Calling these guns what they are

|
(249)

We spent a trillion dollars and almost 5,000 American lives trying to root out non-existent weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. We fret about Iran getting a WMD, and we worry that North Korea already has one. Nuclear nonproliferation has been a key part of US foreign policy since the end of World War II.

Nobody says that we should stop trying to control WMDs because a crazy ruler of a rogue state could declare war on someone else anyway. Nobody says that "nuclear bombs don't kill people, people kill people." Everyone agrees that there's a difference between conventional weapons, which are bad, and WMDs, which are horrific.

So why can't we make the same distinction with guns?

Seriously: I'm not saying that an assault rifle is a nuke, but in the world of domestic murder, it's somewhat equivalent.

If Adam Lanza had entered the elementary school in Newtown, CT, with a run-of-the-mill rilfe or handgun, he might have shot half a dozen people. Maybe more if he could reload really fast. Some of them might have survived.

Instead, the 20 kids, six-year-old kids, were all shot multiple times, from a semiautomatic rifle that carried special deadly ammunition. None of them had a chance. In all, he killed 28 people before the cops could get there. That required a 30-shot clip and a gun that fired really fast. A gun that belongs on a battlefied. A gun his mother bought, legally, to fend off the apocalypse and the collapse of civil society.

There's a difference between the guns Sen. Manchen uses for hunting (which carry at most three rounds) and these weapons of mass destruction. There's no good use for a military-style assault rifle; you can't hunt with it and if you think it's really going to protect you against the end of civil society (or the black helicopters of the United Nations Army Of One World Government), you're too looney to have a gun anyway.

I'm not big on guns anyway, as all of you who hate me know. But can we please at least agree: Standing armies and conventional warfare, which we're not about to abolish soon, can do serious damage. Weapons of mass destruction do horrific damage. That's why we treat them differently. Can't we do the same for guns?

 

Comments

Posted by Guest on Dec. 25, 2012 @ 6:37 pm

If an armed (or even unarmed) mob came to your store to take what they needed, your best bet would be to get out of the way. They'd take what they need and you'd deal with your insurance company later.

The minute you brandish a weapon, you'd be exponentially increasing your chance of death.

Actually, the smart businessman would probably welcome them in. The same people are probably your customers in better times.

If you were standing between food and a hungry mob, a couple things might happen. Someone might tackle you from the other direction, or come around to the side and put a bullet through your brain. And no one would turn them in either.

Or... maybe you'll get lucky and turn them back. It *could* happen.
That's the upside of brandishing a weapon at a (possibly) armed mob: you might save your food and/or trinkets from an "undeserving" group of people who didn't have the foresight to stash a massive store of food and have the audacity of trying to survive now!
Downside: you might get killed. I guess for some it's worth the risk.

Thing is, even when you win, you still lose. If I were living in that community, when things get back to normal, I'd most certainly remember which business owners opened their doors in the community's time of need... and which ones stood in front of their store with an automatic weapon. If you get lucky and survive the mob, I think your future in that community would be finished.

Posted by Greg on Dec. 25, 2012 @ 7:05 pm
Posted by Guest on Dec. 25, 2012 @ 7:41 pm

Pick a fight that you can't win!

Posted by marcos on Dec. 25, 2012 @ 8:50 pm

Much easier than trying to stop them, huh?

In fact, why bother with a police force at all? Just let everyone do what they want?

The simple fact is that our thin blue line is all that keeps us from mob rule and the low of the jungle. Since that sounds a lot like unfettered capitalism, I feel sure that you'd oppose that, no?

Posted by Guest on Dec. 26, 2012 @ 7:21 am

You won't let them take your stuff until they take your life first? That sounds like a good way to live to fight another day.

You've got to know when to hold 'em
Know when to fold 'em
Know when to walk away
And know when to run.

The thin blue line IS mob rule.

Posted by marcos on Dec. 26, 2012 @ 8:49 am

mobs to use force and numbers to overthrow the rule of law.

There may well be times when a forced resignation is tactically appropriate, but sympathizing with a mob is never right, and your anti-cop and anti-law prejudice is appalling.

Posted by Guest on Dec. 26, 2012 @ 9:13 am

"feeling, favorable or unfavorable, toward a person or thing, prior to, or not based on, actual experience."

I believe Marcos based his statement about mob rule and the thin blue line on the actual experience of police (mis)behavior. You may disagree, but his statement does not show anti police prejudice.

Posted by Eddie on Dec. 26, 2012 @ 9:21 am

always quick to defend criminals, terrorists etc. I'd let an isolated incident go and write it off as merely inappropriate. But when it's a consistent unjustified bias, then he deserves to be called out on it.

