|Law enforcement personnel respond to another mass shooting |
in a gun-free zone in a gun-free zone
[Dissociated Press] In the wake of the horrific Navy Yard shootings in Washington, D.C., congressional gun control advocates held a press conference in the nation's capitol to outline their new approach to preventing mass shootings.
Congresswoman Shirley Dupe, (D) Maryland, proposed the new legislation:
"We are horrified that another mass shooting has been perpetrated against defenseless Americans... "A man in the back of the room interrupted the congresswoman:
"Wasn't it gun control advocates like you who made them defenseless? "The congresswoman ignored the question, and continued:
"We need to ban assault weapons."The man replied:
"The shooter didn't use an assault weapon. Most mass shooters don't use assault weapons. The worst mass shooter in American history-- at Virginia Tech-- killed 32 people and used two pistols."The congresswoman continued:
"We need background checks."The man replied:
"The Navy Yard shooter legally purchased his shotgun and had obtained a high level military security clearance. He passed extensive background checks."The congresswoman continued:
"Washington D.C. is a gun-free zone. The Washington Navy Yard is a gun-free zone in a gun-free zone. Yet a gunman just killed 12 people. So the solution is obvious."She paused.
"We need legislation to make gun-free zones in gun-free zones gun-free zones."The man spoke again.
"Congresswoman, nearly all of the mass shootings in recent years have been in gun-free zones. Columbine, the Long Island Railroad, Westroads Mall, Virginia Tech, Clackamas shopping center, Red Lake High School, Northern Illinois University, the Amish elementary school, the University of Alabama Huntsville, Chardon High School, the Binghamton immigration center, Santa Monica College, Fort Hood, Oikos University, the Aurora movie theatre, the Washington Navy Yard are all gun-free zones.
Doesn't this latest massacre demonstrate once again that not only are gun-free zones ineffective in preventing mass shootings, but gun-free zones seem to attract mass shooters?"The congresswoman scowled.
"And why, pray tell, would a shooter choose a gun-free zone, when he knows full well that by carrying a gun with a high capacity magazine in a gun-free zone he is breaking the law? And why would a shooter choose a gun-free zone where he knows no one else will have a gun?"The man stared at the congresswoman, then sat down, and put his head in his hands.
Remember the post-Sandy Hook gun map incident when the Journal News published the addresses of all legal gun permit holders in Westchester and Rockland counties in New York?ReplyDelete
Well, here's a video of James O'Keefe (of Project Veritas) et al. posing as "Citizens Against Senseless Violence" visiting the homes of journalists working for Journal News, MSNBC, the Star-Ledger, and Eric Holder. None took their signs that said "THIS HOME IS PROUDLY GUN FREE."
Just days after the video release, the Journal News removed the interactive map from their story amidst growing public pressure. Months later, the editor and 16 other employees were fired, although "there is no indication the gun map played a role in the layoffs." Right....
It wasn’t a gun free zone. There were plenty of good guys with guns at the Navy yard. As a matter of fact two good guys with guns where shot, one of them was killed and the other seriously wounded.ReplyDelete
I’m sure Jesus would is proud of you for lying to protect mass murderers favorite weapons.
The definition of a gun free zone is not a place in which even the cops are unarmed. If that were the case, there wouldn't exist a gun free zone on the face of the earth. A gun free zone is one in which only the cops are allowed to carry.Delete
There weren't "plenty" of good guys with guns either. There were a few military police. They got in a shootout with the bad guy as police do and it cost them their lives.
What exactly would convince you that gun free zones don't work? What we have here is a gun free Naval base contained within a city that has some of the strictest gun laws in the country, and yet this guy was able to get a gun inside and start blasting people. The other law-abiding citizens were sitting ducks until the police came. Sounds to me like gun control failed here.
But to the true believer--such as yourself--all evidence proves their preconceived notion. This mut not have been a gun free zone! If it had been, then it would have made the whole concept of gun free zones seem rather silly, so you bend the definition of the term. Please tell me under what circumstances you would be willing to admit that the concept of gun free zones is stupid. Only in a place in which no one, not even the cops has guns? Yeah, let's try that one. Then even the police will be at the mercy of some psycho with a gun.
The problem isn’t gun free zones, it the gun full zones right next to them.Delete
There's an interesting food fight going on about this "gun-free zone" issue. The New Republic, a leftist magazine, has taken issue with the claim by the Washington Examiner that Bill Clinton was responsible for the DoD Directive that disarmed officers on US military bases. They provide a link to a scan of the original document (DoD Directive 5210.56) dated 2/5/92. Therefore, Bill Clinton could not have been responsible for creating that policy. His eensy-weensy teensy-tiny itsy-bitsy not worth mentioning responsibility was only for implementation and allowing it to continue.ReplyDelete
However, with the Left, it's more often what they don't tell you that is relevant.
The New Republic fails to mention that DoD Directive 5210.56 was reissued on 4/1/2011 by the Obama Administration DoD.
