Comments

HOW THE GUN PROHIBITIONISTS THINK — 55 Comments

  1. Liberal Dave has written @me, “Fair enough, but can you tie that problem to any particular shootings with any evidence?”

    Dave, that question in turn is fair enough. Any Google search for EDPs (emotionally disturbed persons) killed by police will turn up lots of folks who never would have acted out in the streets and gotten themselves killed (and hurt or killed others!) if they had been institutionalized, after ample proof by behavior that they could not control themselves. Do another Google search for the Second City Cop blog, and look at how many of the Chicago street murders have been committed by sane but criminally violent people who by all logical standards should have been behind bars, but instead were released to the streets to prey on others. And that doesn’t count all the EDPs who were homeless on the streets because there was “no room at the mental health inn,” and tragically wound up on the other side of the equation as prey.

    • Mas said, “Any Google search for EDPs (emotionally disturbed persons) killed by police will turn up lots of folks who never would have acted out in the streets and gotten themselves killed (and hurt or killed others!) if they had been institutionalized, after ample proof by behavior that they could not control themselves. Do another Google search for the Second City Cop blog, and look at how many of the Chicago street murders have been committed by sane but criminally violent people who by all logical standards should have been behind bars, but instead were released to the streets to prey on others.” But none of that is saying that there is any significant amount of violence committed by (a) individuals who have been legally adjudicated to be a danger to themselves or others (the legal standard for involuntary commitment) and (b) who have been released because there was no place to commit them after being so adjudicated. Not to put words in your mouth, but I have to wonder if you’re not really talking about a different issue.

  2. It looks like the “bump and grind” of Harvey Weinstein is a lot more interesting to the MSM than Bump-Fire Stocks and shooters with inscrutable motives. The MSM has always had the attention span of a fruit fly so the Las Vegas story is already fading into the sunset.

    Maybe the Bump-Fire Stock question ought to just be handed back to the BATFE to decide like the NRA suggested. The Republicans can always just bury any actual Bump-Stock ban bills in various committees until they fade away too.

    I have said before that we need to make Firearms Prohibition into a Political Dead-End. Maybe we are making progress on that front! 🙂

  3. > “I’m writing a story and you will feature prominently in it…

    Better give it your best shot, monkey-boy… Mas probably can’t even remember how many times he’s been quoted or misquoted by the media.

    [puts extra popcorn on the grocery list]

  4. well i am not trying to start a ruckus… but all that needs be said on this has been said, a couple of centuries ago.
    They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.
    Benjamin Franklin

  5. Liberal Dave, I’m talking about simply having enough facilities to treat mental patients in need of inpatient care. Have you talked to anyone who has a family member who is truly, seriously mentally ill? With all the shutdowns, there is often literally “no room at the inn.”

    • Liberal Dave – I know you will accuse me of building a “straw-man” again, but your post and question (above) are based upon three (3) unspoken assumptions:

      1) Gun control is a highly effective way to prevent violence and will be so viewed by the corporate community.

      2) The establishment of “Gun Free Zones” is a highly effective method to prevent firearms related violence and to also reduce associate corporate liability.

      3) The corporate community is powerful enough to overrule even Constitutional Rights if it profits their bottom line.

      While Leftists do accept the first two assumptions as articles of faith in the left-wing religion, many non-leftists (non-believing infidels? 🙂 ) would view them with skepticism and the Gun Rights folks (as you well know from reading this blog) rejects them outright.

      As for the third, I sincerely hope that it is not true because, if it is, we have a lot bigger issues to worry us than just crime and violence. Namely, corporate corruption of our entire system of Government.

  6. To U.S. President:

    RE: What can WE (American’s) Can Do about MASS Killings?

    Paul Edwards on October 10, 2017 at 9:42 pm said:

    There is a way to do it, Mas, But, you’d have to back to Teaching God, Morals, Standards, DUTY, Honor, and Country First!

    Then go to mandatory Military, or Public Service, including Firearms Safety, and Handling, as a Minimum for Public Service, or Religious Objections.

    Then eliminate All “Gun Free Killing Zones”, and arm all Citizens, willing, and Trained, as above, upon completion of such training!

    So, you can see it took a long time to get where we are today, and it will Take a long time to Claw, and Fight, OUR way out of this again TOO!!

