X-Post: The Wisdom of Walking Away: Avoiding the need for self-defense IS self-defense

In support of Law of Self Defense – Legally-Sound Self-Defense Strategy Rule #1: KEEP OUT OF TROUBLE IN 1st PLACE

A few excerpts:

To guide the crafting of a legally-sound self-defense strategy, I offer five basic rules:

Keep out of trouble in the first place
Minimize your legal exposure if trouble does start
Foster the confidence to act decisively when necessary
Diminish your perceived legal vulnerability
Facilitate acceptance of events

I know what you’re thinking: what’s with that first rule about “keeping out of trouble in the first place”? I don’t need to be told that, I’m the good guy, I don’t go getting into trouble.

Unfortunately, the vast majority of cases I see where an otherwise law-abiding armed citizen finds himself in legal trouble for having used force against another person, it is precisely because they failed to simply keep out of trouble in the 1st place. In talking with such folks I always ask, “looking back, were there any warning signals early on, that if you’d heeded them might have allowed you avoid the fight entirely?” The almost invariable answer, is “yes.”

---

As an armed citizen, however, Reeves–and all of us who arm ourselves in public–don’t have the luxury of having “bad days,” nor acting childishly. I never had a proper religious upbringing, but my wife is a good Christian lass, and when through her I cam across this passage from Corinthians I thought it really fit my philosophy of CCW:

When I was a child, I spoke as a child, I understood as a child, I thought as a child. But when I became a[n armed] man, I put away childish things.
1 Corinthians 13

To put it another way, too many people when first arming themselves feel as if, “Hey, now that I carry a gun, I don’t have to take BS from anybody.”

The truth could not be more the opposite. For those of us who carry a gun, we have to take BS from everybody. Except the felony aggressor. He we can defend ourselves against. But the merely obnoxious, bullying types that roam this earth–well, my advice is to simply avoid them.

I urge you to read the whole post, which discusses the recent shooting in a FL movie theatre.

The author has it exactly right. There are things worth killing or dying over...but not many, (and certainly not an argument over texting, somebody looking at you the wrong way or insulting your favorite football team or choice of political candidate, a dent in your car bumper, ...) There are lots of times when letting an asshole "win the argument" and walking away is the far smarter course of action, and doing so may even save your life...or his.

I read a great article set of comments at a gun rights blog about a year ago (I think) saying a very similar thing as regards George Zimmerman. Their argument was that, whatever the law decided, Zimmerman foolishly put himself in the position that lead to his firing his gun at Trayvon Martin and was no second amendment or gun rights hero. (Of course I can't locate the article now, but my searching wasn't a total loss (See below)... And if I happen to find it later, I can always add it in. UPDATE: I think it may've been several comments, beginning with this one, at THE ZIMMERMAN VERDICT, PART 1. Yes, I misremembered; The author of the post, Massad Ayoob, disagrees with that assessment. But for a VERY thorough look at the whole Zimmerman case from a gun rights perspective, offered just post verdict, Ayoob's multi-part series cannot be beat, whether you ultimately agree with his take on the specifics or not.) I don't believe the author of the piece above, Andrew Branca, shares that view of Zimmerman either, but that doesn't take away from the wisdom of his current post.
---

...my searching wasn't a total loss...

While I was looking for the post I described, I rediscovered one of the best arguments I've ever read in favor of gun rights. Since I both found it originally and rediscovered it via Stogie at Saberpoint, I'll give him the h/t: An opinion on gun control | Monster Hunter Nation. It is still possible to argue for increased / improved gun control laws even after reading his post--I myself still favor thorough, universal background checks, even if that means it takes longer to complete the purchase of a firearm--but Larry Correia doesn't make it easy.
---

A Wingnuts and Moonbats x-post

In Reply: Provoking Public Fear No Way to Sell Responsible Gun Ownership (Men armed with rifles walk through Portland to 'educate' )

In reply to Men armed with rifles walk through Portland to 'educate' - KPTV - FOX 12
---

Probably be a good idea to proactively identify their intent, somehow (A t-shirt or a sign, perhaps?).