Posted by Guest on Dec. 26, 2012 @ 9:26 am

Sympathizing with reality makes reality all the more real?

Posted by marcos on Dec. 26, 2012 @ 2:04 pm

Where's your sympathjy for the victims of looting - the store owners?

Posted by Guest on Dec. 26, 2012 @ 5:12 pm

The Korean store owners with success protected their stores with firearms.

Posted by matlock on Dec. 26, 2012 @ 12:29 am

.... that was a jewelry store. Didn't we start off discussing the taking of food during a calamity?

And of course it bears mention that we heard all about it ON TELEVISION.

Posted by lillipublicans on Dec. 26, 2012 @ 6:04 am

They look jewellery, guns, flat-screen TV's etc.

Were they all necessary items because of the emergency too?

Or does it not matter because some of them might have been "hungry"?

Posted by Guest on Dec. 26, 2012 @ 7:22 am

The problem was that in cases where people were getting food, the media and the authorities seemed to treat black people and white people differently. Black people were denounced as "looting," while white people were said to be "finding food," even if they were doing the same thing.

Posted by Greg on Dec. 26, 2012 @ 8:39 am

Foraging for food that is out in the open is very different from breaking into a store or any private property, knowing that the occupants or owners had fled. It really is a despicable crime and, as previously noted, instructions are often given to shoot looters as a deterrant.

And of course everything was looted, not just food. It wasn't a crime based on need at all - not that that is an excuse anyway.

Posted by Guest on Dec. 26, 2012 @ 9:11 am

White and black people both secured food from abandoned stores in the aftermath of Katrina; their behaviors were identical. The media portrayal was race based.

Posted by Eddie on Dec. 26, 2012 @ 9:25 am

looting and didn't report it? If it wasn't reported, then you cannot know that either way.

The only looters I saw in NO were black. If there were also whites looting then you, me and Greg cannot know that, by definition.

Posted by Guest on Dec. 26, 2012 @ 10:07 am

this all happened over seven years ago. The disparity in description by the media of people helping themselves to food after Katrina was well documented by media analysts at the time. Rather than repeating the same irrelevant catch phrases, why don't you do your own research about the racially based media coverage if you want more information, or just leave this issue alone?

Did you ever think that maybe Greg's description is valid because the bias in media coverage (that was analyzed at the time) interests him so he remembers it well?

There were plenty of other instances of racially based media distortions at the time. Remember the discredited stories of rapes and murders at the Superdome?

Posted by Eddie on Dec. 26, 2012 @ 10:28 am

I certainly heard some ratehr self-serving allegations about how whites and blacks were both looting, but none of us here has any credible basis for knowing that.

What we do know is that many blacks looted because we saw the reports. I saw no reports of whites looting which could be because the media ignored it but it could just as easily be because no whites looted.

You're guilty of believing what you want to believe. It's legal to forage and find food in, say, dumpsters. It's illegal tob reak into a store and steal food. Or flat-screen TV's.

Posted by Guest on Dec. 26, 2012 @ 11:30 am

http://politicalhumor.about.com/library/images/blkatrinalooting.htm.

The fact that "you saw no reports of whites looting" describes more your shallow political ideology, your lack of intellectual curiosity and your laziness at uncovering facts to support suppositions than it does to describe the events that took place in the aftermath of Katrina.

Posted by Eddie on Dec. 26, 2012 @ 11:48 am

Either it wasn't reported, as you said before, or it was reported as you now claim.

Posted by Guest on Dec. 26, 2012 @ 11:54 am

just that the media described the food acquisitions by whites and blacks differently.

https://www.ccsf.edu/NEW/en/educational-programs/school-and-departments/...

Posted by Eddie on Dec. 26, 2012 @ 12:13 pm

Now you're saying that it was.

Which is it?

Posted by Anonymous on Dec. 26, 2012 @ 12:31 pm

Greg's and my comments. Nowhere did either of us write that "whites looting" was not reported, just that it was described differently; ie, taking vs. looting.

Either your reading comprehension is poor or you are falling back into your pattern of making shit up. Which is it?

Still waiting for the evidence that all pilots carry firearms, by the way.

Posted by Eddie on Dec. 26, 2012 @ 12:42 pm

Rummaging thru trash bins for food is different from breaking into a food store.

Posted by Guest on Dec. 26, 2012 @ 5:11 pm

except there's nothing in there to find except maybe a bag of crap.

Posted by lillipublicans on Dec. 27, 2012 @ 2:59 am

Its funny, because the rifle was found in the car, he only used 2 handguns to kill the students

Posted by Guest on Dec. 18, 2012 @ 9:54 pm

Later reports indicated that he used the rifle to kill the the students, teachers, and administrators.

