Lack of Common Sense 1

Talking about this horrible event.

Police: Revenge may be motive in toddler shooting

Japete said.

"In addition, her mother was injured as was another pregnant woman. Guns are dangerous."

So I asked this..

Japete, it isn't the guns fault when a man, set on revenge because his PREVIOUS assault was thwarted by a "Good Samaritan" comes back to finish the job. As usual, the Police were no where to be found until it was time to fill out the paper work. How about the previous assault? Any point in commenting that the MAN was dangerous?
"police believe that a man living at the house saw the gunman assaulting another woman Monday and got involved, allowing the unidentified woman to escape"
So a good guy, came to her aid. But she didn't leave? Didn't call the police? Didn't even get a restraining order. 
The outcome is a predictable snow in winter and it really is not about guns being dangerous.
Would it have been different had the pregnant mom and been armed? We don't get to know. It could hardly be worse.
What I'd love to hear is what your side would do differently and how your ideas would have changed the outcome for this woman and child, given the realities of guns in society.
We all clearly know that you think that guns are dangerous. 
Let's grant that for a second and ask. So, what ideas do you have that would have kept that woman alive?

and this was the answer..

We could close the private seller loophole at gun shows to shut off some of the illegal guns that get into the market. We could fund the ATF better so they can monitor bad apple gun dealers who fail to report lost and stolen guns or knowingly sell to straw purchasers. We can do a better job of educating people about safe storage of guns so they don't get stolen. We can have a society where guns are not worshiped and carried everywhere people go so that the status quo would be like it is in other countries which have strict gun laws and many fewer gun deaths. We can but we won't because of the gun lobby and people like you who refuse to allow for the fact that some gun laws do work but we haven't tried them out yet because of strong resistance.

So here we are again..

You answered with the usual talking points.

I could do that too, but I was trying to take this in a different direction.   We've already gone over the usual talking points from my side, from your side..  I don't think there is anything new to be discovered there.

"We could close the private seller loophole at gun shows to shut off some of the illegal guns that get into the market."

Did he get THIS gun from private seller at a gun show?

"We could fund the ATF better so they can monitor bad apple gun dealers who fail to report lost and stolen guns or knowingly sell to straw purchasers"

Was this a lost  gun from a dealer or a straw purchase?

"We can do a better job of educating people about safe storage of guns so they don't get stolen."

Did he get the gun because it was not stored properly or did he steal it?

" We can have a society where guns are not worshiped and carried everywhere people go so that the status quo would be like it is in other countries which have strict gun laws and many fewer gun deaths. "

Perhaps, when men stop committing violence against women and the strong no longer attack the weak we can talk, but it hasn't happened in last 3000 years so I'm not holding my breath.

There is a gangster/thug worship that pervades the culture.    There is a sense that getting caught is the bad thing, not being good in the first place.  Look at the flash mobs.  Sooner or later that will turn deadly.  While I agree that our society has a problem, it goes both ways.   Just look at how quickly the rule of law breaks down when a storm hits or others start rioting.

It says something about our culture for sure, but that doesn't change reality.

 The reality on the ground is that we DO live in a society awash in guns.   We live in a society that has violent aspects to it, gangs and drugs and rapes and looting.  That's not changing any time soon and closing a "gun show loophole"  will do nothing measurable to prevent these sort of killings.

Bad people can and do murder each other and the innocent every single day.  You point it out all the time on your blog.

This incident was one of those times.   It was a BAD guy, that did this (twice) and was not stopped until someone was dead.

Actually, he is wasn't even STOPPED he is still ON THE LOOSE.   All the police can do is to ASK for him to turn himself in and promise to catch him if he doesn't.   What do you think a man that has no trouble killing kids is going to do?  Walk into the police station?  I don't.

I won't be the least bit surprised if he takes someone hostage, kills someone else or a policeman, before he is really "stopped"

That is reality.

This fact is not lost on the abiding people that have millions of guns that are never used to harm anyone.   They are never going to agree to give them up or give up the right to self defense with a tool equal in power to what the bad guys have and this includes having that tool on their person, more and more frequently.  Not now.  Not EVER.  That's why the CCW laws are sweeping the nation.  Why Castle Doctrine is passing everywhere and why even permit less carry has it's fans.

 I said once before.  An armed man will kill an unarmed man with monotonous regularity and even though you point out when the unarmed prevail, that's not the way I'd bet.

What I asked was how the laws you support changing would have saved THIS child's life and prevented the women from being harmed.

What I want to know is, how you square all these bad people doing bad things on a regular basis with the idea of the average person should willingly disarm.  Sure guns can be dangerous in the hands of the wrong person but they can also STOP a much larger attacker intent on evil for the very same reason in the hands of the law abiding.