Just strolling through the streets--and with the camo headscarf, rightly or wrongly seen as the "hoodie" of the mass casualty gunman, besides--was probably a little short-sighted...though probably also intentional. (While they may just be idiots, I suspect that they intended to provoke both the public fear and the police presence as a way of furthering their cause.)

Having a right to do a thing doesn't always make it the right (or smart) thing to do.
---

There are a whole lotta good comments appended to the post, but two stood out for me (of the ones I read, anyway. There were over 400...):

Ebony Leopard commented:

"The greatest threat to gun owner's rights are other gun owners."

And "EMGK4O" said:

I am pro-gun and a hunter. Open-carry through a Portland neighborhood with AR-15s is ignorant, if not stupid. This is counter-productive to those of us who use guns responsibly. Of course, the last thing we need are laws to keep this from happening. If I was there, I would also have approached these two and gave them an educated reason why they are being irresponsible.

Also - for those of you who dislike guns, if the day ever comes you or your family needs defended with force, I will put my life on the line and use the tools I have to defend my countrymen. Until that day, you won't know who I am or what I would do to help your family - regardless of where you stand on gun control. If that day ever comes, you will be thankful for responsible gun owners and the laws which give us the ability to defend our freedom. These two are hooligans who don't represent responsible gun owners.

Like the fools threatening to kill any law enforcement or government agent who comes anywhere near their guns--I'm sure you've all seen (or at least heard about) this unhinged fellow, for instance:


--these two idiots aren't helping to convince the American public that gun owners are responsible and trustworthy, and therefore further legal restrictions and safeguards are unnecessary.

Posted 1/11/13, 9:00PM (via ipad, initially... Reformatted and otherwise updated for clarity: 1/12, 7:00 AM)

In Reply: Not So Sure About Arming Kindergarten Teachers

In reply to Move to arm teachers picks up steam in TN - The Tennessean - tennessean.com
---

I honestly don't know what to think on this one...

I'm an "evolving" liberal on concealed carry--as far back as Virginia Tech I was supporting CCW for current and former law enforcement and military students on college campuses, but I've got nagging--though non-specific--reservations about elementary and middle school teachers being armed.

What would be the legal liability for teachers and districts who had armed employees who failed to protect their students...or worse, accidentally shot one in the course of trying to protect them? Any law that allows responsible gun owners--and especially non-law enforcement civilians--to carry guns in schools has got to explicitly address that issue.

While I do lean toward concealed carry these days, I still worry that it will lead to more self-appointed "heroes" like George Zimmerman looking for trouble and injuring or killing people who wouldn't be shot but for the actions of an over-confident gun owner. While I'm all but certain such cases will be few relative to the number of gun owners out there (VERY few, probably), those few cases do still weigh on me... (I'm more of a "Castle Doctrine" guy, myself... By all means shoot anyone whose trying to get into your locked house against your wishes. But any scenario that involves you going after someone to initiate a confrontation or take aim at someone who is retreating, doesn't sit so well with me...)
---

Posted January 7 at 10:47pm

In Reply: "I've been "evolving" on the gun control debate since at least VA Tech..."

In reply to Saberpoint: "An Opinion on Gun Control" Article Goes Viral
---

A good post over there. Shocked as you may be, I think Larry Correia comes off--and actually is--very knowledgable and persuasive. I've been "evolving" on the gun control debate since at least VA Tech--even suggesting in comments after that one that military vets and other law enforcement types who're also college students or employees be permitted concealed carry on campuses. (I went back recently to find, quote and cite those earlier comments at that blog, but the blogger where I'd posted them had changed commenting platforms, deleting all the old reader commentary.) By this point, I'm probably not too far away from supporting unlimited concealed carry.

Since you're probably more familiar with the issue in general and Correia in particular (and since 1000+ comments are a whole lot to even skim through), are you aware of (and can you point me to) anything he's said about the argument that when the police do arrive to a "shots fired" crime scene, they won't be able to tell the good gunmen from the bad ones. Where I have seen that addressed at all by people who I think would know (police officers, mostly), they do see it as an issue. (Not one that should prevent CC necessarily, but an issue.) Curious to see what this guy has to say...