Posted by Eddie on Dec. 18, 2012 @ 10:11 pm

I support gun control along with gun rights, we must have reasonable gun control, I would like to see the weapons of mass death controlled. I am a gun owner upon the death of my Dad, whom was a keen fan of target shooting which he started doing after us kids left the house. My Dad wasn't a gun nut, we were taught the safety of the gun, respect and know what, where and beyond what the target.

We didn't feel the government was going to take over, we weren't worried about special op team flying over head or marching down the street. He was more worried about taxes, crime and if their was going enough jobs. He was a child of depression and World War 2, so he has seen people without. I have talked to older people in the past who have said people without can be a danger.

Do we need weapons of mass death to protect us against us? Would the needs to have armed uprising if they started to clamp down on Newspapers, TV, places of worship, the right to travel, speech and voting occur.

Posted by Garrett on Dec. 19, 2012 @ 11:50 am

"We" don't agree: So, the next time someone collides an airplane into a building to destroy it, will America have airplane-control laws (which interpreted means airplanes will be illegal and no domestic markets will sell them neither use them)? Or, if I pay to watch a movie with the name “Warm Bodies” and I act on a fancy to tear into a person's head and eat their brains, will America ratify horror-movie-control? Following a news report on KCBS, another person was killed and their brains were eaten. Absurd as these queries and scenario may seem, violence-by-human will continue. As an aside, the word violence has an etymological root in “will” or to choose, and “strength” implying vehement impetuosity to commit forceful injury to. Things such as rifles, guns, airplanes, neither motion pictures, have “wills” to choose to commit any conceivable actions.

Posted by Awayneramsey on Dec. 19, 2012 @ 12:17 pm

I mean do they really think that Adam Lanza would have called it a day if he could have used a gun? I'm not a gun nut I own one pistol i use for some bullseye shoots...I dont' carry none of that hunt etc....but really people does banning drugs work? If they do ban guns than I hope we have a lot harsher laws for people that do commit crimes with guns, because I live in a rather bad neighborhood in pittsburgh, and even the police will tell you that you don't stand a chance if someone decides to come in your home and rob you around here...I don't know what the answer is, but I don't see how this is gonna do anything....Maybe for the gullible....If the ban would eliminate all guns than yeah i'd be all for it, but I don't think anyone believes this and if they do wow where do you live? Its sad what happened to those kids and I really don't think anything anyone says will help the ones that mourn for those kids:( damn I really don't even know what to say myself (i'm at a loss)....If i could i swear on my life i'd give it to get them back....god bless (even the atheists:)

Posted by bobs on Dec. 20, 2012 @ 8:35 pm

Soon, only the Corporate Police State, street criminals/gangs and the wealthiest 1%ers and their private armies will have guns and the rest of us will be relegated to being prey.

Posted by sftparty on Dec. 21, 2012 @ 11:00 am

any media looked into whether any of these mass murders were under the influence of prescription drugs?

Posted by sftparty on Dec. 21, 2012 @ 11:02 am

HEYSFBEHXGJFGHDXHFHJFGUOTITTIFIHFJJDJF GKSJFJFGJJRJFYJRKDKHLFKFKTUERUTURYERRGGDHFWEHWDYEEYDHHEYSYWHWWTSHTASGEDGGFSGHSHSREDGSJHFFJSHDWHDHDHSHWEHXXJÑDGSGAAFWVFSVEVSBEGSJFDHFFGSDGFGSDFS CCCCCCCCCCCBSGDFGAGZFGGSFDCDVSVDVDDVSVSVVDVBDBDBBDBDHFSFHGFHDVXBCSDDGGHDFC BD DGSCSSZVAVXVSZFSASSFDFSSCSVXVXZVZVZVZCZCZ

Posted by Guest on Dec. 22, 2012 @ 4:23 pm

Should we have banned planes after 911? Those terrorists killed more people with 4 planes than all the school shootings I can count up.

Posted by Justthoughts on Dec. 25, 2012 @ 8:28 pm

If you can have an assault weapon, why not an M-16? Why not a cluster bomb, or a blackhawk helicopter-mounted machine gun? To defend against those um.... angry mobs attacking your house, you know. Heck, why not a suitcase nuke? If you can buy the uranium, I don't see why you shouldn't have the right to try and manufacture a little battlefield nuke in your basement?

See, two can play the game of reductio ad absurdum.

Enough of the cheap rhetorical points, guys. I'm no anti-gun absolutist, but we need some common sense in our gun policy.

Posted by Greg on Dec. 25, 2012 @ 8:59 pm

But I guess that's OK with you, as long as peace-loving citizens have nothing to fight back with, right?

Posted by Guest on Dec. 26, 2012 @ 7:23 am

that you are in any way "peace-loving." In fact, you appear to be a war monger. "Might is right."