    PS: Non-Military Service must be of the Old FDR Civilian Construction Corp (CCC) Type, That teaches building needed projects, HERE in the U.S., and Doing, most of the same things as the Military, but not the guns.

    The Public Service Can be Not Be Feel Good stuff where you can lay on your ASS, Feeling sorry for starving Kids, and Glorifying Islamic Muslim Terrorist’s!!

    Paul
    FOR YOU, MR. PRESIDENT: ALWAYS STRONGLY SUPPORT THE 2ND AMENDMENT, AND NEVER, NEVER, NEVER CAVE-IN TO PROPOSED GUN CONTROL MEASURES!!

    THE ANTI-GUNNER’S will never, never, be Satisfied, UNTIL ALL AMERICAN’S ARE DISARMED (EXCEPT THEM).

    I can already visualize the All the Islamic Muslim Terrorist’s siting around, Sharpening their Knives, and Drooling at OUR Stupidity, Until American’s ARE ALL DISARMED, and they Can SAFELY Start Behead all of US Non Muslim Infidel’s

    Paul

  7. Just reading his responses aggravates me. You were more than patient. I run into these types occasionally. My usual response is simply “go ahead and try.” and then I walk away.

  8. You were far more patient than I. Funny how you gave him exactly what he asked for, but because it didn’t fit into his preconceived box, he didn’t even recognize it. Blindness comes in many forms.

  9. Sadly, the truth is that you WILL be “quote mined,” Mas. That was the reason, the whole purpose of “Jim” contacting you. The irony here is that the one thing that would bring both sides closer is right in front of “Jim,” but he’ll never be able to understand it. Why won’t he understand it? TN_MAN’s post, one of the better analyses I’ve ever read on this blog, spells it out. It’s one I shall revisit. Thanks for once again being the class act you’ve always been, Mas.

    • Don -Pa, Thank you for your kind words. I have spent a lot of time thinking and researching the Left-wing / Right-wing split in politics. This split exists in all Governments and cultures world-wide. Therefore, it must originate within the deepest, subconscious part of the human mind itself.

      Most people seem to accept this political divide without much thought. They shrug and say “Some people are left-wing and some are right-wing and that is just the way it is”. I did not just want to shrug this split off as it seems far too important. When you think about it, most wars and a great deal of human history and conflict arise from the Left/Right divide in politics.

      My post, below, details some of the answers that I have developed as to the origin and nature of the Left/Right political divide. Unfortunately, understanding the origin does not suggest a solution toward mitigation of the Left/Right split’s destructive effects since the origin springs from human nature itself.

      Still, it helps to understand the motivations of the Left if one wants to head them off a destructive path such as firearms prohibition. Maybe this understanding will be of some use in this way. I hope so which is why I keep putting it out in these comments.

  10. Liberal Dave, to answer your two questions:

    The mass murderer in this case gave no signals, according to reports so far.

    With the move to all but abolish mental hospitals beginning in the latter 20th Century, there is no place for some of the severely mentally ill who end up as crime victims, constitute a significant percentage of the homeless, and often end up doing things that force cops or armed citizens to shoot them.

    • Or shooterS, Mas! HealthRanger does a convincing sound/time-lapse analysis of more than one .223 weapon at far-apart locations. He doesn’t appear to address .308 yet.

    • But, Mas, how do you get those folks into those institutions? Are you proposing revising the involuntary commitment standards as well?

  11. Why do liberals fight so hard to have their way? Do they really think they can improve the greatest nation on earth? Don’t they know their ideas have been tried in many countries since 1848, and they’ve never worked anywhere? Could it be that they know their ideas won’t improve the nation, but they want to rule, and they know life will be good at the top? Life was good for Lenin, Stalin, Mao, Castro, and Chavez. Their enemies were eliminated, and the little people worked for them. Really, Marxism resembles Monarchy to me. The royals and the serfs. Marxism is just the return of Feudalism.

    Sorry, Jim. Immigrants don’t move to Marxist countries, with the one exception of North Koreans immigrating to China when they can escape. Which way did people flee across the Berlin Wall, Jim? Which way do people cross the Mexican border, Jim, going south or going north? Do people immigrate from the USA? I guess some do, if they are rich enough to maintain a high standard of living in another country.

