“There is no way to know whether tougher gun restrictions would have prevented Barnes [above] from obtaining his weapons. But it is beyond dispute that easy access to firearms can quickly turn a simple argument or difficult situation into a deadly confrontation. And this violence is not limited to the proverbial mean streets.” – Washington Post editorial on the murder of Mount Rainier Park Ranger Margaret Anderson [click here for TTAG’s take on the issue]
“But it is beyond dispute”
—–
As soon as someone says this, you know they’re afraid of a counter-argument.
Right up there with “Of Course”, “It’s a fact”, “Everyone Agrees” and my all time favorite “Leading Experts Agree”
It’s a lot easier to establish your own facts than to face reality.
“There is no way to know whether tougher gun restrictions would have prevented Barnes [above] from obtaining his weapons.”
Yes there is a way to know-because concrete evidence exists that tougher gun laws do not prevent anyone from obtaining weapons. Anyone in doubt of this “beyond dispute” fact need only take a stroll down South Central LA at 3:00 am.
“But it is beyond dispute that easy access to firearms can quickly turn a simple argument or difficult situation into a deadly confrontation. And this violence is not limited to the proverbial mean streets.”
A situation can escalate into deadly force without ever using a weapon.Put someone in a chokehold long enough and they’ll die from aspyxiation.
True, violence is not limited to the mean streets. But I resent the implication that murder in the mountains is unacceptable compared to a tolerance of murder in less wealthy districts of America.
Sounds to me like this warm and fuzzy bleeding heart is projecting her own fears of what she might do if she carried a gun and was made angry. Face it gun-grabbers, not everyone is as mentally weak and morally bankrupt as you; if you don’t feel comfortable with a gun, don’t get one, but leave us responsible people alone about it.
Wow! +1
i second Ralph, +2. This seems to be the basis of many anti 2a arguments, “Projecting their own fears” as silver smartly put it. I would caveat that quote with the fact that this fear is combined with a “what kind of person owns XYZ type of gun, or amount of guns owned by an individual.”
But you’re not responsible. You would have it so that jerk-off with the tattoos can easily get guns. You oppose the kinds of restrictions that would prevent some of them from arming up and doing their thing. That’s irresponsible of YOU.
““There is no way to know whether tougher gun restrictions would have prevented Barnes [above] from obtaining his weapons.”
—–
Are you kidding me? Even your own side admits that the efficacy of gun control is in doubt!
“You oppose the kinds of restrictions that would prevent some of them from arming up and doing their thing. ”
Are you referring to the pubes test that your cobloggers think is such a hot idea?
Again, it’s not the guns that are the problem, but people. Any “jerk-off” could just as easily walk into a Home Depot and come out with something exponentially more lethal (i.e. bomb making material) than a gun. It’s not the brush, but the artist that makes the picture.
So Mikeb,
You think that people should be judged by the color, or multicolor, of their skin and have their individual rights restricted based on this? Isn’t that the definition of racism?
So the truth comes out. Mikeb is a blatent self admitted racist. The facts cannot be disputed… 😉
What the hell are you babbling about KY?
Actually, the irresponsible one is someone like you, who refuses to take responsibility for his own safety and that of his loved ones. You’d rather depend on the poh-lice to save you, which they won’t be around to do if and when the time comes. Duh.
To save me from what, Chas? How many times have you had to save your family from that whatever it is you fantacize about?
I’ve never had to, Mike, and I plan to keep it that way. What about the people who have actually had to defend their lives? Are you actually stupid enough to believe that just because it’s never happened to someone that it never will? SERIOUSLY???
No, Chas, I’m not stupid at all. Thanks for asking though.
The point I keep making, which seems to still elude you, is that true DGUs are rare compared to accidents, negligence, theft and general misuse.
“The unproven assumption I keep stating as if it were fact, which seems to still elude you, is that true DGUs are rare compared to accidents, negligence, theft and general misuse.”
—–
Fixed that for ya.
Your point is moot. Ask anyone who’s been attacked (and there are plenty) if they thought they were going to be attacked when they woke up that morning.
If you read mike’s response closely, he carefully says that restrictions would prevent SOME of these types of crimes. On the face of it, that is a true statement. A series of licensing, registration, criminalization of private sales, confiscation and prison time MIGHT have prevented Mr. Barnes from getting a gun.
Regularly timed and mandatory licensing procedures would have forced Mr. Barnes to appear in front of a magistrate who would see the drunk driving and illegal transport of arms convictions that got him booted from the Army, see the record of the custody dispute where the opposing party accused him of being irrational, angry and suicidal, and see the pattern of PTSD, and deny Barnes a license.
