Sad when the Onion is this right

[FruminousBandersnatch]

‘No Way To Prevent This,’ Says Only Nation Where This Regularly Happens

ISLA VISTA, CA—In the days following a violent rampage in southern California in which a lone attacker killed seven individuals, including himself, and seriously injured over a dozen others, citizens living in the only country where this kind of mass killing routinely occurs reportedly concluded Tuesday that there was no way to prevent the massacre from taking place. ...

For the rest see http://www.theonion.com/articles/no-way-to-prevent-this-says-only-nation-where-this,36131/

Because, of course, in the "real" world, "Joe the Plumber" published this "OPEN LETTER: To the parents of the victims murdered by Elliot Rodger" where he compassionately says, "I am sorry you lost your child. I myself have a son and daughter and the one thing I never want to go through, is what you are going through now. But:

As harsh as this sounds – your dead kids don’t trump my Constitutional rights."

Read more at http://barbwire.com/2014/05/27/open-letter-parents-victims-murdered-elliot-rodger/

[Anonymous]

It's not funny. It's also wrong. Mass killings occur all over the world.

[Anonymous]

We need our own Sulla to bring reform. Maybe less bloodshed though.

[FruminousBandersnatch]

Anonymous wrote:It's not funny. It's also wrong. Mass killings occur all over the world.

(a) The Onion wasn't really trying to be ha-ha funny. Satire is supposed to point out things about the world, not necessarily make you laugh. And the bit about Joe the Plumber wasn't part of the Onion article. That was real.

(b) Which other developed nation has mass killings at the rate we do?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:It's not funny. It's also wrong. Mass killings occur all over the world.

There are many countries where it is exceedingly rare.

Have you taken a look at the countries with higher homicide rates than ours? Not exactly the kind of countries we consider our peers.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It's not funny. It's also wrong. Mass killings occur all over the world.

There are many countries where it is exceedingly rare.

Have you taken a look at the countries with higher homicide rates than ours? Not exactly the kind of countries we consider our peers.

Exactly. Mass killings are rare in most developed countries. You are right that they are common in places like Syria but you would think the US would want to aim a little higher than that...

[Anonymous]

I thought he stabbed and hatcheted 3 people and ran over others in his car.

Gun violence has dropped substantially over the last 20 years.
What's the push to take gun rights away from law abiding citizens? It's good for smart, tough and healthy citizens to be armed in case the government ever decides to go too far .

[FruminousBandersnatch]

Anonymous wrote:I thought he stabbed and hatcheted 3 people and ran over others in his car.

Gun violence has dropped substantially over the last 20 years.
What's the push to take gun rights away from law abiding citizens? It's good for smart, tough and healthy citizens to be armed in case the government ever decides to go too far .

You think if the government "decides to go too far" and has the support of the military that you're gonna go all "Wolverines" on them, hide in the mountains and commit acts of sabotage until the civilian population comes to its senses and rallies to your side?

Right now you and all your "patriot" buddies are outgunned by the military and the police. The military and the police have weapons that are inaccessible to civilians, air power and armored vehicles, not to mention training and practice. The idea that "armed patriots" are a check on government excess in the modern era is a macho masturbatory fantasy to pump up your own self-importance.

Where you're correct is stating that gun violence has dropped substantially, which significantly decreases the value of the other argument that gun rights supporters use, which is that you need the gun for "home protection."

Even with the decrease in gun violence in this country, we're still #28 in the world for gun homicides according to the UN's annual survey, and the top 27 (as well as a bunch of the ones below us) are not places we usually compare ourselves to.

The essence of your point is the same as Joe the Plumber's - "I'm sorry for your dead kid, but my right to have a gun is more important."

Feel free to put that bumper sticker on your car.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I thought he stabbed and hatcheted 3 people and ran over others in his car.