I do still worry that more guns in more hands could well lead to more / more lethal "crime of passion" / "heat of the moment" violence, but as I've been saying recently about another situation, you can't legislate away possibilities and " what if's."
--

I originally "posted" this comment today at 10:48 AM (Saberpoint blog time), but it only showed up via the mobile device Saberpoint blog feed. I also e-mailed Stogie about this "mobile (google comments) vs desktop (Disqus comments)" disconnect an hour or two ago, but curiosity got the better of me... I wanted to see whether this Disqus comment would show up in the mobile stream, or whether it's one or the other, whichever way a commenter starts. Needless to say, Stogie, you can delete the earlier one, as long as this one shows up for folks to read on the blog. (As long as I was "re"posting, I also corrected a spelling and grammar error or five I didn't notice the first time.)
---

Posted Saturday, December 23, 2012, 3:48 PM (or thereabouts)

In Reply: Glorifying Violence, and How Not To...

Revised and extended, in Reply to: Why Do We Tolerate Glorified Gun Violence In Movies And On TV? | The Lonely Conservative, and the following passage in particular:

Even if you don’t go out seeking violent movies and TV shows, just watching a football game can bring the violence into your home during commercials. It happened yesterday when ads for Gangster Squad, starring Josh Brolin ran.
---

There are plenty who argue that the football game itself promotes and glorifies violence (along with--variously-- boxing, pro-wrestling, mixed martial arts fighting, ...).

In a similar vein, some applaud the fact that Little Rascals" shorts and copies of Disney's "Song of the South" are so hard to find, celebrating their removal from society as a blow against racism. (And a subset of these folks advocate removing "Huckleberry Finn" from school libraries, too.)

The key is what WE individually tolerate. I trust no one here is advocating government or corporate censorship of violent films--or having someone like Bill Cosby buy them up and lock them away in a vault, either--but there is something to be said for asking why WE support these violent films and video games with our entertainment dollars. The less money these things make, the less those in charge will choose to make or bankroll them.

We have to decide where to draw the lines for ourselves and for our children--I wouldn't want the government preventing films from being made or marketed, and I doubt any of you would, either--but there's always going to be someone advocating against "violence" (or "racism") that you find perfectly acceptable.

Free speech isn't pretty.
---

Submitted for moderator approval Posted 12/17/12, 1:28 PM (or so)

X-Post: Ghoulish Blogger Exploits Connecticut School Massacre to Attack Enemies, Spread Lies and Disinformation

So, it turns out that facts make no difference to my dishonest, despicable far-right criminal stalker, who posted this bald face lie on his blog early yesterday:

LINK

As we now know,

link

There's lots more disinformation where that came from, at the same guy's blog.
---

Of course, the guy wasn't REALLY lying when he said the rifle wasn't used during the massacre (and attacking me as a liar spreading disinformation for a retweet saying it had been); he was simply working with the facts available at the time (a whole lot like I was, though of course, it's ALL DIFFERENT when he screws up.) He is a lying douchebag, but not for reporting facts that later change. No, he is a lying douchebag for failing to acknowledge the fact that my error was very similar to his, and that in these fast moving stories, reported facts do turn out to be wrong, sometimes, and that both his error and mine as regards whether the gun was used in the massacre were not the result of deliberate malice or disinformation. His attacks on me, on the other hand, clearly are.

This cannot be more clearly evidenced by what the ass says next in his post reporting that the rifle was used during the massacre (and that he reported bad information in saying that it wasn't):

"Well, the actual facts of the story didn't matter to the radical leftists like Angie Coiro and her hate-addled followers like Walter James "Hatesac" Casper III. Indeed, it's not about "gun control" with these people. It's about literally destroying right-wing impediments to statist authoritarianism:"

That's right... This idiot gets "the actual facts" wrong in his earlier post, where he also cast all manner of aspersions on me for "being wrong," and in the very post saying I had it right after all and that HE was wrong, still lashes out at me as though I somehow lied.

