Hate Crimes, Politics & Guns

On February 15, 2015, the BBC reported that the Islamic State had beheaded 21 Christians in Libya. On the same date, the White House issued the following statement:

The United States condemns the despicable and cowardly murder of twenty-one Egyptian citizens in Libya by ISIL-affiliated terrorists.  We offer our condolences to the families of the victims and our support to the Egyptian government and people as they grieve for their fellow citizens.  ISIL’s barbarity knows no bounds.  It is unconstrained by faith, sect, or ethnicity.  This wanton killing of innocents is just the most recent of the many vicious acts perpetrated by ISIL-affiliated terrorists against the people of the region, including the murders of dozens of Egyptian soldiers in the Sinai, which only further galvanizes the international community to unite against ISIL.

This heinous act once again underscores the urgent need for a political resolution to the conflict in Libya, the continuation of which only benefits terrorist groups, including ISIL.  We call on all Libyans to strongly reject this and all acts of terrorism and to unite in the face of this shared and growing threat.  We continue to strongly support the efforts of the United Nations Special Representative of the Secretary-General Bernardino Leon to facilitate formation of a national unity government and help foster a political solution in Libya.

The White House’s condemnation was swift and explicit; however, the reader will search in vain for any mention of the religion of those murdered. No remarks were offered expressing outrage that these innocent men may have been targeted because of their Christianity. “Let’s not have a rush to judgment,” one might say, “After all, they issued a statement right away, so the failure to mention anything about their faith was probably an oversight.” Okay, fair point. Let’s move on.

A February 18, 2015 New York Post story about the president’s refusal to acknowledge ‘Muslim terrorists’ at a summit, quotes him:  “No religion is responsible for terrorism–people are responsible for violence and terrorism.” This administration is well-known for its fundamentalist insistence that the words Islamic and Terrorism should never be used together. We shouldn’t fan the flames of hatred against innocent Muslims, and it would be mistaken and insensitive to associate the peaceful religion of Islam with the actions of a few. Well, I guess one shouldn’t wax too fundamental when it comes to other religions like, oh I dunno, maybe Christianity, because on the same date, State Department Deputy Spokesperson Marie Harf referred to the “Lord Resistance Army” as a “Christian militant group.” The in-context video may be seen HERE. So, it’s apparently okay to associate Christianity with the actions of a few, but run like crazy away from hinting anything like that about Islam.

On February 10, 2015, three Muslims were shot and killed near the University of North Carolina. Initial indications from the police were that the shooting “stemmed from ‘an ongoing neighbor dispute over parking.'” That assertion was backed by the suspect’s soon-to-be-divorced wife. Nonetheless, the call was incessant that the suspect be charged with a hate crime. Three days later, the president jumped in:

U.S. President Barack Obama on Friday described the deaths of three young Muslims gunned down in North Carolina this week as “brutal and outrageous murders” and said no one in the United States should be targeted for their religion.

The president’s statement came as the U.S. Justice Department said it would join the FBI’s preliminary inquiry to determine whether the man accused in the Chapel Hill shooting on Tuesday broke any federal laws, including hate crime laws.

“No one in the United States of America should ever be targeted because of who they are, what they look like, or how they worship,” Obama said in a statement, offering his condolences to the victims’ families.

The families had called on Obama to insist that federal authorities investigate whether the murder suspect, 46-year-old paralegal student Craig Stephen Hicks, was motivated by hatred toward the victims because they were Muslim.

Fast forward to yesterday’s shooting in Roseburg, Oregon. Although there are reports that the shooter specifically targeted Christians, the president’s statement mentions nothing about Christianity nor the outrage of murdering somebody over religion. There’s no doubt that the president, when asked, would insist that targeting Christians is wrong, and I’m hoping that consistency would motivate him to make such a statement on his own. We’ll have to wait and see, but his record indicates a protective posture toward Islam and an indifferent one toward Christianity.

Nonetheless, the alleged motive of the killer (which the president said was unknown) took a backseat to the president’s open admission that “this is something we should politicize,” and like a true politician, he maligns the arguments of his political opponents and unambiguously declares that his solutions are the only ones that should be considered. Commonsense solutions are defined as those he and his party propose. Mr. President, how about the “commonsense solution” of armed guards on campuses? What options did the students have yesterday considering Umpqua College’s firearms policy?

The school is one of many nationwide that bans the possessions of guns on campuses.

“Possession, use, or threatened use of firearms (including but not limited to BB guns, air guns, water pistols, and paint guns) … is prohibited on college property,” reads Umpqua’s safety and security policy.

The state’s laws on guns, however, are nebulous and conflicting: A September 2011 decision by the Oregon Court of Appeals overturned a ban on concealed weapons on campus, effectively legalizing the possession of concealed guns — with the appropriate permit — on college campuses. The next March, Oregon’s state board of higher education unanimously approved a policy banning guns from classrooms, buildings, residence halls and events, according to the National Conference of State Legislatures.

Essentially, concealed weapons are legal on Oregon college grounds — except inside the buildings.

So, concealed carry is allowed, except in the classrooms where the students were shot. Mr. President, armed guards save lives. Why wait until many are murdered before the government’s armed guards (the police) show up? The vast majority of citizens are law-abiding, Mr. President, so quit trying to strip Americans of their God-given, constitutionally recognized rights, and quit trying to offer “solutions” that criminals will ignore. Also, please get better analysis on murder rates and gun ownership. When real commonsense solutions are ignored in favor of proposals that will not work, one should not be surprised to find resistance. If the president, by his own admission, is making this a political issue, he has no business complaining if others do the same. The only difference is that his opponents want to do something that works.

The president, no doubt, wants to be taken seriously, but when he’s hypersensitive about Muslim sensibilities but not to those of Christians, he exhibits a lack of principle. And when he practically blames his political opponents for the mass murders we’ve seen, be betrays an autocratic mentality. It’s either his way or the highway. A real leader would call a bipartisan meeting and announce that all proposed solutions would be on the table. That way, he could at least take the credit he seems to be looking for when something is hammered out that doesn’t restrict our right of self-defense. So, he’s either too narcissistic to work this out or he has another goal in mind–“real” gun control  confiscation and elimination.