Gun violence has dropped substantially over the last 20 years.
What's the push to take gun rights away from law abiding citizens? It's good for smart, tough and healthy citizens to be armed in case the government ever decides to go too far .

Sure gun violence dropped after the end of the crack wars. But to a level of 10,000 homicides and 3.5 million violent nonfatal crimes with guns? Come on, saying it's lower does not make it good.

[Anonymous]

FruminousBandersnatch wrote:The idea that "armed patriots" are a check on government excess in the modern era is a macho masturbatory fantasy to pump up your own self-importance.

I know Jeff probably won't go for this, but can we go ahead and put this statement as a sticky at the top of the political discussion forum?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

FruminousBandersnatch wrote:The idea that "armed patriots" are a check on government excess in the modern era is a macho masturbatory fantasy to pump up your own self-importance.

I know Jeff probably won't go for this, but can we go ahead and put this statement as a sticky at the top of the political discussion forum?

That Cliven Bundy camp pretty much showed an armed electorate in action. They couldn't even work together for two weeks straight.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

FruminousBandersnatch wrote:The idea that "armed patriots" are a check on government excess in the modern era is a macho masturbatory fantasy to pump up your own self-importance.

I know Jeff probably won't go for this, but can we go ahead and put this statement as a sticky at the top of the political discussion forum?

That Cliven Bundy camp pretty much showed an armed electorate in action. They couldn't even work together for two weeks straight.

ROFL!!'n

[Anonymous]

FruminousBandersnatch wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I thought he stabbed and hatcheted 3 people and ran over others in his car.

Gun violence has dropped substantially over the last 20 years.
What's the push to take gun rights away from law abiding citizens? It's good for smart, tough and healthy citizens to be armed in case the government ever decides to go too far .

You think if the government "decides to go too far" and has the support of the military that you're gonna go all "Wolverines" on them, hide in the mountains and commit acts of sabotage until the civilian population comes to its senses and rallies to your side?

Right now you and all your "patriot" buddies are outgunned by the military and the police. The military and the police have weapons that are inaccessible to civilians, air power and armored vehicles, not to mention training and practice. The idea that "armed patriots" are a check on government excess in the modern era is a macho masturbatory fantasy to pump up your own self-importance.

Where you're correct is stating that gun violence has dropped substantially, which significantly decreases the value of the other argument that gun rights supporters use, which is that you need the gun for "home protection."

Even with the decrease in gun violence in this country, we're still #28 in the world for gun homicides according to the UN's annual survey, and the top 27 (as well as a bunch of the ones below us) are not places we usually compare ourselves to.

The essence of your point is the same as Joe the Plumber's - "I'm sorry for your dead kid, but my right to have a gun is more important."

Feel free to put that bumper sticker on your car.

You are completely wrong about the "outgunned" part; whether you find the following facts frightening or not, there are far more armed non-military people in the US than there are active or even reserve military.

(from some extremist blog a few years back that was making the rounds on the 'net): "The world's largest army... America 's hunters! I had never thought about this...

A blogger added up the deer license sales in just a handful of states and arrived at a striking conclusion:

There were over 600,000 armed hunters this season in the state of Wisconsin. Allow me to restate that number: Over the last several months, Wisconsin's hunters became the eighth largest army in the world.

More men under arms than in Iran. More than France and Germany combined. These men deployed to the woods of a single American state, Wisconsin, to hunt with firearms, and no one was killed.

That number pales in comparison to the 750,000 who hunted with rifles in the woods of Pennsylvania and Michigan's 700,000 hunters, all of whom have now returned home safely. Toss in a quarter million armed hunters in West Virginia and it literally establishes the fact that the hunters of those four states alone would comprise the largest army in the world.
And then add in the total number of hunters in the other 46 states. It's millions more. All armed. All familiar with remote portions of their states. All equipped and able to survive in the wilderness if need be."