    Where do immigrants go, Jim? They go to America, where they’ve been coming for hundreds of years. Yes, Jim. They want to live in America with all of its guns, food, wealth, jobs, racism, sexism, homophobia and xenophobia. Guess what, Jim? Immigrants aren’t looking for your Marxist Utopia. They want what you have right now. They don’t even need to have what professional football players have. They are happy if they can make it into the lower middle class.

    Jim, life doesn’t get any better than it is in America. Everybody knows that. Your utopia will never exist on this earth. Jim, you need to seek contentment in the things you already have. You are already as close to utopia as you will ever get. If you fundamentally change America, it will become worse, not better.

  12. For those who think snipers are the solution to the Las Vegas problem, how do you handle parades such as the Macy’s Thanksgiving Day Parade and St. Patrick’s Day parades down the canyons of NYC (and where there are at multiple hotels overlooking the parade routes, not to mention countless private offices) and the Rose Parade in Pasadena? The Mardi Gras parades in New Orleans (I believe that there were over 65 parades there this year during the season with dozens of different routes). Marathons like the Boston Marathon, 26 miles? All these events are lined with throngs of people along the routes. Sure you can put snipers all along the route, but where do you find that many who are adequately trained and who is going to pay their wages?

    • Liberal Dave – You are correct that defending an extended route, as opposed to a specific venue location, greatly complicates the problem. There is no perfect, “silver bullet” solution to this problem. I guarantee that firearms prohibition or other, lesser forms of gun control is certainly not the utopia solution as presented by Leftist politicians and the Mainstream Media. The more honest speakers on the Left will admit that no law would prevent occurrences like the Las Vegas incident. (BTW, I understand that the official “time-line” for this crime has been revised yet again.)

      For an incident along a venue route, I would suggest the establishment of 3 or 4 reaction teams composed of both SWAT and counter-sniper teams. These would be distributed at locations along the route so that, even if a team was not immediately on-hand, a team would be avail to react ASAP to any trouble spot along the route. One should also consider the use of overhead drones, in these cases, to expand the ability to keep the route under surveillance.

      • TN_MAN – A brilliant young woman who grew up in East Germany, under the Soviet domination, once presented me her worldview. A kind of psychology of the masses seemed to be at the core of her beliefs. I told her at the time that her general understanding would greatly benefit from living for a year or two away from the huddled masses, in a wilderness setting. I saw in her what I perceived to be the effects of a pretty thorough brainwashing, and I imagine she was not the only left-leaning member of society who saw individuality as dubious.

      • Let’s visit the reality of “deploying (counter)sniper teams”. First and foremost, it involves finding the folks who can cope with the psychological strain of endless waiting, plus the other issues and are good enough at actually shooting. Those folks don’t grow on trees.

        Then there’s the cost of equipment (besides the firearm related gear: vehicles), initial training, sustainment training (big problems), continuing education and scheduling.

        Finally, if you’re deployed, stylishly visible on roof tops as a deterrent, you’re easily spotted and engaged or avoided. You’re also looking at a vast area that may, or may not contain a “sniper” that has to be dealt with. If they’re really good, you’ll have little to go on.

        If you look at the long term history actual “sniper like” attacks aren’t common. There’s a deplorable tendency to attach the label “sniper” to darn near any firearms incident. Kinda like “assault weapon”. Is the very substantial cost worth the investment? Might it have helped in Vegas? Dunno, I’d have to look at the site, but return fire at a hotel poses substantial legal issues.

      • Strategic Steve – You are correct that indoctrination, starting from early childhood, can push some individuals into adopting a left-wing thought pattern. That is why the left’s current dominance of the mainstream media and education system is of such concern. The American Left is doing everything within its power to indoctrinate the youth of America into the left-wing camp. However, indoctrination by outsiders is not always required to manufacture a leftist. Many leftists are “self-radicalized” into Left-wing ideology.

        WR Moore – As I noted, there are no “Silver Bullet” solutions. I am not saying that counter-sniper teams are a “fix all” for mass shooting. As I noted in a previous post, I feel that a “Threat Assessment Team” needs to look over each venue prior to large public events. If the venue is such that the use of counter-sniper teams make sense, then they ought to be available. If other options make better sense, then they should be considered too. The threats that we face are dynamic. Therefore, the security response needs to be flexible.