 

Wizbang Weekend Caption Contest™
“The shooter was lining people up and asking if they were Christian”
  • Excellent…

  • Brucehenry

    Except that in a “bipartisan” meeting all options would NOT be on the table, as you well know. ANY restrictions on ANYONE’S possession of ANY kind of gun would not be “on the table.” Expanded or more comprehensive background checks, or better mental-health screenings, would be tossed out as “government intrusion” or nanny-state political correctness.

    http://www.theonion.com/article/no-way-to-prevent-this-says-only-nation-where-this-36131

    • Commander_Chico

      True, but I am suspicious of having a government mental health status database.

      Perhaps I’m paranoid.

    • iwogisdead

      If that is true, then it seems like it would be because the “bipartisans” would be elected officials who are concerned about the impact of their gun control positions on the next election.

      You aren’t suggesting that gun control issues be somehow addressed outside of the democratic process, are you?

      • Brucehenry

        No I’m suggesting that Scalia is pretending that Obama can just call in meeting — a “bipartisan” meeting — in which all options are “on the table.” No, they are not. There are seemingly NO options that the NRA-bribed politicians (of both parties btw, but mostly Republicans) will not have an objection to.

        Gun control advocates have effectively conceded that the right to bear arms is an individual one as opposed to that whole “well-regulated militia” business. They’ve given up trying to throw blanket bans on this or that type of weapon. Now, NRA toadies are opposing the expanded mental health and background checks that an overwhelming majority of Americans poll as supporting, so they’ve vetoed that too. Exactly what options ARE “on the table” if Obama calls this meeting and says all options are on the table?

        What steps to end these mass shootings would be acceptable to YOU? No, never mind, I already know — you want armed police and security guards all over the fucking place, in every school, airport, Starbuck’s and Advance Auto Parts store in the land. I have a problem with that.

        • jim_m

          You are correct that Obama could never call a bipartisan meeting where all cards are on the table.
          He demonstrated this inability with obamacare where he froze out the GOP. Obama is unable to reach a compromise with anyone because he is an inflexible ideologue.

        • jim_m

          They’ve given up trying to throw blanket bans on this or that type of weapon
          Nope. They are just trying to ban ammunition now. Same idea, same ultimate goal.

          • Brucehenry

            Been hearing that since 2009 yet ammunition is not banned. Don’t y’all ever get tired of repeating the same zombie lies?

          • jim_m

            It’s not a lie when the anti gun people keep on trying. What you are ex really objecting to is that your side fails to suppress the civil rights of others and you want to stop hearing about your failures. It doesn’t work that way. We will stop talking about it when you stop trying to violate our rights.

          • Brucehenry

            If a lone Congressman or a small minority of Congressmen keep re-introducing a proposal that is doomed to fail, it hardly constitutes a serious threat to the ammunition supply.

            It’s a zombie lie to say that “they” are trying to ban ammunition, just like it is lie to use Rangel’s proposal to reintroduce the draft to say “they” want to bring it back.

          • jim_m

            If hundreds of millions are spent in lobbying efforts to take those rights away it is not a lie. You know that is true that serious money is backing gun control. You are a discpicable liar when you claim that there need be no effort to keep the gun grabbers from taking everyone’s rights away.

          • Brucehenry

            Of course serious money is being spent to advocate for gun control, but the aim for most gun-control advocates is not to “take everyone’s rights away” but to keep these mass shootings from happening.

            When you couch everything in these apocalyptic, Manichean terms you can’t have a dialogue. “Despicable liars” and “gun grabbers” are for the most part concerned citizens who want to do what’s right, just as are the “gun nuts” and “NRA toadies.” If we’d all stop accusing the other of malicious motives maybe we could get somewhere.

            And yes, I know I used the term “NRA toadies.”

          • jim_m

            Not true. The vast majority of gun control advocates are not in any way saying that they will stop with anything short of guin confiscation. Many have openly admitted that this is their goal. Pretending that becasue they are taking an incrementalist approach that they don’t want that end result is dishonest.

            The Brady Campaign and Bloomberg are not saying that they want people to be able to continue to own guns. The end game for them all is confiscation or some equivalent regime where gun ownership is effectively illegal. Such is the case with ammo bans. In Illinois they tried to ban all ammo containing lead becasue lead is toxic.

            And no. We cannot have dialogue because the gun control lobby has this absolutist endpoint as their desire.

            You cannot allow a gun registry because every time a giovernment has enacted one it has eventually been used by gun control advocates to confiscate guns.

            Even if SOME people favor something short of confiscation, becasue you will always have this element striving to achieve confiscation, you cannot enact laws that will ultimately facilitate their purpose.

            You pretend that the gun control lobby doesn’t want confiscation but that is demonstrably false. They do want it. As long as that element exists you have a situation where no commpromise can ever be reached becasue compromise is part of their incrementalist strategy.

          • Brucehenry

            Faith-based “facts” according to Jim Fucking Underscore Jim. Again and as always, ascribing the most nefarious motives to those who disagree with him. Full of shit, blinded by hatred of the boogeyman he calls “the left.”

          • jim_m

            Wow Bruce way to send a olive conversationover the cliff. Fuck you, you jack booted fascist.

            I guess you just dont like it when people point out the fact that all the major anti gun groups are all in favor of a total ban and confiscation.

          • Brucehenry

            That is a “fact” only in evidence because you say it is so.

          • jim_m

            I was stating a fact based opinion. You can dispute it however you like. However, I was not attacking you and swearing at you. You opend that door Mr Dirtbag. No one was making personal attacks here until you did.

          • Brucehenry

            And you never have

          • jim_m

            I’ve been making an effort to be polite but in your case I will make an exception because you are treating me like the lying jackass you have always been

          • Brucehenry

            Okay well I’m really scared now

          • jim_m

            Well, being the lying, cowardly pussy that you are I’m sure you probably are.

          • jim_m

            I made a serious statement of why people don’t trust the anti gun crowd and you reespoond with persoanl attacks and swearing at me.

            Proof you are out of your depth.

          • Brucehenry

            Butthurt doesn’t become you given your long long history Jim. If you have been “making an effort” to be polite I haven’t been given enough time to notice it.

            You’re like a guy who quit smoking the day before yesterday lecturing others on pulmonary health.

          • jim_m

            You are too stupid to notice it. But the fact remains that I gave you a serious reply and you acted like a pussy. Fuck off

          • Brucehenry

            Perseverance is apparently not your strong suit either.