True - the military has more firepower - but how do you propose they deploy it? Drop nukes protesting Americans to quell unrest? You have vastly over-simplified the issue and underestimated the potential mayhem from mass civil unrest.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

FruminousBandersnatch wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I thought he stabbed and hatcheted 3 people and ran over others in his car.

Gun violence has dropped substantially over the last 20 years.
What's the push to take gun rights away from law abiding citizens? It's good for smart, tough and healthy citizens to be armed in case the government ever decides to go too far .

You think if the government "decides to go too far" and has the support of the military that you're gonna go all "Wolverines" on them, hide in the mountains and commit acts of sabotage until the civilian population comes to its senses and rallies to your side?

Right now you and all your "patriot" buddies are outgunned by the military and the police. The military and the police have weapons that are inaccessible to civilians, air power and armored vehicles, not to mention training and practice. The idea that "armed patriots" are a check on government excess in the modern era is a macho masturbatory fantasy to pump up your own self-importance.

Where you're correct is stating that gun violence has dropped substantially, which significantly decreases the value of the other argument that gun rights supporters use, which is that you need the gun for "home protection."

Even with the decrease in gun violence in this country, we're still #28 in the world for gun homicides according to the UN's annual survey, and the top 27 (as well as a bunch of the ones below us) are not places we usually compare ourselves to.

The essence of your point is the same as Joe the Plumber's - "I'm sorry for your dead kid, but my right to have a gun is more important."

Feel free to put that bumper sticker on your car.

You are completely wrong about the "outgunned" part; whether you find the following facts frightening or not, there are far more armed non-military people in the US than there are active or even reserve military.

(from some extremist blog a few years back that was making the rounds on the 'net): "The world's largest army... America 's hunters! I had never thought about this...

A blogger added up the deer license sales in just a handful of states and arrived at a striking conclusion:

There were over 600,000 armed hunters this season in the state of Wisconsin. Allow me to restate that number: Over the last several months, Wisconsin's hunters became the eighth largest army in the world.

More men under arms than in Iran. More than France and Germany combined. These men deployed to the woods of a single American state, Wisconsin, to hunt with firearms, and no one was killed.

That number pales in comparison to the 750,000 who hunted with rifles in the woods of Pennsylvania and Michigan's 700,000 hunters, all of whom have now returned home safely. Toss in a quarter million armed hunters in West Virginia and it literally establishes the fact that the hunters of those four states alone would comprise the largest army in the world.
And then add in the total number of hunters in the other 46 states. It's millions more. All armed. All familiar with remote portions of their states. All equipped and able to survive in the wilderness if need be."


True - the military has more firepower - but how do you propose they deploy it? Drop nukes protesting Americans to quell unrest? You have vastly over-simplified the issue and underestimated the potential mayhem from mass civil unrest.

But that depends on all (or even a reasonable fraction):

(a) Deciding that the government has gone "too far" for a given value of "too far" (where "too far" would be action despite the multiple layers of distribution of government power - i.e., the separation of powers at the Federal level, the competing state government structures, etc.) AND
(b) Choosing to engage in some level of militarized disobedience AND
(c) Having some kind of organization that enables them to coordinate their actions without those communications channels being monitored/disrupted and the activities stopped before they start AND
(d) Being able to overcome the leadership conflicts associated with multiple independent groups attempting to engage in coordinated action AND
(e) Being able to overcome both the training and logistical advantages enjoyed by the government forces AND
(f) Being able to keep the civilian population on their side.

And that's just some of the difference. If there were a full scale armed rebellion by a coordinated group of armed civilians, that could cause problems, but at the end of the day it's just not realistic, and to claim that people need the right to bear arms as a check on government power is a theoretical argument to support the position of people who like to think of themselves as upholding some ideal of "patriotism" that has been spoon fed to them by the marketing department of the NRA and its member companies.

[Anonymous]

No one fights a war with handguns. And few homicides are committed with hunting rifles.

It seems like the middle ground is to focus on the type of weapons.