Now the interesting thing about the reissue date is that it follows a case of military "workplace violence" known to the public as the Fort Hood Massacre. In case the "journalists" at The New Republic have forgotten,
Nidal Malik Hasan [piss be upon him], a U.S. Army major and psychiatrist, fatally shot 13 people and injured more than 30 others. It is the worst shooting ever to take place on an American military base.
Disarmed military personnel sacrificed their lives trying to stop Hasan with chairs and tables. The blood ran so thickly that rescuers "were unable to maintain balance, and had difficulty reaching the wounded to help them". Before armed civilian help was able to arrive, Hasan had discharged 146 rounds within the Soldier Readiness Processing Center. Did I mention that Ft Hood was a "gun-free" zone?
It is also worth noting that Ft Hood is the home for the 89th Military Police Brigade.
But Nadal was finally - finally - subdued by gunshots from an armed civilian police sergeant, Mark Todd.
Normally, one tends to think of human intelligence as one's ability to adapt. It should be fairly clear, particularly after reading reports from the Disassociated Press, that gun-free zones are wonderful safe havens until they are not gun free anymore. After the Ft Hood Massacre, only blind ideological allegiance to an empirically failed policy could result in reissuance of the same failed policy expecting different results. Perhaps we should drink more water.
In summary, though, they say that in the land of the blind a one-eyed man is king. Similarly, in a gun free land the man with a gun is a tin god with the power of life and death. Don't visit gun free zones if you can avoid it. One nutcase and you're history.
"One nutcase and you're history."ReplyDelete
With one firearm per capita in the US, that's an accurate assessment. Everyone should carry a gun wherever they go. It will be like a war zone. So cool!
The "war zone" mythology is one of the oldest canards of the power-hungry civilian disarmament left.Delete
International evidence and comparisons have long been offered as proof of the mantra that more guns mean more deaths and that fewer guns, therefore, mean fewer deaths. Unfortunately, such discussions are all too often been afflicted by misconceptions and factual error and focus on comparisons that are unrepresentative.
--- Abstract, Kates & Mauser, Harvard Journal of Law and Public Policy (v 30, #2)
If you are surprised by [our] finding[s], so [are we]. [We] did not begin this research with any intent to “exonerate” handguns, but there it is—a negative finding, to be sure, but a negative finding is nevertheless a positive contribution. It directs us where not to aim public health resources
--- Centerwall, Am J Epidemiology, as cited in Kates and Mauser
It's hard to take seriously the paper by Kates and Mauser, which clearly relies on bogus statistics.Delete
For example, they claim that "manifest success in keeping its people disarmed did not prevent the Soviet Union from having far and away the highest murder rate in the developed world." This is pure and unadulterated bullshit. Whatever you think about the USSR as a police state, it was a pretty safe place.
The numbers for 1989 (when the crime in the USSR was on the rise) are readily available from the National Criminal Justice Reference Service. The 1989 murder rate works out to 0.44 (per 100,000 people per year). These days, it's 13 (2011). The corresponding numbers in the US were 8.9 (1989) and 4.7 (2011).
Your faith in the official statistics of the Soviet Union is touching, Hoots. You get the Walter Duranty Award!Delete
Were you surprised when that excellently-built power generation facility, Chernobyl, "went offline"? Are you a fan of Soviet shoes? A collector of antique Ladas? And THERE WERE NO TOILET PAPER SHORTAGES, Comrade! That's just "bogus statistics".
I hope the nurses allow you to carry a toy gun, admiral. You never know about those other residents.ReplyDelete
Oh dear! Such a powerful rebuttal! Are you going for the Darrow award?Delete
That's not a rebuttal, admiral. I am merely concerned for your safety. Those 90-year olds can be feisty.Delete
If they don't allow toy guns in your nursing home, consider a plastic knife.
News you can use: President Lackwit has waived sections 40 and 40A of the Arms Control Export Act, prohibiting the export of arms to entities that provide "support for acts of international terrorism".Delete
No word on DoD 5210.56, though.
In the wake of the shooting at a Washington naval facility that left 13 dead, President Barack Obama renewed his call for Congress to pass background check reforms...ReplyDelete
--- NBC News
A federal judge cast doubt on [the Obama Administration] efforts to restrict employers' use of criminal-background checks in hiring...
Is this a great Administration, or what?
Is this precious...?ReplyDelete
Whatever you think about the USSR as a police state, it was a pretty safe place.
--- Hoot Toot
Ahhh. The Safety Mantra. I love it. Allow me to slightly rephrase...
Whatever you think about the USSR as a living left-wing hell, where a great day included Chinese canned peaches on the grocery shelves if you could just get there in time, and a bad day included a knock on the door at 3AM for an escort service direct to the Lubyanka basement for some stimulating time with a car battery connected to your genitals, it was a pretty safe place. The government told you so, and you'd better agree or be ready to face the jumper cables.
Some people admire the "safety" of the Soviet Union. They tend to be either sadistic thugs or their enablers, snitches.