          • jim_m

            I will be polite with others. Not you. You’re not worth it

          • Brucehenry

            Dang my feelins is hurt now

          • jim_m

            Good

          • Brucehenry

            First insult of the thread was yours — “You are a despicable liar” just a few comments up.

          • jim_m

            That was after your going off on me after I tried to explain why it was that gun owners didn’t trust left wing gun control advocates or the government to not take their rights away. You responded with swearing and insults.

          • Brucehenry

            “You are a discpicable liar” is Jim’s version of “making an effort to be polite.” Then claims victim status and acts butthurt when told he is full of shit.

          • You are indeed a despicable purveyor of falsehood.

          • Retired military

            20 years ago same sex marriage was illegal.

          • jim_m

            I supose Bruce will show us how for the last 20 years he has been telling Gays to STFU about it.

            We are all awaiting the evidence of this to prove he is not a total hypocrite.

          • Brucehenry

            I guess these things have some connection in your minds but I’m not seeing this Gotcha you seem to think you have here lol.

        • Hank_M

          Re: NRA toadies are opposing the expanded mental health and background checks

          You sure about this?

          The NRA floated the idea of a national registry of the mentally ill as one way to stem gun violence. This would work in conjunction with the
          Gun Control Act of 1968. Further, turns out that 38 states require or authorize the use of certain mental health records for use in a firearm background check,according to the Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence.

          • Brucehenry

            Wasn’t it just last year, after Newtown, that a proposal for expanded mental health and background checks was soundly defeated in Congress, despite polls showing better than 70% support?

          • Hank_M

            You’re right, Turns out those rejecting it were worried about a possible gun owners registry being created. It was voted down 54-46

          • Brucehenry

            I can understand that objection, and also the objection Chico mentioned. My point is that to pretend that Obama’s not a “real leader” because he hasn’t called this “bipartisan meeting where all options are on the table” is disingenuous.

            I don’t pretend to know what the solution is but it probably lies somewhere between “ban all guns” and “arm everyone.”

          • Vagabond661

            How about removing “gun free zones”? Seems like a sane start.

          • Vagabond661

            Here’s another thought. Introduce “gun free zone” seating at restaurants and movie theaters. Kinda like the no smoking areas of the previous century.

            This way people who are uncomfortable with conceal carry but open to getting robbed, shot and/or killed can be easily identified by loonies.

          • Heinlein had a better solution. All who so desire may go armed, and all not identified by a brassard may be assumed to be armed and subject to challenge to trial by arms…

          • jim_m

            Nobody has been arguing to arm everyone. What we argue for is to allow the willing to be armed. The gun control people are against even that.

          • jim_m

            Yes, it was crafted to dispossess virtually everyone of their guns and particularly military veterans.

        • iwogisdead

          I don’t know about armed police and security guards all over the fucking place, but I do think that it’s not enough to have one guard armed only with a can of mace to protect a college with 3,000 students enrolled. When I went to college in the Stone Age, there was an actual campus police force and officers armed with actual guns. This was at much larger school, but the ratio of cops to kids was much better than 1:3000.

          There is already a background check requirement. I don’t mind expanding it. The problem is that expanded background checks won’t stop anyone from getting a gun, just like laws against murder won’t stop murder. Hell’s Bells, Francisco Sanchez found a gun laying on the ground, or so he says.

          The problem with Obumble’s pontificating yesterday is that he failed to address that Constitution thingy—there’s still a right to bear arms in this country, just like there’s a right for people to marry people of the same sex. Only, the right to bear arms is actually referenced in the Constitution.

          • Brucehenry

            “I don’t mind expanding it,” you say, and 70% of the polled public agree, but apparently a majority of members of Congress don’t. And when “Obumble” — juvenile 5th grade stuff btw — was “pontificating” yesterday, that’s the point he was making. The country’s so-called leaders don’t have the political will to buck the NRA and enact legislation a majority of the public wants enacted.

            I don’t get how expanded background checks “won’t stop anyone from getting a gun.” Sure they will, or at least they’ll slow them down, maybe enough to stop obeying The Voices for a day or two.

            But I do agree there is a right to bear arms and so finding the balance is tricky. But it seems to me something must be done. I heard today on NPR that there has been 294 “mass shootings” in America THIS YEAR. More than one a day. That’s counting shooting incidents where at least 4 people were either killed or wounded, and that’s NOT counting the shooter as a casualty, and NOT including those weird murder-suicides where some guy snaps and kills his family and then himself.

            If there had been 294 incidents where a Muslim had killed or wounded at least 4 non-Muslims in less than a year I bet conservatives would be willing to do just about anything to stop it.

          • iwogisdead

            You’ll have to define this “political will” you keep talking about. If 70% of the people want something to happen and it doesn’t, the solution is to elect a different person. This “political will” is always subject to an election, no? That’s the way our Constitutional Republic is supposed to work. If the NRA has so much power, why hasn’t it changed this 70% number you keep bringing up? The NRA cannot thwart majority rule, no matter what you think.

            It was clear from his comments yesterday who Obumble wanted to take the rap on this–the evil old Republicans. But it wasn’t very long ago that the Democrats had a filibuster-proof super-majority in the Congress AND they had the White House. Why didn’t they solve this whole problem (and every other problem) back then? Maybe that majority rule thing?

            Oh, and there is no “something must be done” exception to the 2nd Amendment. You could, however, amend the Constitution. If 70% of the people think that the 2nd Amendment should be done away with, such a thing could happen.

            What are your solutions, other than expanded background and mental health problems? Do you want to erase the Second Amendment?

          • Brucehenry

            In my opinion you’re naive if you don’t think a powerful special-interest group can indeed thwart majority rule, at least for a while — maybe a long while.

            LOL with the super-majority meme. A super-majority that included Lieberman and Baucus and yada yada and that lasted what, 14 months until Scott Whatshisface won Ted Kennedy’s old seat?

            I’m not calling for the repeal of the ZSecond Amendment and have twice now admitted I had no ready solution, so, yeah, right now the mental health/background check thingie is all I’ve got.

            Again my point was to disagree with Scalia’s assertion that a “real leader” could just call a bipartisan meeting and find that “all options are on the table.” That is not the case, as every solution I can think of has already been vetoed by Congressmen bought and paid for by the NRA.

          • iwogisdead

            So, you’re saying that the Democrats were willing to pass some sort of super exciting legislation that would’ve taken care of everyone’s concerns about gun violence, but for Leiberman and Baucus and that there wasn’t enough time? Talk about naive.