  13. Second topic: Mas said to Jim, “we need … a return of serious mental institutions.” What do you mean by “a return of serious mental institutions?”

  14. Mas said to Jim, “I don’t see how the black Swan Event in Las Vegas this week could have been foreseen or prevented.” Aren’t there some underlying presumptions to that answer which might be worth stating, Mas?

  15. It’s tempting to write “Jim” off as a professional troll but it’s more accurate to say that his mission is to push a specific program, without consideration of its merits, rather than search with an open mind for solutions that will actually work. Even if his pipe dream of civilian disarmament were achieved, he would continue to reject more prisons and more mental hospitals. He is all for freedom from gun violence but not freedom from other kinds of violent crime if the latter requires cracking down on the perpetrators.

    Rather than shut him down in your second reply, I think it would have been more effective to contradict his assertion that more prosecutions, prison cells and hospital beds do not constitute concrete proposals and to back that up with specific examples.

    The corrections system in my state (Nebraska) is in trouble and has been for years. Despite adding a major facility less than twenty years ago, the system is 60% over capacity. Working conditions and staff compensation are so poor that the system is chronically understaffed and turnover is high. In the absence adequate supervision, prisons are run by the inmates rather than the staff. Inadequate funding also means there is a shortage of training programs that would enable motivated prisoners to restart their lives. The role of the parole board is to limit prison population, by releasing the least dangerous inmates, rather than to identify the ones prepared for release. Currently, the legislature is looking for “alternatives” to incarceration to avoid the expense of expanding prison capacity. No politician has the guts to tell his or her constituents that the alternatives are paying for more prison space or turning dangerous criminals loose to prey on them. Although I lack data, I suspect the situation is no better for mental hospitals.

    • Kendahl,

      I’m sure you, and everyone else, know two ways to reduce the prison population in Nebraska. First, you actually use the death penalty for first degree murder, and you send the illegal inmates back where they came from. Actually, I would execute the illegals so they don’t return. But, of course, my ideas exist in the realm of ideality, not reality. In reality, there is no hope at this time, with the people we now have in charge of things. Things will have to get a lot worse before they get a little better. And they may never get better.

  16. What a pain in the tokhes. I’m grateful that someone as well spoken as you are, Mas, is out there talking on our behalf, because I don’t have nearly the patience or grace you do. Cheers, erich

  17. Mas, Great responses to “Jim”. I wish that more on the pro-rights side could speak such truth to BS. Thanks for all that you do, for sharing all that you have learned, and for teaching your craft so well.

  18. Wow.

    “Jim” exhibited some serious integrity issues by ending his communications with “I’m writing a story and you will feature prominently in it…”

    Why not open with that in the first place?

    What happened to up-front honesty in the media?

    And THIS is his foundation for having “meaningful dialogue”? Subterfuge and baiting.

    You were right to move along, Mas. Nothing of value there.

  19. Mas, the idea to enforce existing laws? Make prisons real again? Help people with mental conditions?
    What a novel approach.
    It’s no wonder ‘ol Jim ain’t fallen for it.

  20. Usually psychopaths are also unusually (painfully) intelligent. “Jim” here, seems to be a rarity – a psychopath who is also dum wie toastbrot (if you don’t speak and understand German, that’s okay, look it up – you’ll be glad you did).

