"Battleground America", a hit piece on guns

[evsnova74]

Trayvon Martin and America’s Gun Laws : The New Yorker

Have fun tearing this apart.

Oh, and this can't be a dupe, it doesn't even come out until tomorrow

 

[Bill of Rights]

There's a fair amount of info here. It seems to avoid bias by examining the issue from both sides. We're obviously going to see the bias in it, such as the comment about automatic weapons being largely illegal, or however she phrased it. I don't know enough about the origins of the RKBA insofar as it being a political issue to comment as to the veracity of her description.
One part that struck me, though, was the idea that if Zimmerman had not been armed, he would not be in jail nor would Martin be dead. I agree. If Zimmerman had not been armed, Martin would be alive and free, and Zimmerman would be dead.
Along a similar line of thinking, the shooter in Chardon admittedly stole the gun and came from a home where both parents reportedly had criminal domestic violence histories, AND he was willing to commit murder. Why is the implied failure inherent in the fact that he was able to steal a gun?
It's easy to give the flippant answer that the reason is because this came from the NY Times, especially because that answer, while flippant, is also true. The question, however, is more fully answered by the fact that that's the easiest target to try to control; you can't stop a thief from stealing unless you know he's a thief and are watching him. You can't control the fact that his parents were reportedly violent, though it's possible to remove him from their influence. You can't stop a murderer who's previously done nothing wrong by incarcerating him. You can either try (and fail) to get rid of the guns, which does nothing to stop crimes, it just makes them be committed with other tools, or you make sure more people can be armed and have the ability to stop the shooter as one would stop a rabid dog.

It's not pretty and nice. It's violent and ugly and flies in the face of their belief that people are good and shouldn't be exposed to such nastiness. It is, however, accurate.

I believe it was Thomas Jefferson who made a comment about those wanting liberty without sacrifice wishing for something that never was and never could be. The same is true of a peaceable life. One must be prepared to defend it if he holds it dear. Orwell was right in his comment about how we sleep safe in our beds because rough men stand ready to do violence on our behalf. How sad that we as a society have relegated that necessary function to others we call "rough", as if doing so were beneath us.

Blessings,
Bill

 

[50bmgshooter]

There's a fair amount of info here. It seems to avoid bias by examining the issue from both sides. We're obviously going to see the bias in it, such as the comment about automatic weapons being largely illegal, or however she phrased it. I don't know enough about the origins of the RKBA insofar as it being a political issue to comment as to the veracity of her description.
One part that struck me, though, was the idea that if Zimmerman had not been armed, he would not be in jail nor would Martin be dead. I agree. If Zimmerman had not been armed, Martin would be alive and free, and Zimmerman would be dead.
Along a similar line of thinking, the shooter in Chardon admittedly stole the gun and came from a home where both parents reportedly had criminal domestic violence histories, AND he was willing to commit murder. Why is the implied failure inherent in the fact that he was able to steal a gun?
It's easy to give the flippant answer that the reason is because this came from the NY Times, especially because that answer, while flippant, is also true. The question, however, is more fully answered by the fact that that's the easiest target to try to control; you can't stop a thief from stealing unless you know he's a thief and are watching him. You can't control the fact that his parents were reportedly violent, though it's possible to remove him from their influence. You can't stop a murderer who's previously done nothing wrong by incarcerating him. You can either try (and fail) to get rid of the guns, which does nothing to stop crimes, it just makes them be committed with other tools, or you make sure more people can be armed and have the ability to stop the shooter as one would stop a rabid dog.

It's not pretty and nice. It's violent and ugly and flies in the face of their belief that people are good and shouldn't be exposed to such nastiness. It is, however, accurate.

I believe it was Thomas Jefferson who made a comment about those wanting liberty without sacrifice wishing for something that never was and never could be. The same is true of a peaceable life. One must be prepared to defend it if he holds it dear. Orwell was right in his comment about how we sleep safe in our beds because rough men stand ready to do violence on our behalf. How sad that we as a society have relegated that necessary function to others we call "rough", as if doing so were beneath us.