            There’s still a disconnect between your “70% of the public” claim and the power of the NRA. What would a Congressman care about NRA money if 70% of his voters were telling him what to do? I get that the NRA make contributions to Congressional candidates, but the money is meaningless unless it has an impact on public opinion. Unless you think that NRA money is being used to bribe the officials who count the votes.

            You’re not saying that the NRA shouldn’t be allowed to donate to Congressional candidates, are you?

          • Brucehenry

            Voters elect candidates based on many issues. They may disagree with a congresssman’s stance on background checks but agree with him on a host of other issues. But if the NRA is a large donor he may take a stand at odds with what his constituents desire on that issue. This ain’t rocket science.

            The candidate with the most money most often wins, whatever stances he took on this or that issue. You know that.

            No the NRA shouldn’t be banned from donating while other groups are not banned. But campaign finance reform is a tangential issue except as to how it relates to the lack of political will to do anything about these mass shootings.

          • They have no statistical leg to stand on:

            According to a careful analysis of data on mass shootings (using the widely accepted definition of at least four killed), the Congressional Research Service found that there are, on average, just over 20 incidents annually. More important, the increase in cases, if there was one at all, is negligible. Indeed, the only genuine increase is in hype and hysteria.

          • Brucehenry

            Sure just hype. Of course if you’re just paralyzed or blinded or disfigured and not shot dead what are you bitching about amirite?

          • Ha, ha!

          • Commander_Chico

            If you had a Muslim group practice “open carry” like this someplace in the USA, you’d have all kinds of “conservatives” braying for strict gun control like they did after the Panthers did an open carry at the California State House.

            https://theird.files.wordpress.com/2013/03/muslim-brotherhood_breitbart_130321-article.jpg

          • Scalia

            There are anti-intimidation laws, Chico. One doesn’t have to be a Muslim to suffer the consequences of marching down the street like that. If I did that, I’d be in jail lickety-split.

          • Commander_Chico

            There have been plenty of open carry rallies, let’s see Muslims or blacks try it and you will see gun control pretty quick. Heck at the Bundy ranch they were pointing guns at BLM staff.

            http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/2014/06/06/opinion/662014nra/662014nra-blog480.jpg

          • Scalia

            You mean the Black Panther Rally in Austin? They held a pro-Second Amendment rally. Nobody hauled them off to jail.

          • Commander_Chico

            I’m sure if that kept up, things would change.

            Particularly if organized Muslim groups started it.

          • Scalia

            Are you even capable of admitting you’re wrong? You made a demonstrably false statement. Instead of acknowledging it and moving on, you double down with another statement you cannot hope to prove.

            Gun rights advocates support firearms ownership for all law-abiding citizens, regardless of race or religion. The fact that this group faced no harassment in gun-loving Texas is proof.

            Try sticking with the facts, Chico.

          • Commander_Chico

            There is some history here.

          • Scalia

            You weren’t talking about 50 years ago, Chico. You said it would happen today. I showed that they demonstrated “today,” and nobody is pushing for a modern “Mulford Act.”

          • Projects chicka “stupid” puta very much.

        • Scalia

          Man, Bruce, I can see you’re on a roll. I don’t have time to reply, but I hope to have some time set aside later.

          One quick thing: I don’t have a problem with armed guards anywhere. It’s comforting to know I have a backup when the bad guys start popping. 😉

        • jim_m

          No Bruce. No one wants armed guards everywhere. What they want is an armed citizenry that can defend itself and is not dependent on a lazy and corrupt government for protection.

          • Brucehenry

            Well as I say I don’t have the answer but I will just mention that that’s what we have NOW — an “armed citizenry” — and we are the only civilized country in the world where this kind of violence occurs with this kind of regularity.

            Other First World countries have as much or more liberty and freedom as we do and nowhere near the number of victims.

          • jim_m

            Yes, and that is why these things happen in “gun free zones”.

          • Brucehenry

            Yet all of Denmark, for example, is a gun free zone but it doesn’t happen there. Or Finland. Or Australia. Or Belgium, New Zealand, or the Netherlands et cetera.

            Perhaps it has something to do with the armed citizens and not the unarmed ones.

          • jim_m

            Yes, mass killings do happen in all of those places you dumbass

          • Brucehenry

            But with nothing like the frequency that they occur here you dumbass

          • jim_m

            Your claim was that it never happened. It was a lie that you just admitted to.

          • Brucehenry

            You can’t fucking read.

            “…we are the only civilized country in the world where this kind of violence happens with this kind of regularity.”

          • jim_m

            You claimed immediately above “yet all of Denmark, for example, is a gun free zone but it doesn’t happen there.”

            You told a lie and now you lie about telling it.

          • Brucehenry

            Damn Jim in the context of the conversational back and forth it was clear what I meant and you know it, You are the liar here and it’s pathetic. Grow up and enough with the lame gotcha attempts, you pussy.

          • jim_m

            I know you were attempting to claim that gun bans are good and that if we had one here that there would never be a mass shooting. It is a lie and you know it. All the nations you listed have gun crime.

            You know that to be the case and you are still refusing to admit it. It is also the case that countries that impose gun bans see their crime rrates go up. In areas in the US where guns are the most difficult to get, crime is the worst, In the Bay Area where the last SF gun store just closed, crime is skyrocketing.

            You can’t argue that ans now you are just resorting to name calling because you’vve got nothing to argiuie with and you lack the intelligence to do anything else.

          • Brucehenry

            Well Jim not all those countries have total gun bans but they do have laws in place and also social customs that make their countries virtually gun free in comparison with the US. Yes they still have gun crime but at nowhere near the rate we do.

            And yet the population there are not the helpless victims of predators who shoot them at will because they are living in giant “gun-free zones.” Indeed there are rarely the kinds of shootings there that we have come to know so well here, the Columbines, the Umpquas, the Newtowns.

            And again, we are talking about virtually the entire Western world here.

          • jim_m

            So your claim is that their social customs make their society different so they have less crime. Shocker, jackass. So your solution is to ban guns here and that somehow will change our culture into a mirror of theirs? WTF Bruce? What kind of bullshit logic is that?