In these posts at least, the guy doesn't care one bit about the kids who were massacred or about getting the story right. All he cares about is attacking me in any way he can.

I quote information that I believed to be true when I posted it, but that later turns out not to be, and he accuses me of spreading lies and disinformation.
Then he quotes information that he believes to be true when he posted it, but that later turns out not to be, and he STILL accuses me of spreading lies and disinformation (only now, without any evidence, at all.)

"This is the evil that [I] posted yesterday in [my] utterly inhumane rush to politically capitalize on the deaths of those innocent children, 16 of them just 6 years old. This is why decent, intelligent and God-fearing people stand up for the truth. This is why decent, law-abiding Americans repudiate [my] lies. They know where it leads. They know that [my] dishonesty will bring the reign of terror and the camps. The piles of bodies stacked like cord wood is the "taste of what's coming." [I] just lay it out there for everyone to see. It would be shocking but we've seen this play before and the millions of piled corpses before the final curtain."

This lying propagandist can kiss my ass. He's an obsessed, pathetic, desperate liar, and the more he lashes out at me and at "the left"--whatever that is--with this kind of crazy, easily debunked nonsense, the more he makes it obvious to everyone concerned.
---

Links:
[his blog]: Ghoulish Walter James Casper III Exploits Connecticut School Massacre to Push Gun Control, Spread Lies and Disinformation

[his blog]: Semiautomatic Rifle Was Used in Attack

Obsessed Much?
---

An x-post from a blog that once was

X-Post: Dishonest Donald Douglas Exploits Newtown Gun Massacre to Lash Out and Lie About Me (So what else is new?)

Ok... In one respect, Dishonest Donald caught me. I did RT a tweet originally posted at 1:39 PM (and RT'd by a person I follow at 9:37 PM) somewhere around 10 PM without checking to verify that the information I heard somewhere around 3 PM (I'm guessing... it was early-to-mid afternoon eastern the last time I watched a straight news report on the shootings) was still true in the 10 o'clock hour. As Donald notes, the information about this gun not being used in the massacre was updated (by CNN, anyway)at 6:51 PM. (I have since sent out two tweets (see below), one of which was @'ed to both the original tweeter and the retweeter)--and soon, there'll be this post, too--correcting the error.)

Apparently the tweet below misstates a fact. This gun waited in the car. (But does that really negate the question?) twitter.com/repsac3/status…

— J. Casper (@repsac3) December 15, 2012

@angie_coiro @aurosan Apparently this tweet misstates a fact. This gun waited in the car. (Some pretend that negates the question. Sad.)

— J. Casper (@repsac3) December 15, 2012

So, yeah, I was guilty of further spreading one "fact" reported early in the day that turned out not to be a fact later on. Anyone who thinks my doing so constitutes a "bald-faced lie" (like our friend Dishonest Donald Douglas, fer'instance) is claiming that they can read minds, and can somehow prove what I knew and when I knew it. And that's just nuts.

I should've checked. As soon as I found out--from Dishonest Don's absurd attack post--I corrected the error.

But given Donald's history of lashing out at me, I suspect that his most recent hissy-fit post--like oh so many others where he lashes out at me in similar fashion--has nothing to do with the Newtown massacre or with whether or not I intentionally lied or hit RT before verifying that nothing had changed since 1:39 PM, and everything to do with Donald Douglas' creepy obsession with me. As always, I invite each reader to check the facts and come to your own conclusions.

Links:
American Power: Ghoulish Walter James Casper III Exploits Connecticut School Massacre to Push Gun Control, Spread Lies and Disinformation

Obsessed much, Dr. Douglas?
---

An American Nihilist X-post

In Reply: The "Now is not the time" / "Don't politicize the tragedy" Waiting Period

In reply to the following comment I received on Facebook, which in turn was a reply to a share of the following tweet:

Immediately address the issue of gun control through the introduction of legislation in Congress. wh.gov/RN6U

— J. Casper (@repsac3) December 14, 2012

"Can we start by enforcing the laws we already have? Adding new ones is pointless if none of them are enforced. We also need to close the gun show loopholes."
---

I'm with you on all points... I just want there to be an intelligent conversation about all of the issues involved, including the mental health and family/societal issues you posted about on your wall. I believe we probably ought to reinstate the automatic weapons ban--it wasn't a factor in this massacre, but those weapons have played a part in others--and maybe do something to limit large magazines/clips, too, but aside that I don't have any real suggestions or answers.