  21. Humans ate the most intelligent species to have evolved thus far in the world which we know of. But to think that anyone can propose new rules, that all will obey and use to structure every aspect of our daily lives, is just plain stupid, when the rules we have aren’t being enforced. We are an intricate system of nerves neurons, protiems, and organs,and still unknown intricate cellular compositions of which no two are the same. How then can we possibly expect every person to react the same way to the infinate possibilities of execution that exhist when a thought process is extrapolated.
    A law or rule, is only as good as the entity who it was meant for is able to interpret and ammend it to pertain to their situation. Thus no two people are going to think exactly the same about anything, especially if one is metally ill, . Our ability to reason is only as good as the person doing the reasoning. Rules are never going to solve the problems that man has created. Only discussion and the help of science and medical professionals can try to.
    The idea that by any rule stopping a person who is mentally deranged is naive at best and profoundly stupid by any standard. People will not follow rules that they feel do not apply to them,or in these cases the rules were never even considered, if they were we would not have these problems to begin with.
    There are as we have seen lately, many people who are mentally ill, including politicians who refer to the people who attended the concert as probably Republicans, thus making it ok. That comment actully came from an elected official. The gun laws were never the problem, it is the lack of stability and the decadent self serving, society we live in that is causing this new “normal”.
    The ability to legaly arm as many Americans as want to be armed, and legally can be armed, is the best way to assure that should something like this occur, a good guy with a gun, will be there in time to stop it. I for one was suprised that there was not one LEO, with a long gun, in the immediate area, a Sniper, stationed on on overwatch, or a Swat officer in the area, “that’s what it has come down to” unfortunately.
    These politico’s just do not get it, and never will, because they were never in a position when a gun would have saved their lives.
    The idea of checking every piece of luggage is also absurd, as Hunters , Competition shooters, and people who carry for self defense all usually stay at a Hotel during the course of their day to day business. I have never been asked for my license in 47 years of carrying a gun, daily, and I used to get around in NYC, before FL, where guns are frowned upon.

  22. If this person (journalist?) is indeed writing an article, it is disappointing that he took such a hostile and closed-minded tone with an expert. Sounds like just what it was– a set up, trying to make “the other side” look bad. I have to say I found it amusing how the signature sign off went in descending order of warmth from “Cordially, Mas” to “Sincerely, Mas,” to “Sincerely, Massad Ayoob.” 🙂

  23. Most die hard liberals are totally insane. There is no logical way to effectively communicate with them as they are not reasonable and only see things in their own limited, distorted view. Treat them just as one would handle raving drunks. Ignore and don’t aggravate them, as they are mentally deficient and may be violent.

  24. Jim Abraham was right. “Quote mining”. Supporters of the Second Amendment have a story to get out to the public, but by interacting with a left-wing ideologue in some sort of “discussion” is not the way to do it. We need to make our case directly to the people and not get involved in any debate with these gun-control folks. They do not debate fairly and with any objective of finding a reasonable solution. They have their solution. Their solution is not reasonable and does not stand up to scrutiny. Therefore, they engage in so called “public debate” to make Second Amendment supporters look bad so no one will notice that their own solutions are worthless. You can’t win those debates in any kind of forum that gun controllers set up, so don’t talk to them period. For this same reason many folks refuse to be interviewed by the main stream media if their career and objective in life doesn’t require it.

    For a good cartoon illustrating these “debates”, see the Feb 3, 2017 Glenn McCoy cartoon at this link…
    http://www.gocomics.com/glennmccoy/2017/2/3

  25. Well now, here is the conundrum. How can we, as a society, legislate sane/insane? If we could, gun ownership would be simple. PROHIBITIONISTS, PROHIBIT, without reason.

    “Jim”, if a woman is brutally raped, gets impregnated and seeks psychological/spiritual counseling after the crime, is she a mental health risk due to the psychological counseling?

    As well, if she terminates the unborn, will she be considered a premeditated murderer because of the counseling or just because “it is accepted” in our society as her best decision?

    And lastly, if anyone is reading this, be aware, rape victims are routinely referred to psychological counseling. With that in mind, anyone who applies for a Conceal Carry Permit, gun purchase, is background checked, including HIPPA, which includes psyche records. For the raped, this could influence their ability to get a permit to carry as well as buy a gun for protection from rapists.

    So Jim, I ask, what is the answer? I submit we STOP calling it GUN VIOLENCE, but instead call it for what it is, VIOLENCE. White/black/hispanic/asian/undetermined, VIOLENCE is VIOLENCE, check SNOPES or wikipedia.

    And for all the sniveling, more than 250,000 deaths per year are attributed to medical malpractice and there are over 5,000+ swimming pool deaths per year. Pools are fun, but so are guns.

    Stay safe.

  26. It is not so much how gun prohibitionists think as how leftists think. Gun prohibitionists are a subset of leftist thought and leftist ideology.