          • Brucehenry

            Aaaaand AGAIN I’m not advocating a total gun ban but pointing out that gun proponents will brook NO discussion of any restriction of access to guns by anyone. I’ve asked repeatedly what proposals would be “on the table” should a “real leader,” you know, the kind of leader Scalia says Obama ain’t, call for a “bipartisan meeting” to discuss.

          • jim_m

            Then why do ytou keep extolling guin free societies and claiming that they are so much better than ours?

            The claim that you are not for a gun ban is transparent BS.

          • jim_m

            obama is not a real leader. He is an ideologue and as I have pointed out he has repeatedly proven that he refuses to discuss any sort of compromise with anyone. He has a track record of being the most stridently left wing politician in the nation and has never once drafter a bipartisan piece of legislation in any office he has ever held.

          • Brucehenry

            In any event what about the point? All this gun free zone nonsense and concern trolling but, in countries where the WHOLE DAMN COUNTRY is pretty much a gun free zone, these kinds of mass killings rarely occur. Here, it’s one a day.

          • jim_m

            No its not one a day. And you choose countries with a tiny fraction of the population, a deliberate choice to obfuscate the fact that more people will always mean more crime.

            What’s your long term solution to crime in the US? Mass graves for 300 million so those left can live in peace? That actually sounds like what you are advocating.

          • Brucehenry

            If you take all the civilized, democratic countries of Western Europe and Japan and add Canada, New Zealand and Australia together, you still don’t have the number and frequency of mass shooting murders/assaults that you have here in the US, where we have this vaunted “armed citizenry” of which you are so enamored.

          • Show proof.

          • Brucehenry

            I ain’t your google. If you don’t believe me DISprove it.

          • You asserted and failed to show proof when challenged, ergo you forfeit your point.

          • Brucehenry

            Mass shootings in which 4 or more people are killed or wounded — not including the gunman — have occurred 294 times in the US THIS YEAR. That’s slightly more than one per day.

            If you’re only talking about mass killings in which crazed loonies shoot and kill people in a random public place there have been at least 20 since 2011, starting with the nut who shot Gabby Giffords.

          • jim_m

            Perhaps it is because these other countries take care of their mentally ill better than we do. I was in a meeting with the new head of Maryland’s equivalent of HHS and he was saying how they have already put something like 12000 mentally ill out on the street and will put another 3000 out in the next couple of years.

          • Brucehenry

            Fine with me to take care of the mentally ill better instead of or in conjunction with restricting their access to guns. Of course God forbid some rich guy might have to forgo his tax cut to accomplish that.

            I just want the killing to stop. If that can be accomplished without changing any existing gun law that’s fine with me. My point here is to point out the inconsistencies in your argument, not to advocate any specific action.

          • jim_m

            No. You have not pointed out any inconsistencies as I have not made any claims other than banning guns does not ensure the elimination of crimme as you so dishonestly claimed.

            Meanwhile you have already resorted to name calling and swearing at me.

          • Brucehenry

            Never made any such claim you are lying and can’t quote where I have.

          • jim_m

            You did in fact claim that no mass killing were occurring in a number of nations and then you immediately claimed that you did not and deliberately quoted a different comment than we were discussing.

            Dishonest is what most people call that. Just admit that you exaggerated.

          • Brucehenry

            What I will admit to is not adding the modifier “frequently” in the second comment. Because it wasn’t necessary to anyone reading along in the comment thread in the context of the comment immediately preceding it. Your pathetic attempt to turn it into a Gotcha is just that — pathetic.

          • Brucehenry

            It’s hilarious to see you, with your history, acting all butthurt about a little name-calling but whatever.

            The inconsistency in your argument is to claim that the existence of gun-free zones invites these killings when there are whole COUNTRIES that are effectively gun-free zones where these things rarely happen.

          • jim_m

            Most shootings of that number range are gang related crimes. Not mass shootings of innocents.

          • Brucehenry

            You have data to support that assertion or should we just take your word for it? Not that it seems unbelievable; you could be right. Still doesn’t happen as often in the rest of the civilized world.

          • jim_m

            You asserted that these were mass shooting of innocents. Pony up the proof of your statement. You have none Irt’s a lie and you know it.

            You made that statement before I saidanything. You prove it.

            You can’t. I won’t be bothered with proving what everyone knows to be true. You don’t hear of poepl running into schools and theaters every day. You know that to be true. WHat you are saying is a lie.

            Go ahead and keep doubling down on your lies.

          • Brucehenry

            Quote me saying these were “innocents.”

          • jim_m

            The whole thread is about the mass shootings of innocents. Don’t pretend that it is not. Who gives a crap if a bunch of drug selling gang bangers off each other?

            The whole issue is how do we stop the lone gunman from killing a bunch of innocent people. You are the one claiming that every day we have a shooting like at the community college in Oregon.

            This is not about how do we stop gang crime, which is where you get your statistics from. And I posted just last week a link to the Univ of Chicago study that demonstrated that criminals get their guns illegally and that gun laws would have zero effect on them.

            But go ahead and ignore reality. You’re a lefty. It’s what you do.

          • Brucehenry

            Fine forget the 294 if you like. The 20 mass shootings we’ve had in the US since the Giffords attack are more than in the rest of the Western world together, even though much of that Western world is effectively a “gun-free zone.”

            Again, we have an “armed citizenry” here and they do not. Yet they are, apparently, safer from these kinds of shootings than we are.

          • jim_m

            Again, it’s about rate not the empirical number and you are already on record claiming that in coutries that have total bans that thye never see this happen. It was a lie and you dismissed it and tried to change the subject.

          • Brucehenry

            Asked and repeatedly answered and not a lie but a normal conversational process.

          • jim_m

            It was a lie. And I also note that your threshhold for “mass shooting” is 4 and that is a number that is frequently reached in gang and drug crime. You are lumping in totally unrelated issues in order to cover the fact that you don;t have anything. Gangs murdering each other over drgs is not what we have been talking about but you want to include that because you have nothing else to back up your bullshit.

          • Brucehenry

            So these gangs and drug dealers are not using guns to shoot each other? What, slingshots?

          • jim_m

            You claimed that in the US a shooting of 4 or more people (uyour threshold for a mass shooting) happens every day. I pointed out that these were gang and drug related crimes not people going into schools and theaters shooting up innocents.

            It was a deliberate misrepresentation on your part and yet another example of how dishonest your entire chain of arguments have been on this thread.