My goal in signing this petition was to combat the ever-present bullshit about "it being too soon to talk about it" and admonitions against "politicizing the tragedy," both of which impose "waiting periods" that always seem to last just long enough to get us to the next tragedy that some would have us not talk about or politicize, either.

I don't know whether or not there are any new laws that could minimize the number of mass shootings in this country or the number of victims of them when they do occur... but I believe it's high time we stop waiting until the moment is perfect--it never will be--start talking about it and exploring the issues now, before the next mass casualty gun massacre occurs, and the "now's not the time"/"don't politicize the tragedy" waiting period clock starts all over again.
---

(Ironically, I accidentally posted about the White House petition twice; Once via the tweet, and once by sharing the link at the petition site. The friend who commented chose to do so at the tweet share, rather than at the link share to the petition, to which I'd added the following note in the first place):

This petition is a little vague, but because it's being featured at Memeorandum, it's likely going to get the signatures. I DON'T want to blindly limit access to guns across the board. But I would support waiting periods, more thorough background checks, closing gun show loopholes, and limiting access to weapons of war. No, you can't prevent every crime, and yes, a person determined to kill who cannot get a gun will probably use a knife or a bat. But if the killers at Va Tech (or Aurora, or Columbine, or ..., or ...) had been murdering with knives, far fewer would've died. We can talk about limiting access to knives when homicide by blade even begins to approach the numbers of those murdered by firearm.
---

Immediately address the issue of gun control through the introduction of legislation in Congress. | We the People: Your Voice in Our Government

In Reply: "The next AZ or VA Tech shooter shouldn't be using firearms he purchased legally..."

In reply to the following comment at the post After Shooting, Dems Will Introduce Gun And Speech Control Bills | Right Wing News:

"I could go right now to the bad side of town and and buy an illegal gun with little problem. (well, perhaps not me specificly...I look too much like a cop, or so I've been told, to be trusted by the street thug class. But you get my meaning.)
The existing laws are more than enough.

Also, you do realise that the two biggest mass murders and terrorist incidents in US history (the OKC bombing and 9/11) were carried out without any involvment with firearms, be they legal or illegal? So access to firearms is not the problem....it's criminals and terrorists.

Finally, 'reasonable'? What do you define as 'reasonable'? I'm all for bans on the ownership of guns by felons, the mentally ill, and those under 18. But beyond that I consider most anti-gun laws to be unreasonable. Self defence is a human right after all, and anything that harms that right is simply wrong."

I would like to see some of the rapid fire weaponry more restricted, but for the most part, I was talking about current law. Both this guy and the VA Tech shooter bought their guns legally. Both had incidents in their pasts that should've prevented them from doing so. Whether that was a failure of law or of enforcement, it needs to change, so that the next VA Tech/AZ shooter isn't using a gun they purchased legally. Even though we can't stop all of 'em, it doesn't follow that we therefore shouldn't try to stop any of 'em.

As I said, the fact that some terrorists/crazies can and will go buy illegal firearms is no reason not to prevent them from buying legal firearms. People without licenses also drive, but that's not a reason to stop the work of one's local department of motor vehicles. If forcing crazies/felons/terrorists to find an illegal dealer only prevents a quarter of the murder and mayhem those folks commit, that's still one quarter better than now.

The fact that the two biggest mass murders were accomplished without guns is kinda beside the point. The number of folks murdered by criminals/crazies/terrorists using guns is pretty high up there, as well. Whether or not we should limit access to planes, explosives, box cutters, etc. are separate questions to answer, and our choosing to limit access to one tool used by terrorists/crazies/criminals has little bearing on whether or not we also limit access to another. As far as I'm concerned anyway, access to the tools criminals/crazies/terrorists use to commit their acts, and specifically, doing what we can to prevent them from having such access, is definitely an issue worth discussing.