Posted by Eddie on Dec. 26, 2012 @ 8:05 am

It's simply an acknowledgment of reality. Any nation that has power will project it to preserve, protect and further their interests. It's a reaspon to love living in America, and not to criticize and hate it.

Posted by Guest on Dec. 26, 2012 @ 9:05 am

why not focus on the perpetrators of the most serious looting of the public treasuries: the banksters, the health care "industry," the private prison industry, the military-industrial complex, the public education privatizers who want to convert education into profit centers...?

The list goes on. Of course, it's more convenient to focus on poor people who don't pay for food at a time of dire emergency (like after a natural disaster) than the institutionalized theft that is the basis of our two party military corporate dictatorship.

Posted by Eddie on Dec. 26, 2012 @ 11:31 am
Posted by Guest on Dec. 26, 2012 @ 11:49 am
Posted by Eddie on Dec. 26, 2012 @ 12:06 pm

Gee I guess Columbine kids used guns of mass destruction. No "assault rifle" which you like to call them. Sounds evil doesn't it. The kid at Columbine used handguns that were 9mm. A 9mm bullet is bigger that a 223. The kids had a 52 round magazine. That is a fact. You can shoot a handgun just as fast as a rifle. There basically is no difference. You can conceal a handgun not a rifle. Where do you draw the line. The talk of banning "assault rifles" is really a disguise to ban all guns. Stupid is as stupid does. Oh and to show your ignorance a magazine is not a clip. A clip held bullets conveniently until you get them into a magazine. It is obvious to me all this rhetoric is to scare people at least speak like you know something.

Posted by Guest on Jan. 13, 2013 @ 5:19 am

for mass shootings, accesible mental health services to all, regardless of income, would do more to save lives then the media pundits crying out for big brother government disarming the citizens.
Ending the phony "war on drugs" and providing free services for those wanting to get off drugs, including prescription drugs, would do much more to end gun violence. Look at Obama's home towm, Chicago.

some of u want to pray you do not become prey and do not want to own guns and that is their right.

Others want the right to defend themselves.

BAN GUN CONTROL!

Posted by Guest on Mar. 01, 2013 @ 10:55 am

This news item was posted on December 17, 3 days after the Newtown tragedy. It is now almost five months since the Newtown tragedy. Mostly the discussion represents a sickness at the heart and soul of American citizenry in an attempt to defend a lunatic position--that somehow the Constitution supports armed insurrection, or that there is untrammeled right to own a weapon most suitable to the battlefield. Never mind the demented conspiracy theorists who claim that a Bushmaster AR 15 was used, or the even more demented who claim the tragedy was a left wing staged event to justify confiscation of weapons. The discussion is more sickening than enlightening.

Posted by StevenTorrey on May. 08, 2013 @ 8:14 am

Is that the limit of your comprehension of this topic?

Posted by Guest on May. 08, 2013 @ 10:05 am

Maybe u.s citizens should be wondering why everyone needs to suffer because most people are now raised to be whining cowards. Maybe if we had parents who raised their kids right instead of not even premeditating their actions and pregnancy. Maybe if school actually educated children. Maybe if people were not so hatefully religious. There are few people I ever meet that I respect and trust and I am exactly the kind of person that our secret world leaders are trying to superseded from existence so they can further control with laws that they can use to make up any story to get away with murder while no good brave man can even find them to remove their evil from power. Most of our tax money goes to things we are not allowed to know like secret scientific research and under ground bunkers. World war 3. Hopefully not 3rd time charm. Look into how the great depression was premeditated. The feds have nobody to answer to. They are the worst kinds of criminals. They are like drug manufacturers. But they manufacture money. Too bad I am always giving my pearls to you swine so I can be trampled in your overzealous drug addict coward filled stampede.

Posted by Guest on Jun. 06, 2013 @ 1:22 am

Most people are stupid and cowardly. Most religion and politics are for controlling stupid cowardly people. Therefore us smart people have no choice but to live off grid while you all argue to death. I think that it is disgusting. Your poor children. There are solutions to the big problems. The people that print money and own oil hope they are never found. Do real work. Spread out. No more big cities. Let's get rid of and recycle the unnecessary commodities and surplus that destroyed the value of our country. If our world leaders planned such a transition it would only create jobs and value. But until we start using the hemp plant properly again we will still lose value. It is a literal example of growing money on trees. Only the properly self educated would understand this though or anything I say which is why this will be the only internet Pearl I will ever give to you swine. Anonymously ...

Posted by Guest on Jun. 06, 2013 @ 2:12 am

Related articles

  • Today in gun deaths

  • Surfing to shoot

    Federal law loophole and thousands of arms listings make it easy to buy guns online

  • You know I have to talk about guns now