          • Brucehenry

            My point was that it doesn’t happen in other countries as often as it does here. Whether the victims are gangbangers or innocents, it’s not happening in say, the UK as often as it does here, even allowing for “population density.”

          • jim_m

            And ytou simplified it to the point that we should ban guns despite admitting that it is a multifaceted proiblem including culture, drugs, other crime, mental health, etc.

          • Brucehenry

            I agree the problem is complicated. Despite your lame efforts to maneuver me into it, though, I’ve never called for any “gun ban.” I have pointed out that this meme about “gun-free zones” being invitations to madmen is illogical, given the fact that there are many WHOLE COUNTRIES that are virtually gun-free zones where mass shootings rarely occur.

          • jim_m

            I recall in a discussion here previously I posted a comment from a Chinese man who claimedd that the reason he attacked the school and murdered the children was because he knew they would be unarmed and unable to defend themselves.

            It is not an illogical position. In fact there is a great deal of economic theory around the notion that people will tend to do what they want in the places that offer the least resistance to them accomplishing their aims.

            It is you who are denying reality here.

          • jim_m

            Oh look, People are murdering each other in Australia, a country that has a total ban on guns and where Bruce claims gun crime never happens.

            Bruce comes once more with a totally fact free position supported only by his left wing fascist ideology.

          • Brucehenry

            See you are looking for the plural of “anecdote,” It’s “anecdotes,” It’s not “data.”

          • jim_m

            I didn’t claim this was data. However, you claimed that these things didn’t happen. I only had to show one instance to prove you a liar.

          • The correct comparison would be by Population Density/year.

        • Scalia

          No I’m suggesting that Scalia is pretending that Obama can just call in meeting — a “bipartisan” meeting — in which all options are “on the table.” No, they are not. There are seemingly NO options that the NRA-bribed politicians (of both parties btw, but mostly Republicans) will not have an objection to.

          If the president really wants to do something about gun violence before his term expires, it will be necessary for him to work with Republicans (since they hold majorities in Congress), unless he wants to beat them into submission to his will via the bully pulpit. So far in his presidency, he has ignored the first option and seems locked in second-option-mode (with respect to firearms). As president, he can and should call for a bipartisan committee to discuss all options in good faith. Since he is the president of all U.S. citizens, he is obligated to do so whether or not Republican cooperate. His only other option is to spin his wheels and accomplish nothing. His apologists may applaud that tactic if they believe that the GOP will suffer in the polls, but if these massacres are as routine as Obama says, then that demonstrates his willingness to let people die rather than try something meaningful. If the GOP cooperates, all the better, but if they don’t, he will at least have showed the public that he tried in good faith.

          You may argue that the same goes for the GOP, and to a limited degree you may be correct, but the president’s position is unique, and he is considered the leader of our nation. His gutter sniping and browbeating only make him look petty. Insisting that his proposals should be followed without due consideration of alternatives makes people less likely to listen.

          If he and people ideologically aligned with him are sincere in their desire to protect children, there is something we can do NOW that will have an immediate effect–and I know you don’t want to hear it–armed guards at school. We’re not talking Starbucks and McDonalds, and you don’t at all mind armed guards (police) showing up to kill the scumbag that has shot up a school, so there should be no debate about it. Liberals and conservatives believe in armed guards for schools; we just appear to differ on where and when. I think it’s self-evident that we need them on site and it’s pathetic that this is being ignored because of background checks. A background check isn’t going to stop a person who has legal possession of a firearm from shooting up a school, but “a good guy with a gun” can stop him in his tracks. Some liberals argue that they don’t want our schools to become the OK Corral; some conservatives counter that we don’t want them to become My Lai either.

          With respect to background checks, there is middle ground. The NRA recently backed Senator Cornyn’s background check bill. Mainstream gun-rights advocates do not want convicted felons or insane persons to have access to firearms. It is thus mistaken to assert that a bipartisan commission would be a non-starter. One can legitimately criticize Cornyn’s bill, but one cannot say that we are ideologically opposed to reasonable background checks.

          That said, proposals like magazine capacity limits, super-enhanced background checks, gun-free zones, “assault weapons” bans, etc., evoke a, “Are you serious?” reaction from gun-rights advocates. These measures have toilet tissue strength when it comes to crime prevention. If bootleggers transported the much more difficult to conceal contraband booze, do you think these feel-good gun measures will stop mass shootings? If you acknowledge the right to private firearms ownership, the only reasonable approach is deterrence, and deterrence is the only American option if we’re going to preserve our gun rights.

          Our history proves that the gun grabbers will never rest. They cannot get an outright ban at present, so they’ve adopted an incremental approach. That’s why they cannot concede to armed guards at schools. It undercuts their mantra that guns are not the answer. That’s why real commonsense measures are ignored or shouted down and window-dressing measures are proclaimed. They know that their incremental proposals will not work. That’s why they’ll keep coming again and again with stronger measures until they achieve a gun ban. The president has been touting gun-banning nations. There’s no doubt in my mind that where he’d like to take us. We’re not going.

          • Brucehenry

            I’ve got to praise your writing skills here. Your original article was a conventional if effective red-meat-to-the-slobbering-wolves piece complete with references to victimization of Christians and a healthy dollop of Obama-bashing. This reply to me above is a quite reasonable-sounding and almost-persuasive advocating of the conservative position. Both very well done.

            To be honest I don’t know, even at my age, even after all these years of these awful shootings, what should be done. Armed guards at schools? Well sure I guess but if that happens everywhere will we next mandate armed guards at every movie theater? And eventually armed guards at every Starbucks, every mall, every church?

            Your point about Obama’s “obligation” to call a bipartisan meeting “whether or not the Republicans cooperate,” if accepted, relieves the GOP of any obligation to be cooperative. What would happen, in my opinion, is just what happened with Obamacare — they would stomp their feet and growl “hell no” until nothing got done (or until a watered-down-beyond-recognition-in-an-attempt-to-placate proposal was adopted), then spend years repeating the zombie lie that they were “frozen out” and “not listened to.” If that occurred, it would not just be a political failure for Obama, it would be a setback to the cause of preventing these killings.

          • Scalia

            Hi, Bruce. Thanks for your kind words. My hectic life has been made more hectic by trying to churn out posts for discussion. I feel like I’m going 70 in a 30-mph speed zone, so please forgive me if a few mailboxes get knocked over.