What you or I personally define as reasonable isn't really the issue, is it? What we as Americans, by virtue of the folks we elect, define as reasonable is the real question. Some of us will think we need to be more restrictive than you (or even I) do. Some will think I (and maybe even you, as well) am/(are) being too restrictive. But together, I'm sure we can some to some consensus, and if necessary, create new law. At the very least, we can demand better enforcement of current law, and oversight to see that it happens.
---

Posted 01/10/2011 04:03 PM

In Reply: "Anyone trying to sell the notion that either party is to blame, is exploiting the tragedy for political gain..."

In reply to 2nd Suspect Sought in Tucson Shooting – No Proof of Political Motive | Right Wing News, and in particular, the following comment:

Let me ask a question. These people on the right you're referring to, are they doing so directly or in the context of the claim of Ms. Palin's or the Tea Parties' culpability in this matter. To the extent its the former, please see my comment above. To the extent it's the latter, I just haven't encountered too many conservatives making this claim.

Your overall point, though, is accurate. This guy did it because he was plain-out batsh*t crazy. That oughtn't be a matter of political debate. Batsh*t crazy is independent of politics and batsh*t crazy isn't going to be appeased by a more pleasant tone of politics.

I don't really know how many of 'em are "in response," vs how many were posted subsequently because the "favorite book" list came out subsequently, but I'm not so sure how much that even matters. Whether or not these folks on the right are making ridiculous suggestions about the guy being a leftist in response to ridiculous suggestions from folks on the left claiming he was a rightist, or the tea party made him do it, or... well, whatever else they're claiming, they're still making ridiculous suggestions, that don't hold up under scrutiny.

I mean, if they were saying "If you can blame the tea party rhetoric (or the Ayn Rand book on the list, or the gold standard bullshit in his rants), why can't we blame "The Communist Manifesto, and thus call him a leftist" I'd be with you. But I don't agree that it is acceptable or in any way logical to answer one kind of foolishness (he's a product of the Tea Party/rightwing rhetoric) with different foolishness (He's obviously a leftist.)

Neither the left or the right (neither individual people, or the political philosophies of either camp) are responsible for what this guy did.

Anyone trying to sell the notion that the party they ain't a member of or the political philosophy they don't subscribe to is to blame, is exploiting the tragedy for partisan gain, and should be ashamed of themselves.
---

Posted 01/10/2011 02:31 PM

In reply: Profiling Terrorists and Potential Mass Murderers

In reply this post After Shooting, Dems Will Introduce Gun And Speech Control Bills | Right Wing News, and in particular, folks critical of the following comment, with whom I agree... to a point, anyway...:

"Does anyone know if he purchased his gun legally? This of course is the big question when it comes to gun control isn't it? If I buy a gun from my friend on the corner or a gun show then gun legislation is about as meaningless as a national gun registry (which doesn't exist) - or gun stores keeping paper records (which does exist). Perhaps we should look at the better solutions like profiling people more likely to start shooting in crowds. You know- white men."

I have to agree, Ezra... I was all ready to "like" that comment, until you mentioned the white men.

And yes, I did get your meaning, and agree that profiling (racial, sexual, religious, political, etc., though preferably all of 'em together, in one neat package) is a useful tool. It also can be misused, pretty easily. On the whole, though, I'm still in favor of it... We can deal with the ones who slide down that slippery slope as they tumble...

When you're looking for terrorists these days, some folks are more likely than others to be the ones you're lookin' for. When you're looking for serial killers and/or some kinds of mass murderers, folks with different demographics become the more likely perps.

The real question is, whether it'd be worth providing extra checks on some folks in some situations, in the name of preventing (or even just slowing, because nothing is 100%) terrorist acts... or for that matter, those proverbial lone gunmen, in their proverbial bell towers.
---

Posted 01/10/2011 02:02 PM

In Reply: The fact that no law will be 100% effective is not a reason to eschew having laws, at all

In reply to the following comment at the post After Shooting, Dems Will Introduce Gun And Speech Control Bills | Right Wing News

"Because everyone knows that a guy who plans on committing mass murder, including that of a Congresswoman, is going to be completely deterred by a law requiring gun registration.