That denial would have triggered an order to send police to Mr. Barnes’ residence where they would search for all his registered firearms. If they couldn’t find every one, Barnes would be shipped to prison.
If the police found all the guns, but Barnes had one hidden from an illegal private sale, then when they found that gun next to Barnes’ corpse, they would have used the registration system to find the legal owner and tossed him in prison.
Of course, none of that would have stopped Bob Yazdanpanah from killing his family on Christmas. It wouldn’t stop any of the criminals who have no prior convictions, court orders, or accusations of mental instability. It wouldn’t stop anyone — Mr. Barnes included — from buying a gun and ammo on a black market that would arise with licensing and registration.
Those laws would create a large, expensive, and politically influenced bureaucracy that would weigh on Americans simply for exercising a right. I’d bet it also would have prevented an 18-year old like Sarah McKinley from having a gun to protect herself and child.
No, mikeb, people who support gun rights are not responsible for Mr. Barnes’ actions, any more than you would be if he had committed those crimes in spite of your laws. Instead of draconian gun laws, we could have given Barnes the psychological help he needed so that an American veteran could have become a successful part of our society.
Where you’re wrong is right here.
“Those laws would create a large, expensive, and politically influenced bureaucracy that would weigh on Americans simply for exercising a right.”
Actually, the gun control situation that I propose would not affect you much at all, as long as you’re qualified. But, it would screen out many of the worst cases,
No, where I’m right is right there. That type of licensing and registration would affect me. All just to try to find “many” (?) of the “worst” (?) cases. Assuming a yearly license interview for all gun owners would require funding of a state agency that would be subject to the vagaries of a legislative budget process. Defund the agency = licenses that don’t get processed = gun owners turned into criminals. The “may issue” licensing you desire is what they have in Chicago. If you’re an alderman or donated enough money to the Daley campaign, you got the permit. Anyone else, no chance.
Try again, mike.
And you would prevent anyone from being armed since anyone with hands and feet could commit a crime. And we all know that every one of us is either a criminal or about to be one, right?
“Pubes test?” wtf.
MikeB’s coblogger Dog Gone thinks that it is a great idea to have all gun owners regularly take the drug tests where a hair sample is submitted. The “pubes test” refers to the even more absurd direction the conversation went when bald people were brought up.
Absurdity? On MikeB’s blog? The heck you say…
wow…..just……wow.
Actually I stayed out of that conversation because of it’s absurdity.
I’m just glad we don’t have to deal with that absurdity over here. The level of discourse is much more reasonable at TTAG.
Nice ink.
Or maybe we could actually properly fund the VA after sending thousands upon thousands of our servicemen and women to war and work on effectively treating PTSD?
Wait, what am I saying? That would require actually doing the right thing.
Never mind…
+100
CarlosT, we don’t know whether or not Barnes had PTSD problems because of his service or whether he was just nuts. And frankly, I’m not sure how much it matters. The straight skinny is that the nation doesn’t take care of soldiers after they leave the service, and as a nation we never have. I think I know how you feel about that. As for me, I feel that it’s a national disgrace.
I’m basing that off a quote from the other TTAG post on this:
Veterans benefits are often put on the chopping block by both sides when they want to fund their priorities, and yes, it is a disgrace. The VA should be well funded during normal times and it should be extremely well funded when we’re fighting multiple wars. That should just be a given.
Yep. Way too many recent vets are ending up in trouble – homeless, addicted, mentally ill. We can do better. We also need to deal with the tendency (as an unofficial policy) of the military to give other-than-honorable or administrative discharges to vets who act out due to PTSD or traumatic brain injury issues. These people are totally screwed, no benefits . If we’re going to fight these wars (which we should not), we damn well better take care of the people we send to do it.
Actually, my Father’s Brother fell into this exact category. He suffered a bad head wound as a P-40 fighter pilot over the Med. He came home and seemed very moody, bi-polar, and suicidal. He tried and failed to kill himself by shooting Dad’s .22 Savage Rifle into his chest. My Mom’s Brother ( who was a B-26 pilot ) and became a Deputy Sheriff had to arrest him at one point. The guy was in and out of VA mental hospitals all during the 1950s. I guess he had a couple of guns and was calling Dad on the phone threatening to kill us all. I guess Dad had to talk to him and reassure him that we were his relatives and we were looking out for him; and talk him out of the mood to kill us all.
Comments are closed.