I didn't see a SINGLE posting (I don't think EVER) where you show the police stopping a bad guy before he started shooting.   They always arrive after the harm has started and you lament another mass killing.

I don't like it, but that is simply not going to change by giving the ATF more money because it's human nature that is the problem.

I imagine that the people you reach with your message are, on average, educated, law abiding people.   Those are the people you are trying to convince to not own guns.    The bad guys are not reading your blog, and would not take your advice anyway.

So, given the realities of the country we live in RIGHT NOW..   The only people that you will convince to disarm themselves are the one's that  didn't intend to harm anyone anyway.

That's why I asked, how your ideas would actually have saved THAT kid.  Not in the abstract, but in the reality of our country as it is.

I think our side readily admits that having a gun might not change a thing.   Might not be used and, In fact, on occasion, might make things worse.     But a little girl is dead, and I'm having a hard time imaging how it gets worse.

You clearly stated what your side wants.  What I fail to see is how any of those changes make a MEASURABLE bit of difference in the reality of life in America.

Quote Of The Day: Health Care Edition

An oldie but a goodie from The Donald.

We are going to be gifted with a Health Care plan we are forced to purchase, and fined if we do not, which purportedly covers at least ten million more people, without adding a single new doctor, but provides for 16,000 new IRS agents, written by a committee whose chairman says he does not understand it, passed by a Congress that did not read it but exempted themselves from it, and signed by a President who smokes, with funding administered by a Treasury chief who did not pay his taxes, for which we will be taxed for four years before any benefits take effect, by a government which has already bankrupted Social Security & Medicare, all to be overseen by a Surgeon General who is obese, and financed by a country that is broke!! What the hell could possibly go wrong? -- Donald Trump

Dealing with gun violence. Close your eyes, click you heels three times and say you wish you were in Kansas.

So I am on the anti-gun blog.. and MikeB302000 says. "Phony balonies. First they give us all that macho wanna-be tough-guy talk then make lengthy excuses for the guy who decides not to save the day.

 The fact that sticks in their craw is that a gun is very unlikely to help and much more likely to be MISused in some way. That makes them guilty of having made a bad decision in the first place, and nobody likes to admit that.

 Upon further examination it's clear their wrong decision about guns was fear-driven. This is doubly embarrassing. Poor gun-rights advocates."

 SOoooo Here is my reply that will likely not get past Joan's moderator button...

 Actually it seems to be the mindset of half the country. They consistently refuse to do anything to prepare themselves for the bad things that can happen in life. Not just self defense, but basic natural disasters (think Katrina or Irene), then they are utterly shocked when the government isn't there to make it all better until days or weeks after the fact (or 10 or 20 minutes in the case of needing the police)

 They almost always say words to the effect of "We don't need to have [whatever] since [the Police,Fire, FEMA, SWAT, etc..] will surely save us when we need them" "Oh, and by the way, "YOU" are not qualified to do their job. So you shouldn't be ALLOWED to be in a better situation than US"
 Kind of an odd class envy, since they imagine themselves in the "enlightened class" and us the neanderthals. Clinging bitterly.. Well, you know the drill..

 To make matters worse, they deride anyone that takes an opposing view as paranoid, cowboy wanna be, or looking for trouble.    That is UNLESS they NEED them, then they EXPECT help from the people they spend the rest of their time vociferously opposing.

 They say.. "What you had a GUN and DIDN'T HELP ME?!"
The answer should be "You mean the gun you don't even want me to HAVE?"

 That is why it is so shocking to them when they hear us say. "Hold on.. We are NOT the police. We are NOT going to save you. YOU should have been better prepared, cause buddy YOU ARE ON YOUR OWN" They spend their whole lives denying that they could ever "be on their own" They are torn when they see that shootings happen.

 On one hand, it CAN'T happen without the Police responding immediately and saving them BUT even they see the reality of what happened "that time" so either it is an anomaly or, more likely, it is SOMEONE ELSE's fault. Must be all those folks that COULD carry, but weren't around or didn't come running to their aid. No way, the people involved should have been prepared to defend themselves. That's the police's job. That's DOGMA.

 So they are left with this. "Well if you are not there to save ME when I need you, then you don't NEED a gun either." The assumed entitlement of that mind set should be stunning to anyone that's read "the grasshopper and the ant" but whatever..

 It's a mind set of people that believe that anytime they have a NEED especially in an emergency, someone else has an OBLIGATION to fill that need. They don't have emergency supplies in their cars because AAA is always there. They don't have more than a couple days food in their homes because the stores are open 24/7 They don't own a gun because the NEVER go anywhere they would need one. Like an IHOP I guess. If they lost power and water for more than three days because a tornado took out the local power lines and hit the grocery store, they would be forced to abandon their lives and seek a government shelter. They are three days from living like the folks on the news with Katrina but will deny it all day long because this time it will somehow be "different" and anyway, it CAN'T HAPPEN TO THEM.