/rolls eyes"

Slowed by reasonable gun laws and their enforcement, would be a step in the right direction, Bill. Sure, some crazies and terrorist types will still get through, and use a legally purchased guns to commit their crimes... But the fact that no law will be 100% effective is not a reason to fail to even try to stop (or even just slow) some crazies or terrorists in their quest to obtain legal firearms.
---

Posted 01/10/2011 01:43 PM

In Reply: There will always be crazy people... ...but we don't have to make it easy for 'em.

In reply to the following comment at Enough With The Political Blame Game When Things Like The Giffords Shooting Happen! | Right Wing News:

"Would it make you feel better if he had stabbed all those people?"
---

If he had a knife, he never would've been able to stab all those people, wound them as mortally, or kill as many as he did, before being taken down.

My argument isn't that no one should have guns, but that there should be more restrictions to prevent (or at least slow) crazy people from getting ahold of them... even if they end up trying to use knives or bats to commit their massacres, instead. When these things happen, and there is a documented history of crime or craziness, the people involved shouldn't have firearms they purchased legally. Even if it only stops half of the mass killings that occur in this country, it'd be worth it.

Knife? Hell, I'd've been happier if the guy had a musket, or one of them old-time two-shot Derringers, rather than the Glock with the extended clip he had. Even a revolver would've been a step in the right direction.

It'd make me feel better if it didn't happen at all. But there will always be crazy people, and there will always be weapons that they can use. That doesn't mean we have to make it easy for 'em by not sufficiently checking the background of the folks buying guns, or permitting guns that fire this rapidly and this often before reloading. As I said elsewhere, neither gun control or the second amendment are all or nothing propositions.
---

1/10/11, 12:50 PM

In Reply: Neither gun control (or the second amendment) is an all or nothing proposition

In reply to the following comment at Enough With The Political Blame Game When Things Like The Giffords Shooting Happen! | Right Wing News, against some else who argued that ""This violent act was caused because this individual had access to a firearm." While the commenter below chose to focus on "access to a firearm" portion, I'm more interested in the "this individual" part of the argument:

"And b/c muslims have access to bombs and airplanes, they kill people."
---

So, are you arguing that terrorists (the folks you call muslims) should therefore have access to bombs and airplanes, the way madmen here seem to have access to guns? Or might it be prudent to restrict some items from some people, so that they cannot use them to commit bad acts...

Gun control (or for that matter, the second amendment) isn't an all or nothing proposition. Some arms should be available; some shouldn't. Some people should be permitted to have them; some shouldn't. Once we agree that terrorists and madmen should not have access to rocket launchers, no matter what the second amendment says (are they not arms?), all that's left is to argue about who should/should not be permitted to have arms, and what arms they should/should not be permitted to have.

To suggest that there can be no restriction whatsoever, either in who can legally own arms, or what arms a person can legally own, is a pretty extreme position. (And yes, suggesting that no one can legally own any weapon is pretty extreme, as well.)
---

Posted 1/10/11, 12:10 PM

In Reply: If the guy is a madman, his politics cease to be significant

In reply to the following comment at Even As Arizona Shooting Story Unfolds, Some Media Already Blaming Tea Party/Sarah Palin | Right Wing News:

"'His own words were those of a madman.'

So your contention is that leftist and madman are mutually exclusive?

Lee Harvey Oswald was insane, and a leftist, and a murderer. I disagree with your notion that being crazy prevents him from being on the left.

I've known many a crazy leftist."
---

Leftist (or rightist) and madman are not mutually exclusive, but as being used here, they imply a causation between the two terms that just doesn't exist.

