at 4:23 pm
The Thread That Will Not Die!
And after the claim that a certain someone made about their comments not getting through the spam filter here, guess what happened to one of mine over at their place?
Yep. Like I never typed a word.
July 29th, 2008 at 5:15 pm
um, who complained about getting spam-filtered here except me? ‘cos i don’t HAVE a place you might’ve commented on. (and it turns out i didn’t get filtered, either.)
July 29th, 2008 at 5:27 pm
I’m basically conservative, and that means i don’t care if you have sex with a man/tree/goat/rock of your choice. In fact, i bet most of the people who posted here don’t, either. Stupidest argument ever, really.
I still believe that ugly people are made to be made fun of. Sorry. This is the real world. Wear a cup.
Also we don’t care if you want to own a gun or not. We DO care when you try to foist an image of ourselves upon us and others that’s a damn lie. We’ll tangle with you all day for that.
And yes, i DO talk shit about liberals (not int he classical sense), cause you’re treasonous douchetards. The Constitution of this country may be the best ever put on paper. Lefties keep trying to shape it into something it was NEVER supposed to be. I’ll hate you for that because if you want socialism, there are many countries you can live in that have that model. Hell, there’s one north of us. But leave THIS country alone. You’ve already fucked it up enough already.
July 29th, 2008 at 9:59 pm
And yes, i DO talk shit about liberals (not int he classical sense), cause you’re treasonous douchetards.
Mr. Uncle, are you going to condemn ATLien for saying this?
July 29th, 2008 at 10:21 pm
Right after you condemn yourself for calling millions of law-abiding people foul names. Still awaiting your apology. I gave mine.
July 29th, 2008 at 11:03 pm
I’m working on it, Mr. Uncle. It’s a longish post.
Your principle is that it’s wrong to call millions of people bad names. Well, there are millions of people who are liberals, and “treasonous douchetards” is a pretty bad name.
It’s not my principle, though; I don’t have a problem with calling millions of people bad names. I think, for example, that Republicans are assholes. There are millions of Republicans and I just called them a bad name. This violates your principle — as certainly as ATLien’s comment does — but not mine.
I do question whether you really hold to that principle, though. I see an awful lot of people on this site, your commenters, who are quick to attack whole groups of millions of people. If you truly do hold to that principle, I am surprised that you have not asked them to stop. You are more concerned with my journal (which you’d never heard of before the other day, nor anyone else who reads this blog) than with what your own readers say. Why is that?
July 30th, 2008 at 8:59 am
Zoe Brain Says:
I’ve seen the pictures of mounds of personal firearms being destroyed. Now look at that through our perspective.
The Battles of Lexington and Concord happened because the lawful government was trying to seize public arms. Quotes from the founders make it clear that they considered the right to arms and the right to self-defense as inalienable. They clearly wanted every man to be armed and considered this a tonic against tyranny.
When we see a government trying to disarm the very people it was created to protect, well we get a might upset.
I mostly agree with all this, in a free, open, and tolerant society at least. Dictatorships have other effective methods to keep the people in line.
See, this is the point that really bothers me. Why the quota on self-defense? Look at that again from my perspective, the one where the government has no power to take away my rights. Tax breaks for showing yourselves to be ready, willing and able to contribute to the common defense is a grand idea, but I’d assume that you wouldn’t have a problem with 95% of the able-bodied citizens joining the volunteer rescue squad. Again, why the quota? (Oh, and I sincerely hope that those “stringent security checks” aren’t a back door registration scheme that would allow the government in our country to do what you government did to the citizens of your country.)
First off, suicide is completely unaffected by the rate or regulation of firearm’s ownership. Plenty of people in Japan manage to off themselves just fine without handguns. Accidents are mitigated through training. The rate of small children having firearm accidents have steadily been going down in the US even as we as a nation continue to arm ourselves at an unprecedented rate. Plenty of crimes of passion still happen with baseball bats, knives , and fists.
Again, this is where you lose me. Having a nation of riflemen, of people proficient in the use of arms, is a net benefit. Crime rates go down. People are safer.
July 30th, 2008 at 11:02 am
Hmmmm.
The issue with kids is to familiarize and train kids to recognize a real firearm vs toys and how real firearms need to be handled at each appropriate age.
The problem is that a lot of people prefer to have a firearm for defense, but try to ignore or forget about it and treat it as if it didn’t need to be managed.
July 30th, 2008 at 11:02 am
Wow.