 The kicker is that it REALLY bothers them that other people not only disagree, but take concrete steps to not NEED the government at any level, because it makes them face the fact that in a BAD situation they are simply unprepared to do anything but wait for someone (anyone) ELSE to come to the rescue and if it comes to repelling gun violence. Well.. Forget about it. (better yet.. just deny it..) After all in I am preparing for something that CAN'T happen, then I must either be crazy or THEY must be wrong. They have infallible leftist DOGMA on their side, therefore.. I must be crazy and need to be restrained.

 This thinking permeates their side from the basics of survival all the way to their thoughts on the role of government.

 Since we live in a more or less civilized culture, the odds of any one person encountering violence or disaster are pretty low but they absolutely hate you to point out the inconsistency.

 Joan, you often point out that we live in a country that has "The MOST gun deaths, of any country not at war" How do you square that with telling people that THEY don't need someway to protect themselves from GUN violence? You tell people, they don't need guns in a society that you are just as quick to point out, has a MASSIVE gun violence problem.

 I assume the people you come in contact with are not usually violent criminals, so you are talking almost 100% to potential victims, not people that would initiate a crime. You are telling them. "Guns are bad. Guns are dangerous. So you should willingly disarm yourself because the risk of owning a gun outweighs the benefit and nothing BAD can happen. Just stay away from IHOPs, Coffee shops  and Colleges, and you will be fine."

 I know you believe that. I know you mean well.

 Just don't take us to task because we say "Yes we carry, but we are not responsible for you.
 Your safety is YOUR responsibility in ALL situations, at ALL times.
 Not just ones that involve guns but in every aspect of your life.

 Is it so wrong to tell you to prepare accordingly or be prepared to accept the consequences of your decisions?

"And where were all those folks with their concealed guns to help out this poor woman?"

Sometimes a post has something that just stops me in my tracks, it's so breath taking.

In the linked post, the blogger (anti-gun blog) points out some stupid gun things.
One of the links is to a woman shot and killed in an elementary school parking lot.

So fare I'm with her, then she asked this..

"And where were all those folks with their concealed guns to help out this poor woman?"

This was my answer.. we will see if it gets posted there..


I have a different take on this shooting. I am not going to try and find some nit picking detail to disagree with I'm going to ask you a much, much harder question, but first, let me answer your question.

"And where were all those folks with their concealed guns to help out this poor woman?"

The answer is; Right where the anti-gun folks put them, that is, somewhere ELSE or DISARMED.

You *should* be asking where were all those police to help the poor woman, and prevent her husband from taking the first shot. You should be ticked off that the Police didn't prevent this to start with.

Anyway, why in the world would you EXPECT a permit holder to step in instead of calling the police.

Like you always say. Even if he did intervene, "bad" things could happen and there is no guarantee that he wouldn't make things worse. Perhaps an errant shot would have flown towards the school or an innocent bystander. I remember in your other posts you expect perfection from permit holders in that situation.

Better to call the police and wait for them to arrive than risk it is the action I believe you advocate.

Unarmed people, dialing 911 and waiting?

Isn't that precisely what happened? Yes, the woman was killed, but no civilians, no permit holders, used guns.

In any case, you have also been outspoken about anyone carrying a gun into a school area on this blog.

In one post pointing out the guy arrested for leaving a gun (locked) in his car.

So,should a nearby permit holder have VIOLATED the laws you support by bringing a gun into a school zone? He would have to be on the parking lot of a school *with* a gun to make a difference.

Would you want him to break the laws that you advocate?

Of course, by those same rules, even if this woman had been a permit holder and even if everyone in the school had been permit holders, ALL of those guns would have been locked away in their cars or at home.

WE don't think that is a good idea, but VPC, Brady and your posts indicate that you all do so is it not fair to ask you to explain how your way is better? How it made a difference?

It's as predictable as rain that a bad guy with a gun would choose to go THERE first.

What does he know for sure?
1) She will be there to get her daughter at a predictable time.
2) There is NO ONE there that also has a gun. No one to stop him.

You think a restraining order would have stopped him?
That the GUN FREE ZONE sign would stop him?

In Time?

These are the rules you support, yet you ask why WE didn't intervene?

What did you EXPECT would happen under your rules? Surely not this.

This is exactly what WE predicted and predict.

If we had OUR way she would have been armed and trained and *might* have stood a chance. There are no degrees of dead. How could it have been worse for her?

The hard question.

Perhaps instead of asking where all of the permit holders are, you should be asking VPC they feel any responsibility for the death of this woman?

Everyone was following the rules that the VPC and Brady and Baldur and you support. Except the bad guy and he was breaking ALL those laws, like they always do.

Like they ALWAYS will.