Madman is very likely the cause. Leftist (or rightist) is no more significant as a motivation for the the crime than "dark-haired," "male," "t-shirt-wearing," "college student," "saxophone-playing," "Arizonan" or any of the other words and phrases that describe some aspect of the guy. Pretending that any/every book on his reading list, his politics, or any aspect of his ramblings is somehow significant as a motivation for the crime--or as "proof" that some segment of the American population (whether "leftists," "rightists," or "saxophone players") is in any way culpable for the crime because this guy can be counted among them--is just pure foolishness.
---

Posted 1/10/11, 11:08 AM

In Reply: Crazy makes the politics of the AZ shooter kinda insignificant

In reply to the following comment, posted at 2nd Suspect Sought in Tucson Shooting – No Proof of Political Motive | Right Wing News:

"But, I don't see conservatives doing the same, with or without gusto. What I see is conservatives pointing out that the very opposite of the accusation is true. Think about it this way, imagine someone here started screaming that this was evidence that illegal immigration had gotten out of control, that the illegals had killed a U.S. Congresswoman. You respond that that's silly, the culprit wasn't an illegal alien. He was a native-born American. They in turn respond that clearly, you're attacking native-born Americans, by trying to tie them in with the killer. You'd conclude that's pretty silly, wouldn't you? That's kind of how your argument comes across."
---

Bill... If you haven't seen the folks on the right latching on to "The Communist Manifesto" in the guy's reading list as clear proof that he was a liberal (while conveniently ignoring the Ayn Rand book that doesn't fit their chosen meme), you haven't been paying enough attention. Sure, these folks on the right are a minority (just as the folks on the left claiming Palin was responsible are a minority of the left), but in both cases they're out there, exploiting the dead and injured in the name of striking a blow against the political partisans they believe to be eeeeevil.

The guy was crazy. Crazy make his politics, left or right, kinda insignificant, either as an explanation or motivation for his actions, or as some kinda evidence that ..."all (liberals/conservatives/Democrats/Republicans/???) are therefore evil, or wrong, or ...well, anything..., just like this guy." I mean, the Son of Sam says he did it because a dog told him to... but precious few reasonable people actually placed the blame on dogs for the murders, despite Berkowitz's claims.
---

Posted 1/10/11, 10:12 AM

In Reply: Using tragedy as partisan political attack

In reply to Rep. Gabrielle Giffords Shot by Gunman: Breaking Updates | Right Wing News, and in particular, those partisans who are trying to tie this nut to a particular political point of view in an effort to use this tragedy as a political attack.
---

The political rhetoric of both Sarah Palin's scope sights and "blueboy's" post at Daily Kos are both sadly over the top.

Are either of 'em responsible for this particular violence (or any violence, at all)? Almost certainly not. The coarsening of the culture, including violent or hateful political rhetoric like these examples are surely not good for any society, and yes, nutbags like this guy can perhaps be influenced by them. (To be clear, I'm not saying that there's any evidence that this guy WAS, only that it's possible that nutbags, including this guy, CAN BE.) But even without being a direct or indirect factor in violent acts, such rhetoric does divide us and set the stage for more (more quantity, and more over the top nasty) rhetoric. And that's just sad.

From what we know at present anyway, anyone trying to tie this guy or this massacre to any political party or point of view is talking out of their ass. Nuts are just nuts. (And I don't think that anyone can watch/read his three UTube "manifestos" and not come away thinking that this guy was fully in control of his faculties.) Blaming "the left" because he listed "The Communist Manifesto" as one of his favorite books (or blaming "the right" because he had a thing about gold-backed currency) is like blaming English teachers because he seemed to be obsessed with grammar. (Perhaps even moreso... He actually discussed grammar in his videos.)

The guy's nuts, so whether he says he did it because he's opposed to one political party or point of view or another, or because the butter dish on his breakfast table told him to, one would have to be a pretty desperate partisan to take the guy seriously and believe that he represents or proves anything about any political point of view.

That's not to say that there haven't been folks who've killed in the name of some sociopolitical cause or another, left and right, but this ain't one of 'em. (And really, ANYONE who kills in the name of a sociopolitical cause is pretty much on the fringe of American society, and not representative of or "proof of the inherent eeeeevil of") Republicans, Democrats, liberals or conservatives, and anyone who says different is again, pretty desperate to promote their own way of thinkin' and/or discredit everyone else's.)