Good Morning, News!


Wow, did I ever pick a hard time to be a diehard defender of firearms rights on Blogtown.

Anyways, here’s two relevant items:

Nick Meli was at the Clackamas mall, he had a CHL, he was armed, he even pointed his gun at the shooter….watch the video.

Other video:
Suzanna Gratia Hupp – In 1991, sunny beautiful day in Killeen, Texas – She sat down for lunch with her family, a gunmen came in and killed 21 people, including her family.

This is the testimony she gave, and it propelled a political career:

I love how the video starts out with castrating a victim for being “only shot with a .22 revolver.” That’s how compelling of testimony this woman gave. It is a definitive argument in regards to Assault Weapons, Concealed Carry, and the Right to Self Defense.
Happy holidays!
"Wow, did I ever pick a hard time to be a diehard defender of firearms rights on Blogtown."

indeed you did, fidelity.

you see, the basic problem with the fight you're fighting, as i'm sure you are coming to realize more and more, is that it relies (too) heavily on the premise that people in general are responsible, sane, prudent, thinking beings. we are not. generally speaking, we are sloppy, self-centered children, and we shouldn't be allowed access to firearms any more than a 10-year-old should, especially goddamn subfuckingmachine guns.

(yes, handguns can be just as deadly, blah, blah, blah, but they're certainly not as quick, the ammo is usually of a smaller size, etc. -- in the end, i think i have a much better chance of surviving a shooting rampage perpetrated by a gunman with a non-automatic handgun than i do one where the gunman has an automatic bullet-sprayer with 30 rounds in each mag.)

granted, i do believe that (some types of) firearms have their place and should be available to responsible, mentally-stable civilians, but how do we decide who is who? -- i don't have that answer.

but, clearly, allowing virtually anybody over 18 unfettered access to them is too fucking dangerous, and fucking stupid -- quit assuming that everyone is just as responsible and sane as you or Nick Meli.
@Human – Are you responsible?

I still maintain that humans are generally good people, and that violence is the aberration, and that peace is common place. Although many people are not smart enough to value and practice their Rights, still some people are, and that we should never prohibit those from exercising freedom simply because some people abuse or do not understand certain freedoms.

If you accept your fundamental premise “people in general are [not] responsible”, that they lack the ability to make sound judgments, then this inevitably leads to one conclusion: “Democracy” is unnecessary, and “Free Choice” should be prohibited. Democracy and Free Choice would actually be detrimental to a society if you believe that the majority is likely to be wrong because “people in general are [not] responsible”. So you have a philosophical imperative – you must accept as an absolute necessity – that freedom by other people will be exercised, and that people in general are good, because if you do not accept this, then you are surrendering your own Rights, Free Choice, and Democratic participation. And, I think overtime, you’ll come to this conclusion naturally if you spend time with enough people.

Take you, @Human, as an example. You’re a smart person, I doubt you pick fights at bars or steal, and you’re just trying to make it through life. If I loaned you one of my AK47 rifles and several hundred rounds of ammunition, you would not have an automatic inclination to begin killing people. Likely you would just install a lock, put the rifle in your closet, and never touch it again. I think the same is equally true with the vast majority of people I meet on a daily basis (and probably most commentators/staff on The Mercury): if I gave them one of my highly-destructive and high-powered rifles, and all the ammunition needed to carry out a massacre, most people would just put the rifle in their closet and never touch it again. It’s only an extremely small percentage (< 1%) of humans who would see my rifle as an opportunity to carry out a massacre.

But there’s other possibilities: with their new AK47 rifle (that formerly belonged to me), some of those citizens would then have an imperative to learn to use their weapon. Some would train a little, a few would train more than others. Some would hurt themselves. And, if I loaned out enough rifles, inevitably someone would hurt an innocent person with the rifle I loaned them. @Human – your preoccupation is concerning yourself with this last type of person: the murderer who gets a weapon – I don’t think this class of people represents the vast majority of people, and that the majority would likely put it in their closet, and a few would train with it. This is true with the Gun Stores, and any gun store worker can tell you: 70% of the firearms that leave the store just end up in a closet, rarely if ever used even in practice.

The last point to make is that you can’t concern yourself with firearm technology. For all intents and purposes: Single shot = Revolver = Bolt Action = Semi-auto = Automatic. The technology does not matter nearly as much as the person who is using it, because someone can carry out a bloody massacre/assassination with a sword if determined enough. The Suzanna Gatia Hupp video explores this misconception, the shooter in her situation had a 10 or 15 shot pistol, and it only took a second for that shooter to reload.
@ fidelity:

perhaps you're correct about my "people in general are not responsible" statements being a bit too strong -- i haven't lost all hope, it's true. let's call it 40/60. 35/65?

i saw that Suzanna Gatia Hupp video. yeah, i wanted her to have that gun in her purse, too -- what a horrible thing for her (and everybody) to have to go through.