Blessings,
Bill

Excellent post. Agree

 

[Kirk Freeman]

The entire article is precatory.

This is called inventing the narrative. However, it is more correct to say it is the Swan Song of a dying industry. Good bye, dinosaur media, you will not be missed.

 

[TruxLupus]

I don't even see the pretense of attempting to remain unbiased.

The article opens with a violent description of the Chardon High School incident, the picture at the top is captioned "Every American can be his own policeman," the whole thing is peppered with snippy remarks designed to waver an unsuspecting, unthinking reader's opinion - such as "Although rates of gun ownership, like rates of violent crime, are falling" - implying that less guns = less violent crime.

It's nothing more than a poorly written hit piece - unfortunately there are enough gullible people out there that they will drink this right in.

 

[flagtag]

"rates of gun ownership falling"? Huh! Then why is it that Ruger has suspended new orders temporarily because of such a backlog? (One million + I believe)

 

[IndyDave1776]

"rates of gun ownership falling"? Huh! Then why is it that Ruger has suspended new orders temporarily because of such a backlog? (One million + I believe)

They want it to be that way, therefore it is. That is the way of leftists. Consider any of their 'facts' and you will find the same theme.

 

[cobber]

Good cartoons, as usual for the New Yorker:

 

[flagtag]

They want it to be that way, therefore it is. That is the way of leftists. Consider any of their 'facts' and you will find the same theme.

Got that right!

 

[croy]

It complete bull when someone gets shot they automatically want to take away guns. Taking away guns is never the answer, if you make law abiding citizens give up there guns then only criminals have them. It is impossible to keeps guns out of the hands of criminals so strengthening laws only helps the criminals. There is always gonna be a bad apple that legally gets a gun. Im not saying Zimmerman is innocent, but Im definately not saying he is guilty, I wanna see all the facts first

 

[Wine Country]

What really burnt my biscuits is the claim that private sales are "unregulated".

 

[Bill of Rights]

What really burnt my biscuits is the claim that private sales are "unregulated".

They are, in the sense that there is no paper trail on them. You and I could (at least in Indiana) meet in a wal mart parking lot and trade money and a gun, 100% legally. Now of course, we both have to be residents and the seller cannot have reason to believe the buyer is a felon, mentally incompetent, or an alcohol or drug abuser, but no proof of those things is needed nor is a bill of sale required... nor should there be a required record of the sale.

I agree with the points of the relevant law, but I don't agree they should be LAW. That is, I think they're sensible practices on the part of a lawful seller, but I don't think a law is necessary.

IC 35-47-2-7
Prohibited sales or transfers of ownership
Sec. 7. (a) Except an individual acting within a parent-minor child or guardian-minor protected person relationship or any other individual who is also acting in compliance with IC 35-47-10, a person may not sell, give, or in any other manner transfer the ownership or possession of a handgun or assault weapon (as defined in IC 35-50-2-11) to any person under eighteen (18) years of age.
(b) It is unlawful for a person to sell, give, or in any manner transfer the ownership or possession of a handgun to another person who the person has reasonable cause to believe:
(1) has been:
(A) convicted of a felony; or
(B) adjudicated a delinquent child for an act that would be a felony if committed by an adult, if the person seeking to obtain ownership or possession of the handgun is less than twenty-three (23) years of age;
(2) is a drug abuser;
(3) is an alcohol abuser; or
(4) is mentally incompetent.
As added by P.L.311-1983, SEC.32. Amended by P.L.33-1989, SEC.126; P.L.140-1994, SEC.8; P.L.269-1995, SEC.7.

IC 35-47-2-8
Regulation of sale of handguns imposed by this chapter; application
Sec. 8. The regulation of the sale of handguns imposed by this chapter shall apply equally to an occasional sale, trade, or transfer between individual persons and to retail transactions between dealers and individual persons.
As added by P.L.311-1983, SEC.32. Amended by P.L.17-1997, SEC.6.

Blessings,
Bill

 

[CarmelHP]

The entire article is precatory.

You can say that again. I have rarely seen such a set of lies, half-truths and misrepresentations strung together so unashamedly.