One need not admire the underlying reason for less crime in the USSR to acknowledge the fact itself. Kates and Mauser are completely off their rocker, which is clear to anyone with a brain.Delete
Hoots Toots: "One need not admire the underlying reason for less crime in the USSR to acknowledge the fact itself."Delete
The "underlying reason" for the appearance of "less crime" in the USSR was purely political:
Detailed crime statistics for the USSR were never published, and a Soviet journalist, L. Vladimirov, who defected to Britain in 1966, confirmed that it was forbidden to mention the number of crimes in the country as a whole or for regions, district, provinces or cities...
"The elimination of private property in the means of production, the eradication of the exploitation of one person by another, and the resolution of social antagonisms led to the disappearance of basic social roots of crime". (B. A. Viktorov, Deputy Minister for Internal Affairs)
--- Wiki: Crime in the Soviet Union
Weak effort, Mr Duranty. Things must be tough out there in Potemkingrad. :-)
But hoo really cares about the stories in Pravda? How about the stories here in the US:
A couple of new studies reveal the gun-control hypesters’ worst nightmare… more people are buying firearms, while firearm-related homicides and suicides are steadily diminishing. What crackpots came up with these conclusions? One set of statistics was compiled by the U.S. Department of Justice. The other was reported by the Pew Research Center.
--- Forbes: "Disarming Realities: As Gun Sales Soar, Gun Crimes Plummet" (5/14/2013)
Again, this is all beside the point.Delete
You cited Kates and Mauser, who made a laughable claim that the murder rate in the USSR was the highest in the developed world. This claim is false, period. Crime has soared recently in Russia; the current murder rate is higher than in the US by a factor of 2 or so; but it didn't used to be the case, it used to be much lower than in the US.
Admit that you can't rely on their paper and move on.
Hoots: "Admit that you can't rely on their paper and move on."Delete
I admit nothing of the sort. That's your silly claim, based wholly on Soviet statistics as reported by the US government.
And the US crime rate is "beside the point"? It's not beside my point, nor is it "beside" Kates & Mauser's point. It is the point of Egnors post, my comments, and their paper. This rabbit trail of yours about Soviet statistics is not the point.
You've had enough attention for today.
Right. Stomp your feet and run away, admiral!Delete
Good seeing you, as always.
For those who are actually interested in Soviet homicide rates, even under the jackboot of the KGB and draconian gun laws, Pridemore published an analysis (funded by a grant from the DoJ) in Homicide Studies (2001). You can download the full text here. The author, WA Pridemore, is Distinguished University Professor of Criminal Justice and Criminology in the Andrew Young School of Policy Studies.ReplyDelete
Professor Pridemore notes a common error made by people who have little familiarity with the actual nature of the Soviet Union and its propensity, indeed political imperative, to falsify important national statistics. To wit:
despite the diverse problems associated with Soviet totalitarianism, at least the Soviet Union maintained low rates of crime and violence.
Some of the more foolish and callow, after doing a simple-minded Google search, might say something like "one need not admire the underlying reason for less crime in the USSR to acknowledge the fact itself."
Following the collapse of the Soviet Union, many Western researchers were able, for the first time, to get a first-hand look at Soviet archives. Rather than rely wholly on the politicized crime statistics, Professor Pridemore looked at mortality/victimization data that, as late as 1989, was not only removed from the general data tables, it was moved to a special form and classified. In public documents, homicides were reported in the "unknown causes" category.
The money chart is Figure 2, comparing age-standardized homicide victimization rates from 1965 to 1998. In a masterstroke of understatement, Professor Pridemore observes that the "homicide rate was not as low as previously advertised". The use of the word "advertised" is telling, because, of course, there are many foolish people who will fall hook-line-sinker for advertising, hence the notion that a cologne or a car will make a man out of a mouse, n'est-ce pas? Why should the Soviets not deploy this tried and true strategy in a world populated by individuals that PT Barnum scorned as "suckers".
Now, if you want to skip the chart and just get the money quote, here it is:
Figure 2 reveals that the annual homicide rate in Russia has been comparable to or greater than the rate in the United States [since 1965].
Consequently, both the Disassociated Press and Kates & Mauser (i.e., "Since at least 1965, the false assertion that the United States has the industrialized world’s highest murder rate has been an artifact of politically motivated Soviet minimization designed to hide the true homicide rates") got it exactly right: "gun-free zones" (in the USSR's case, the entire country) perform the essential function of exposing the weakest and most vulnerable members of society to the unfettered predations of feral youth and thugs.
For those who want a handy rebuttal to the distortions and half-truths of the civilian disarmament and anti-2nd Amendment cadres, the Kates & Mauser paper is an outstanding resource.
And, in closing, a snippet of advice to wannabe scholars out there: always read the footnotes or risk looking the fool.
OK, so murder rates were about the same in the US and Soviet Union, with the US leading before 1975 and the USSR after 1975. Kates and Mauser are still wrong: "In the 1960s and early 1970s, the gunless Soviet Union’s murder rates paralleled or generally exceeded those of gun‐ridden America."Delete
This is such an interesting blog. You are very knowledgeable about this subject. Please check out my site.ReplyDelete
toy machine gun
This is such an interesting blog. You are very knowledgeable about this subject. Please check out my site.ReplyDelete
toy machine guns