    One needs to understand that any person who adopts the leftist thought pattern does so because he or she makes certain assumptions about human behavior. These assumptions are usually made at the subconscious level as the individual matures into adulthood. Because of this subconscious origin, left-wing individuals usually cannot give rational reasons as to why they adopt the left-wing worldview. When asked this question, they will often start taking about their position on specific issues but they cannot supply any real answer to the reason for their general left-wing political orientation beyond that it “feels right” to them. This clearly shows that political orientation is set at the subconscious rather than at the conscious or rational level. Because it is driven by the subconscious rather than the rational part of the mind, it is extremely difficult (almost impossible) to change an individual’s political orientation by means of rational debate. This is clearly shown by the discussion which Mas documents above.

    The subconscious assumptions that give rise to the left-wing ideology lead to a “Tabula Rasa” outlook on life and politics. See this link:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tabula_rasa

    Leftists believe that all individuals are born as “blank slates” and their personality and all their actions derive entirely from external social, economic and environmental forces. Therefore, leftists continually “scan” the world looking for negative external forces to combat. From the leftist point-of-view, fighting evil (or “making the world a better place” in left-wing speak) is accomplished by identifying an “environmental source of evil” and then taking actions to mitigate or eliminate it. The thought that individual human beings are responsible for their own evil is alien to the leftist worldview. A general maxim of the Left is that the individual is ultimately never at fault for the evil he or she commits. In the left-wing worldview, there is always something external that caused that individual to perform evil. Therefore, the real solution is not punishment of the wrongdoer. Rather, it is elimination of these negative external pressures that will ultimately eliminate all mankind’s problems.

    This explains why Mas and the individual who contacted him were unable to establish any dialog. Their worldviews are so different that it was impossible to establish a frame of reference for communication. It was almost like they were speaking two different languages. Mas is more of a moderate in his political views. He does not subscribe to the tabula rasa view of the Left. Therefore, the solutions that he offered did not follow the left-wing playbook. Mas did not identify specific external environmental sources that need to be addressed (beyond some suggestion of better mental healthcare). Rather, his solutions were based upon the individual accepting responsibility for his actions and bearing the consequences of his crimes.

    These solutions were outside the acceptable envelope of left-wing solutions. Therefore, the leftist who contacted him rejected them out-of-hand. This leftist wanted comfortable solutions that fit within his left-wing universe of thought. The Left, casting about for an external source to blame for violence, have long blamed firearms and their so-called “easy availability”. To the leftist mind, firearms are “environmental sources of evil” and, therefore, any “real” solution to the problem of violence must include the elimination (to the maximum extent possible) of firearms from American society. Therefore, the leftist ideas for repealing the 2nd Amendment, banning / restricting gun sales, registration / confiscation of existing firearms, etc. are the only viable approaches to dealing with the problem of violence.

    Leftists are so trapped inside their own particular worldview that they cannot understand any other. They truly do not understand the opposition to firearms prohibition. “Guns” are so linked with “violence” in the leftist mind that they even turned the phrase “gun violence” to keep the concepts linked. Even people who are not left-wing fall into the trap of using the term “gun violence” not realizing that it is a false term that plays into the leftist worldview and mindset. “Gun violence” has no more meaning than other made-up terms (such as “Assault Weapon”. “Saturday Night Special”, “Cop-Killer Bullet”, etc.) that are coined by the left so as to force dialog into the direction they want to go.

    That is why it is really a waste of time to talk to leftists about firearms. They pretend that they want a “dialog about guns” but what they really want to do is bully you into subscribing to their narrow worldview on firearms. Their mindset goes to the deepest, subconscious level and cannot be overturned by logic or rational argument. They are an implacable enemy of liberty that cannot be talked to, cannot be reasoned with, cannot be bargained with and they absolutely will not stop (ever) in pressing for firearms prohibition (rather like a “Terminator Machine” in this respect). They must be destroyed in order to stop them.

    The only solution that I can see is put a majority of Justices on the SCOTUS who respect the 2A and Gun Rights and have them flesh out the boundaries of the 2A with a complete set of legal decisions. These decisions need to build the 2A into a firewall that shuts down further prohibition actions on firearms. The leftists will, in frustration, try to repeal the 2A at that point. If the repeal effort is then decisively defeated, it will finally become clear that gun prohibition is a dead issue. There will still be leftists who whine, at that point, about needing firearms prohibition but they will have nowhere to go. They will be like the alcohol prohibitionists (which still have a political party) but which is, for all practical purposes, a political dead end. We need to make firearms prohibition a political dead end. That is the only way we will ever defeat the left-wing firearms prohibition movement.