            One point of clarification: When I refer to armed guards, I don’t necessarily mean government guards. There are retired police officers, retired military personnel and independent security companies (even volunteers) who are more than willing to protect our children while at school.

            Moreover, I really ultimately agree with Jim in that I don’t think we’ll be turning Starbucks into Alcatraz any time soon. Like I said, the vast majority of gun owners are law-abiding, decent people. So long as they remain free to carry their weapons, they will act as one layer of deterrence to would-be criminals. In the American context, campus gun-free zones are invitations for slaughter. That needs to stop, and I’m glad that we can at least agree on that, more or less.

  • Commander_Chico

    How about, why so many deranged men in America?

    • Jwb10001

      I don’t know Chico, you’re one of them why don’t you tell us.

      • Commander_Chico

        I’m not in America, and I’m not going on gun rampages.

        • Jwb10001

          Oh you’re not in America, that’s a relief.

          • Commander_Chico

            It’s a relief for me, too. Living the dream.

          • Now you just need to renounce your citizenship, turn in your passport, and cease sucking off the public teat.

          • jim_m

            He’s probably not even a citizen, another reason why his claims to being a vet are false.

          • Commander_Chico

            I’m loyal to the Constitution, and retain my commission on the Reserve list.

          • jim_m

            As if.

          • Commander_Chico

            faggy expression

          • jim_m

            Left proves he’s a hypocrite by using homophobic language.

  • LiberalNightmare

    For the democrats, gun control is more of a voter registration drive than anything else, like blacklives matter or occupy boston.

    • Commander_Chico

      Same as abortion for the Republicans.

      • jim_m

        With the exception that stopping abortion will save lives and removing guns from the law abiding will take them.

        • Commander_Chico

          It’s a fact that countries with strict gun laws have less murders, but it’s a price we pay for freedom.

          • jim_m

            Some countries like Switzerland have high rates of gun ownership and yet low gun crime. It is more cultural than anything else. The left believes that it can engineer culture. That is not realistic.

          • Brucehenry

            Funny you should mention Switzerland. Gun ownership and competence is mandatory, but access to ammunition is severely restricted. There aren’t any swaggering Swiss “open-carry” nuts packing heat in Walmart.

          • jim_m

            WTF Asshole? Did you miss the part where I said it was cultural?

          • Brucehenry

            It’s also a legal thing. They’ve combined the concept of a right to bear arms with that whole well-regulated militia thingie that the SCOTUS here ruled didn’t apply.

          • jim_m

            They also have access to guns and ammnunition They have the means to do it if they are so inclined. You seem to think that there is something in a law that actually creates a physical barrier that will prevent someone from committing a crime.

            It doesn’t work that way you dumbass.

          • Brucehenry

            Yes I was misinformed. It is indeed a cultural thing in Switzerland. You are entirely correct to say so.

          • jim_m

            Try speeding in Switzerland and see how well you do. The culture there is markedly different than here. We routinely drive 5 to 7 miles over the speed limit and the police almost never stop you. That will get you busted over there. The culture around guns is different and the culture around the law is different.

            You compare various countries to the US and you make the claim that it is access to guns that is the problem. That argument is bogus. You know that this is true but you make it anyway.

            Of course, with your 6th grade education you’ve probably never made it out of the town you grew up in.

          • Scalia

            That is incorrect.

            The vast majority of men between the ages of 20 and 30 are conscripted into the militia and undergo military training, including weapons training. The personal weapons of the militia are kept at home as part of the military obligations. However, it is generally not permitted to keep army-issued ammunition, but compatible ammunition purchased for privately owned guns is permitted. At the end of military service period the previously used gun can be converted to a privately owned gun after a weapon acquisition permit has been granted (fully automatic weapons will be rebuilt into semi-automatic ones). Switzerland thus has one of the highest gun ownership rates in the world.

          • Commander_Chico

            Military conscription, successful completion of training and continuing service means mental health screening.

            They’re not giving guns to the retards, weirdos, assholes, sickos, alkies and druggies that can get them easily in the USA.

          • Scalia

            Who said they did, Chico? I was replying to Bruce’s assertion that access to ammunition is severely restricted in Switzerland.

          • Commander_Chico

            The point is that there are few gun killings in Switzerland mostly because gun owners are vetted in a way they are not in the USA.

          • Scalia

            No, the point was that the Swiss severely restrict access to ammunition and THAT was what I was replying to. I wasn’t speaking to you. You comment is entirely irrelevant to what I replied to.

            Again, I don’t dispute the vetting of Swiss citizens. That is not at issue with me. You’re barking up the wrong tree.

          • Commander_Chico

            More in response to Jim’s general point, but would you be in favor of restricting gun ownership to honorably-discharged military veterans or people strictly vetted and tested?

          • Scalia

            No to the first. There are millions of citizens who own firearms, have kept the law and have never been in the military. The overwhelming majority of gun owners are decent, responsible, law-abiding citizens.

            The Swiss have a very different, much more homogeneous society.

          • Commander_Chico

            Nuts with 30 round mags are on the other balance.

            Lanza, Flanagan, Holmes, Loughner, etc.

          • jim_m

            Millions of law abiding, peaceful people. Let’s take away their rights because there is 0.00000025% of the population that is going out and killing people in this way.

          • jim_m

            Alas for you, this is a right and not a privilege.

            We see when the state has the ability to pick and choose who is qualified for gun ownership the corrupt officials in charge of this determination only give that right to their friends, the famous and people with political connections.

            This is why it has to be an unrestricted right, because the left cannot be trusted to provide this fairly.

          • jim_m

            The point is that their culture is different and that is what makes the difference between how guns are viewed and used.

          • Brucehenry

            Yes I was misinformed you are correct about the Swiss.

          • jim_m

            Funny I should mention Switzerland. The per capita death rate from mass murder exceeds that of the US. So does the rate in Finland and Norway.

            In sum, then, Obama is wrong to say that “this type of mass violence does not happen in other advanced countries.” Clearly it does happen elsewhere, and not in trivial numbers. Seven of the countries saw double-digit numbers of people killed in mass shootings during that period.

            and

            the U.S. doesn’t rank No. 1. At 0.15 mass shooting fatalities per 100,000 people, the U.S. had a lower rate than Norway (1.3 per 100,000), Finland (0.34 per 100,000) and Switzerland (1.7 per 100,000).

            But facts won’t stop Bruce from lying about the issue.