and you both note that non-automatics are just as deadly as automatics are if someone is well-trained, but c'mon: surely even someone like you, who seems to be extremely knowledgeable about, and well-trained in using, a large variety of firearms would be much more efficient in killing the largest possible number of people in the smallest amount of time with an automatic submachine gun/assault weapon/whatever rather than with only a revolver.

if you and your clone were each to go into a large room full of 50 people, you armed with an automatic, assault-style weapon, and your clone with a revolver, are you telling me that you both would be able to get the job done in the same amount of time and with the same ease and efficiency?? no fucking way, man.

anyway, if we don't place more restrictions on the types of weapons people can buy, and on *who* can buy them, then how do we go about keeping these sort of massacres from happening again and again? i know we'll never eliminate ALL instances of this sort, regardless of what laws are passed, but surely we can make a big dent in them.

are we just supposed to accept that "these things happen" and that "nothing more can be done -- this is the price of freedom"? just arm everybody and hope for the best?
@human - If it was me and my clone walking into a room to hypothetically kill everyone, I think it would be much easier to use a bomb than a gun. Crazy people use a gun.

I don't think any level of restrictions will prevent mass murders. For example, firearms are banned in Mexico. No one (with any serious level of credibility) is talking about rounding up firearms and prohibiting certain classes. It's just hype: the gun industry is the strongest it's ever been, the government subsidizes the gun industry heavily, international markets are thriving. Even if "Assault Weapons" are "Banned" it will just mean that manufactures won't sell them to civilians anymore, and the value of my AK47's is going up $400+ a rifle. The quantity of these weapons will not disappear, nor will the desire for these weapons.

These events are the product of our society: we slaughter innocent people every day, we place no value on the human life, and we have no respect for anything. What were you expecting would happen?

Yes, shootings are going to continue, shootings are going to get worse, and there's absolutely nothing that can be done by you, or the government, to prevent shootings from happening.

Prevent every firearm sale, ban all weapons and ammo, and these shootings will still happen.

Deal with it. Accept it.

And if you're afraid because of it, then you should sit down over a cup of coffee and really think about what self protection means. You're a responsible adult @human, you don't need a police officer to protect you, and we don't need to restrict free people simply because some people abuse freedom.
@ fidelity:

well, you skirted right around my question about your revolver-packing clone vs. you and your assault-style weapon -- so i'll take that as a "Yes, the automatic weapon would be the better, more efficient tool in such a situation."

as for everything else you noted, well, i don't dispute any of that. i do, however, think that it's more of a problem than maybe you do, and that i'm a little more anxious about trying to figure out a solution before giving up, even if that might involve implementing a few more laws (laws that, yes, some folks will undoubtedly break).
@Human – Automatic Weapon, yes. Of course.

When it comes to automatic weapons, they are currently illegal to own, yet you can buy a $350 system and legally make one of my AK47’s fully automatic (“Slidefire” system) through a loophole. The desire for automatic weapons will always be there, hence a market will always be there, and someone is going to try and make money.

Do you conceptually understand that “more laws” are only going to affect law abiding people, like you, myself or Nick Meli, and that it will do nothing to prevent these recent mass murders in the future?
@ fidelity:

more laws, while not obeyed by all, still make things at least a little more difficult for the would-be breakers, admittedly sometimes only by delaying the deed rather than outright preventing it. but every bit can count in the end -- not always, but *sometimes*. and sometimes a little time is all that's needed -- that's why i think mandatory waiting periods are an excellent idea -- we are impulsive animals.

for example, this Lanza kid once tried to buy a firearm legally and was turned down because of a background check. sure, in the end he ended up getting one anyway (via murder and theft), but the law worked to a degree. perhaps if it had been another kid (one who didn't have the money or means to get one on the black market, or one who didn't have an armed family member to steal one from), getting turned down at the store would've allowed enough time to intervene to give the kid more time to get his head and/or get some help -- it's *possible*.

the most tenacious of us are going to do what we are intent on doing, no matter what. but not all of us are so determined -- some of us, in the face of difficulty/bureaucracy/restrictive laws, will simply give up and/or go back to the drawing board. or calm the fuck down.

anyway, always a pleasure -- let's move on.
i'd just poison the both of you before you had a chance to grab those weapons.
Sorry @aUX78 - I was part of a special military program that gave me complete immunization to all known poisons, and it also gives me a constant, never-ending erection.
keep your guns to yourself. piss off. my weapons are far more dangerous and far more compassionate than yours. i can hit moving targets more effectively. my weapons are not meant to make me appear protected. my weapons tickle the future more than your bullets ever can. you can kill me and my weapons continue without their operator. these tones are not for us, they are for people unborn that will need something human, real, and rational in a mechanized world of the chaos that we create for them now. keep your guns, stockpile, feel protected, create this world of security for yourself. just stop trying to convince me that they are for the greater good. now sod off.