  27. I am not at all surprised to hear that some fake news stool sample has crawled out of the gutter to espouse evil gibberish while misrepresenting and trying to berate you Mas. It’s still unfortunate none the less, yet ultimately not a big deal.
    Very rude by the class-less nitwit we refer to here as “Jim”, none the less, I’d expect no better from such scum.

    Let’s translate from self entitled, idiot egomaniac lieberalese into plain as day English ~ “Uhoh,,, Shooter was a democrat?! Quick change the focus!!! *shits self*”

    Quote that, “Jim”

  28. The problem: the facts are still coming in on who and what the Las Vegas shooter was. We have yet to see any of the video of him in the halls and elevator coming and going to his room. That is basic evidence. We learn that the FBI had the check-in dates wrong. We learn today that perhaps the Mandalay guard was shot before the massacre began. Before beginning a dialogue with a troll, one should routinely ask if all the facts are in yet. Another example: did the killer carry all his weapons to other hotels near other alleged concerts? film would show. The major hotel films exist, but they are not discussed and not released. Solutions are based on fact compilations, not speculation. A rush to judgment is the basis of rhetoric to support a pre-existing ideology, thus a troll has no use of facts. Prospectively, when ambush journalism arises, just ask the troll for the full fact picture. Exit the troll as the de facto admission of troll ignorance ends the discussion. Consider the standard for obtaining a search warrant: an oath is required; facts are presented. The need for the warrant admits that further facts may be available. Now consider the standard for an arrest warrant – a higher standard; the facts are now sufficient for an arrest. Therefore, if I am asked for a solution, my first response is: give me all the facts. A genuine discussion would begin with “we don’t have all the facts…” My response then: “I choose not to speculate in matters of life and death.” The warrant does not issue.

  29. Hi Mas! I have tried to avoid this debate after this last tragedy, I’m not sure there is any way to logically argue with these folks. Did you happen to catch the good Senators spot on Face the Nation? Yes, she did concede that no laws, currently in place or new, could have prevented the Vegas tragedy. She also was asked about the current Conceal Carry Reciprocity bill in the House, and said without hesitation that “Californians don’t want these people with guns any where around them” I found that consistent with her entrenched positions.

    • its NOT Californians don’t want guns anywhere around them. Its California politicians, like Brown, Harris, the wimpy wet noodle from San Francisco whose name (thankfully) escapes me just now, and oh, don’t forget Pelosi (a known perjurer), Feinstein, Boxer, and whatziznayme the Assemblyman who has been a rabid anti gun “politician” and who thought it a good idea bo open up a gun running arms trafficking enterprise to smuggle illegally acquired and resold guns into the hands of certain key overseas political operatives….. thankfully he is now in a place where he will come nowhere near any firearms, excpeting those on the belts of his custodians

  30. Jim may have a point about the need to discuss “it”. By not discussing it this leaves a vacuum to which the other side can insert their points as if it’s the entire discussion. The real question though is what “it” is. When they bring up gun violence it is readily apparent that they are not interested in violence and how to reduce it but only on how to reduce guns. When they bring up gun deaths it is also apparent that they don’t care about the deaths only on what can be done to get rid of guns. So the 1st step needs to be in defining what “it” is, in this case I would suggest death by violence. If one really cares about people, the methods that are used against them is not really of any consequence, only in reducing the violence that results in their death is important.

    The above would seem somewhat obvious so the question becomes why is it not taking place? The answer to this would also seem to be relatively apparent that both sides don’t want to have this discussion because it brings up uncomfortable issues with their philosophies.

    Although the exact answer to reducing violent death is not a simple one or even 2 points. There are a multitude of issues that do seem to have an impact on the problem.

    • Improvements to mental health systems and its availability.
    • Improvements to drug treatments and their availability.
    • True improvements to the education of the children in those most affected areas.
    • Vastly improved economic opportunities (jobs) in the most affected areas.
    • Improved border security.
    • Improved policing and enforcement of existing laws. Broken windows doesn’t cut it and really doesn’t work. You need better targeted enforcement not the generation of additional criminals.
    • Concentrating prosecution of crimes that will improve the situation not generate new criminals with the only intent of increasing revenues.