          • Scalia

            Great link, Jim. It compliments the link I offered toward the end of my post.

          • Commander_Chico

            It seems to support the argument that the availability of guns is the controlling factor, not culture (as you earlier argued) since a nut like Breivik (who accounts for all of Norway’s #1 rating) was able to get a Ruger Mini-14 and a Glock.

          • jim_m

            Not really. It supports the point that these things happen elsewhere. The per capita rate is high because they are small populations and a single event skews the rate dramatically. On a per event frequency we still have more events. That is a reault of culture not availability.

  • Hank_M

    The little man in the white house knows no other way than politicizing every issue he can.
    He throws up straw men, knocks them down, and as always, demonizes his political opponents.

    Also seems that a lot of these shootings are taking place in gun-free zones.
    I wouldn’t count on the left being able to factor that in.

    ps. Great article, Scalia.

  • Jwb10001

    How can anyone be shot in a gun free zone? Does an institution that removes my ability to defend myself then take upon themselves the responsibility to defend me? If so has this institution failed and are they liable or negligent? If they don’t allow individuals to have guns then they should at minimum provide armed protection, no? I know this is a wedge issue that the politicians want to keep alive, perhaps the best way around the politicians is through the courts The community college should be sued by every single victims family for millions. At least these institutions should have to provide warning labels like cigarette companies do. If you choose to enter here beware that there is no one here to protect you if someone opens fire, enter at your own risk. Or we could do what the President wants and try to confiscate all the guns…… good luck with that. The result is the same but on a grander scale.

    • Walter_Cronanty

      But,…but,…they had security guards [of course they were unarmed, after all, this was a “gun-free zone”]: “After a 2006 incident in which one student was shot by another at Roseburg High School, local institutions — including UCC — hired security guards, according to the Eugene Register-Guard. Those security guards are unarmed, interim college President Rita Calvin told the newspaper. The campus is a gun-free zone.”
      http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/oregon-shooter-said-to-have-singled-out-christians-for-killing-in-%e2%80%98horrific-act-of-cowardice%e2%80%99/ar-AAf2dui?li=AAa0dzB

      • Jwb10001

        I would love to see the job description for these unarmed security guards. What exactly are they expected to do when something happens? I suppose for the majority of disturbances they are fine but when the shit really hits the fan and people are dying what then?

        • jim_m

          They should die first.

          • Walter_Cronanty

            The guards or the idiots running the college?

          • jim_m

            Both when you get down to it. But the guards are actually being paid to do so.

          • Walter_Cronanty

            I don’t think the guards are being paid enough to die – I think the idiots running the place should have to stand guard.

          • jim_m

            I wasnt making an assessment of whether they were receiving appropriate compensation. I was just stating the fact that if they are unarmed they really are being paid to die.

          • Walter_Cronanty

            You’re right.

          • Jeanette Pickett

            Last tuesday I got a top of the McLaren F1 from earning $16020 this last four weeks and also 15-k last-month . this is definitely the coolest work I have ever done . Without any question it’s the most financially rewarding Ive had . I started this 4 months ago & practicaIIy straight away began to bring home over $97 p/h .Visit weblink to start immediately.
            ..ckh……….
            ➤➤➤➤ http://GoogleSuperPayingTopJobsSysEmploymentProjects/Get/Start/Today… ✱✱✱✱✱✱✱✱✱✱✱✱✱✱✱✱✱✱✱✱✱✱✱✱✱✱✱✱✱✱✱✱✱✱✱✱✱✱✱✱✱✱

        • Walter_Cronanty

          The higher-ups never gave a thought to the shit hitting the fan. It’s much more important to have a “gun free zone.”
          I mean really, Jwb, can you imagine the trigger warning the college would have to give if the security guards were packing?

  • Well said.

  • Commander_Chico

    Breitbart.com : How to Stop Mass Shootings

    Underemployed, disrespected and frustrated men drive terrorism, mass shootings, gang warfare, you name it. But railing against guys for “toxic masculinity” clearly hasn’t worked. So why not try something new? Why not celebrate what makes men unique instead of trying to turn boys into girls? Why not harness that power and set men back to work? To make America great again, we need to rescue our lost generation of young males.

    Ignore the gender warriors. To me, what shootings like this should tell us is that men need to be celebrated more, not less. Men should be honoured. There is no progress, no civilisation without the healthy application of masculinity. Let’s get started.

    • Brucehenry

      Sorry, that Breitbart article, like most Breitbart articles, is a load of horseshit. Lot of MRA nonsense and adopting a victim pose. “Straight white men are being oppressed!”

      Fucking please.

      • jim_m

        The response by the left toward their victims is always to deny them legitimacy.
        And y the aim of the left is to oppress straight people, white people and men. Anyone who denies that is living n a fantasy world.

      • Commander_Chico

        C’mon, you know this feminist shit crying “rape culture” and trying to enter male jobs has gone too far.

        Just read how they forced those women through Ranger school, giving them breaks no man would have got.

        http://www.people.com/article/female-ranger-school-graduation-planned-advance

        Meanwhile boys are slammed down in schools and in the courts without mercy.

  • Retired military

    If the victims had been unborn children and this took place at a planned parenthood clinic then Obama and the dems would have been celebrating a woman’s right to kill her baby.

  • A friend wrote this and I think it be most cogent:

    “In a nation where there are more than 300 million guns and where angry young men — primarily — use them to commit murder every day — in Chicago, in LA, and recently in Roseburg, Oregon — the political cries to “do something” always remain unserious. The President calls for more background checks, closing loopholes, banning assault weapons, and now, better mental health services. Not one of those things would have stopped these most recent murders, nor any of the headline-grabbing tragedies of the recent past. I have to conclude that the goal of all the angry talk is merely to bludgeon one’s political enemies in the all-important polls, not to actually try to solve the problem of angry young men who murder.

    Not every social problem has a legal or political solution. The fundamental challenge is freedom — something we cherish, and something we have abused and misused since Adam and Eve faced the forbidden tree in God’s garden. God and our laws have granted us great freedom, but we can use that freedom to build up or tear down. If we love life, we are horrified when it is callously and deliberately destroyed. The life-giving God of creation moves our hearts to want to “do something.” That desire is good; it’s from God. But what if, after all the yelling dies down, we discover that there is no effective political solution to the problem of young men who murder? Where, or to Whom, do we turn to then for help?”