    These are the type of things that have been shown in the past to reduce violent crime. Whenever they have wandered away from these the problem starts to be exacerbated.

    The problem is that each one of these is a problem for one side or the other of the political spectrum. They either show up extreme flaws in their philosophies and their governance. They require the expenditures of resources (monies) that one side or the other doesn’t want to either expend or believes that it can’t be used to effectively control their constituents to become reelected.

    The preceding paragraph illustrates the true problem here. Neither side truly wants to discuss the problem. In fact for the most part both sides want to obfuscate the problem. But this is only part of the problem. The other one lies in what Mas is trying to point out here. In order for one side to have a dialogue there must be an honest partner on the other side of the dialogue. In this case they are not being honest. Their only goal is to get rid of guns, failing that, make it as expensive and difficult as possible to have guns. This is why the 2 sides are perpetually talking past each other. When one side is talking violent deaths the other side is talking get rid of guns with the excuse of violent deaths. Until the other side decides to be truly an honest partner in the discussion this situation will only grow more tenuous and destructive.

  31. Sounds like you were trying to be shoehorned into a canned response. And the other party of the conversation didn’t like the fact that you called them on it.

    Las Vegas was an outlier of sorts given the nature of the attack. I can’t think of a comparable attack of recent memory. Maybe the University of Texas attack?

    I was recently pressed for a response by someone who asked for my opinion. I didn’t have a response then but maybe I do now: Has anybody thought about deploying police snipers in nearby structures? This would prevent the TSA-ification of hotels, motels, and concert events, retain some semblance of the 4th Amendment, and might be quite effective if a bad guy decides to launch an attack.

    • Hey, Michael. This was my first thought and I said it to a fellow board member at a meeting the Monday evening after the Las Vegas shooting. He thought that was too harsh, even though the, like me, is a hunger and shooter and has a couple of firearms in his safe. I don’t think it would have stopped 100% of the injuries, but there might have been only five or six before the snipers took him out. But who really knows?

  32. “There is none so blind as he that will not see”…… the anti-gun crowd can see only one solution, total elimination of private weapons. They cannot visualize any other alternative. They focus on the pretty clump of flowers and can’t see the rattlesnake curled up within.

    The sad thing about the gentleman you exchanged thoughts with, if he is like most liberals, once he embraced that religion (yes, religion), he accepts the preaching of it’s leaders, without ever attempting to apply his own logic and life experiences to the question. No, he just blindly mimics others, never thinking for himself. I get a kick out of watching various liberal political commentators on cable news and MSM shows repeating, almost word for word the same responses to current events, as if reading off scripted cue cards.

    • There is a way to do it, Mas, But you’d have to back to Teaching God, Morals, Standards, DUTY, Honor, and Country First!

      Then go to mandatory Military, or Public Service, including Firearms Safety, and Handling, as a Minimum for Public Service, or Religious Objections.

      Then eliminate All “Gun Free Killing Zones”, and arm all Citizens, willing, and Trained, as above, upon completion of such training!

      So, you can see it took a long time to get where we are today, and it will Take a long time to Claw, and Fight OUR way out off this again TOO!!

      PS: Non-Military Service must be of the Old FDR Civilian Construction Corp (CCC) Type, That teaches learning, needed projects HERE in the U.S., and Doing, most of the same things as the Military, but not the guns.

      The Service Can be Not Be Feel Good stuff where you can lay on your ASS,Feeling sorry for starving Kids, and Glorifing Islamic Muslim Terrorist’s!!

      Paul

  33. The gun prohibitionists don’t have to think. They think that they know.
    They know the only solutions are their solutions.
    They know that anyone who disagrees with them isn’t merely wrong, but is morally reprehensible and without human decency.
    They know that violence is the purview of those who disagree with them and therefore violence is the only solution in dealing with them.
    So liberals don’t have to think, they already know.
    And who was that paddock guy, anyway.

    • Noah Vaile is right about Anti-Guners Thought Processes, and Rigidity, However I never said doing what I Believe is necessary, would be Easy, or could be completed in a short time period.

      I do Think that President Trump has the Balls, to try making it work, so I excerpted my above comment, and sent it to him, via the Presidential Website. Hope he Actually gets it, and Reads it?

      Paul

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *