Is Buying Guns a Sickness?

Political commentator Cynthia Tucker is sad. As she’s noticed, National Gun Fever Shows No Sign Of Breaking. Even worse, “Apparently, there will be no ban on assault weapons.” She apparently thinks that the way to attack these problems by encouraging future mass murderers; listing various mass casualty shootings including the names of the shooters in her articles. But, like so many wanna-be gun grabbers, she confuses reality with liberal fantasy land . . .

Tucker notes that the Sandy Hook shooter:

used a Bushmaster AR-15 assault-type rifle to rip apart the bodies of children

Actually darlin’, he used bullets from an AR-15 “type” rifle to do his despicable deed (nice non-inflammatory rhetoric, by the way). But according to an un-named “law enforcement veteran” cited in a New York Daily News piece, this wasn’t just a case of some kid snapping, grabbing the nearest rifle and opening up on the most convenient targets. The “LEV” stated that the shooter had a massive spreadsheet with the

names, body counts and weapons from previous mass murders and even attempted killings. ‘It sounded like a doctoral thesis, that was the quality of the research,’

But it was more than a spreadsheet:

“They don’t believe this was just a spreadsheet. They believe it was a score sheet,” he continued. “This was the work of a video gamer, and that it was his intent to put his own name at the very top of that list. They believe that he picked an elementary school because he felt it was a point of least resistance, where he could rack up the greatest number of kills. That’s what (the Connecticut police) believe.”

So this shooter laid his plans for years. And to maximize his body count (and his score) he chose a gun-free zone. The type of weapon he used was really immaterial, as was the magazine size because (again, according to the law enforcement veteran quoted in the Daily News piece):

They believe he learned the principles of this — the tactical reload — from his game. Reload before you’re completely out. Keep going. When the strap broke on his first weapon (the AR-15), he went to his handgun at the end. Classic police training. Or something you learn playing kill games.

And so what if the shooter’s magazine capacity had been limited to 10 rounds? He had a rifle and 2 pistols; as hickok45 demonstrates and Sheriff Ken Campbell substantiates, limiting magazine capacity is meaningless. Hell, the Cumbria (UK) shooter used a double-barreled shotgun and a bolt action .22 to get his 12 dead and 11 wounded. And given that the Newtown school shooter had over 15 uninterrupted minutes from the first 911 call (at 9:30) until he was believed to have killed himself at 9:46 (9:49 “‘Shots were fired about three minutes ago,’ the officer said. ‘Quiet at the time.'”)

Cynthia continues with the specter of the Aurora shooting:

Forget the fact that…the alleged Aurora, Colo., movie theater shooter fired, among other weapons, an AR-15.

And the reason he fired an AR-15 “among other weapons”? Because his real “high-capacity” snail mag failed (as they so often do) and he couldn’t clear the jam, offering some of his would-be victims precious seconds to tackle him and take away his weapons.

Oops, sorry. That’s another civilian disarmer fantasy; if only the shooter had been forced to reload someone could have tackled him. Actually, it offered some of his would-be victims precious seconds to get the hell out of Dodge. And it seems, once again, that the Aurora theater shooter may have picked that particular theater because it was gun free.

Cynthia continues with her reality-deficient rant:

Nor does it seem to make any difference that… — the man who shot Gabby Giffords and killed six others, including a 9-year-old girl — used a high-capacity magazine that the Clinton-era assault-weapons ban rendered illegal.

That’s right sweetie, it doesn’t make a difference. I direct your attention once again to Sheriff Ken Campbell’s video in which he demonstrates that an accomplished shooter can fire 30 aimed shots in 21.45 seconds from a Glock loaded with 6-round magazines while a less experienced shooter can do it in 26.93 seconds.

At that rate even the slower shooter could get off the 33 rounds that the Tucson shooter used in less than the 30 seconds he took. Using 10-round mags (you know, the low capacity ones that were legal under the Clinton ban) the slower shooter from the video could have shaved another second or two off that time.

Finally, Cynthia talks about how a

high-capacity magazine also enabled the massacre committed

at VA Tech, but unfortunately for her, this is where political correctness steps on its ideological crank. Because the VA Tech shooter used standard capacity magazines. Yes, each one held 15 rounds, but those are what the Glock 19 is designed for. Sorry Cynthia.

Having dragged the bloody victims out of storage again, Cynthia finally makes her case.

The political climate has changed since the 1994 ban: Democrats have cowered before the gun lobby;

Actually Cynthia, one of the things that changed the current political climate was the Clinton ugly-gun ban itself. In a speech given on Jan. 19th of this year (2013), Politico quotes Clinton himself cautioning lawmakers on pushing gun control:

And Clinton said that passing the 1994 federal assault weapons ban “devastated” more than a dozen Democratic lawmakers in the 1994 midterms — and cost then-Speaker of the House Tom Foley (D-Wash.) his job and his seat in Congress.

Gun control was obviously not the sole issue in that election, but as salon.com pointed out in a post-VA Tech article:

Democrats have been turning away from gun control ever since Al Gore‘s run for the presidency. The then-vice president and his advisors had tried to out-gun-control liberal challenger Bill Bradley during the Democratic primaries. Campaigning against George W. Bush in the general election, Gore decided to quiet his criticism of the NRA and mute his support for gun control … In the wake of Gore’s loss, many Democrats blamed the defeat on previous pro-gun control positions Gore had taken, and pulled the party further back from where it had been on the issue.

So it isn’t so much that Democrats are cowering before the Eee-vil Gun Lobby® as they are listening to the voters; you know, their bosses? The people whose interests they are supposed to represent?

the National Rifle Association has grown even more extreme;

Hmm, legislation gets passed to ban some of the most popular weapons available; manufacturers who change their weapon design to comply with the ban are accused of “exploiting loopholes” or “sidestepping” the ban, and everyday folks who just want to shoot cool rifles (and not have to reload every 10 rounds) have their weapons demonized as:

dangerous weapons [which] have no sporting or civilian use and their only purpose it to kill many people in a short amount of time. We support legislation to ban all assault weapons.

Gee, why would anyone become even a wee bit radicalized in the face of all that?

the U.S. Supreme Court has moved much further to the right. 

Let’s see about that right-shifting SCOTUS, shall we? Between 1994 and today we have:

1994 Justice Wikipedia sez 2013 Justice Wikipedia sez
Blackmun/Breyer Lib/Lib Breyer Lib
Ginsburg Lib Ginsburg Lib
Souter Lib Sotomayor Lib
Stevens Lib Kagan Lib
Kennedy Swing Kennedy Swing
Thomas Con Thomas Con
Scalia Con Scalia Con
O’Connor Swing/Con Alito Con
Rehnquist Con Roberts Con

 

Holy Quantum ideological shift, Batman! We went from 4 libs, 3 ½ cons and 1 ½ swings to … 4 libs, 4 cons and 1 swing. But Maybe Cynthia’s talking about the Heller court of 2008 when libs Souter and Stevens had not yet been replaced by libs Sotomayor and Kagan. Oh, wait, I guess not.

And, in the 20 years since Congress banned assault-type weapons and high-capacity magazines, Americans have heard a steady drumbeat of pro-firearms rhetoric that fetishizes the Second Amendment.

How blithely Cynthia says that: Pro-firearms rhetoric. Another way of putting it would be:

And, in the 20 years since Congress banned assault-type weapons and high-capacity magazines, Americans have heard a steady drumbeat as of study after study after study after study after study, most of which show that more guns lead to less crime.

Fetishize is such an interesting word in this context. According to the Collins English Dictionary, cited at thefreedictionary.com it means “to be excessively or irrationally devoted to (an object, activity, etc.)” Okay, I’ll cop to that; I am excessively (some have even said irrationally) devoted to peoples’ natural, fundamental, and inalienable human, individual, civil and Constitutional rights.

Freedom of speech, association, assembly, the press, freedom from excessive bail, unreasonable searches, cruel and unusual punishments, freedom to face my accuser in court and be tried by a jury of my peers and, oh yes, let us not forget: the freedom to own and carry the weapon of my choice — subject neither to the democratic process nor to arguments grounded in social utility.

In other words, the climate around firearms has gotten crazier.

As for “the climate getting crazier” I will also grant you that. Many of us are tired of being the whipping boys for all of your failed social experiments and actually have been paying attention to things like this:

 And this:

 

(FYI Cynthia, according to the FBI’s 2011 Uniform Crime Report we are at 386.3 violent crimes per 100,000).

Tucker is either ignorant or a statist who doesn’t care what the facts are, she just wants to slowly but surely make gun ownership more onerous and more dangerous until we just give up. Here’s a tip: We aren’t going to give up and we’ve seen enough of her agenda to know that gun grabbers aren’t interested in “reasonable restrictions” that “won’t affect the law-abiding”. So, yeah, as antis have gotten more strident, we gunnies have gotten “crazier”.

And here it is; gun ownership as insanity:

Still, I find myself once again wondering just how bad things have to get before the fever breaks — before the country comes to its senses on firearms. We’re in the throes of a kind of madness, a mass delusion that assigns to firearms the significance of religious totems.

See above and answer me this, Cynthia: just exactly what qualifies as “gun madness”; the willingness to look at the facts and determine that guns in the hands of the average citizen are not only not a threat but are a benefit to society? Or the kind of “gun madness” that insists, every time some nut-job goes looking for glory and a massive body-count, that the answer is to make more safe-spree-shooter zones and trying to take guns from those of us who had nothing to do with the shooting?

Remember that more than twice as many lives are saved annually in DGUs as are lost in CGUs. That 98.39% of mass casualty shootings have taken place in nominally “gun-free” zones. And, Cynthia, please remember that the freedom to own and carry the weapon of your choice is a natural, fundamental, and inalienable human, individual, civil and Constitutional right — subject neither to the democratic process nor to arguments grounded in social utility. Also that there are some of us who are just “gun mad” enough to fight in order to prevent further infringements upon that right which shall not be infringed.

comments

  1. Using DGU statistics to fight there skewed statistics doesn’t seem to work because our version of a DGU and theirs differ greatly.

  2. avatar Russ Bixby says:

    Weeelll… We all refer to it as getting the bug. 😉

  3. avatar mlopilato says:

    She’s stupid, we get it. No need to waste several hundred words on the plain truth. Although, you thoroughly shredded her.

    1. avatar Bill F says:

      I never trust a woman with a boy’s haircut anyway. They seem too conflicted right out of the gate.

      1. avatar StevenC says:

        I was thinking she took her pose for the picture from the movie Napoleon Dynamite when Uncle Rico is getting his picture take by Deb.

        “I think that is going to turn out real nice”

        lol

        Either way I love to see the numbers they are tangible and it is pretty hard to argue with that, yet some how people do.

        1. avatar My Name Is Bob says:

          Haha, yeah, I thought the pose looked funny too. Almost like she’s trying to punch herself on the jaw. I wish she would, repeatedly, haha.

  4. Gun homicides in the U.S. have dropped 50% since the last AWB expired.

    This is despite simple facts like:

    Chicago being #1 in gun control laws, #90 out of 90 cities for gun crime enforcement, and #1 in gun murders.

    Federal gun crime prosecution overall being down 40% under the Obama administration.

    Out of 80,000 rejected firearms background checks in 2010, only 44 were referred for prosecution for falsifying information.

    12 gang-ridden cities are responsible for one-forth of all murders in the U.S.

    90% of all gun homicides in New York between 2003-05 were caused by people with criminal records.

    Not one law-abiding gun owner wants to see another senseless murder with a gun. But when the politicians are not even bothering to up the enforcement of existing laws, what are we supposed to think their real agenda is?

    By the way, Ms. Tucker is from Georgia. Maybe she should check up on Kennesaw, GA where gun ownership is mandatory.

  5. avatar Russ Bixby says:

    I suspect that the actual DGU incidence is much higher. Even the bullet-ridden sign on the door proclaiming that “Nothing in this house is worth dying for” qualifies.

  6. avatar anonymous says:

    According to The Color of Crime,

    Blacks are seven times more likely than people of other races to commit murder, and eight times more likely to commit robbery.

    Blacks are about 13% of the U.S. population, while gun owners are 15% – 30% (depending on whose estimates you believe).

    If I was a bigot who believed in “collective punishment”, I’d suggest that we do something about “black violence” before trying to mitigate “gun violence”.

    Just because “If X% of crimes are committed by Group Y, then X% of Group Y must be criminals” is fallacious logic is no excuse not to enact racist crime-fighting policies.

    Oh, three months ago I would have said that was a stupid and terrible idea. But now, thanks to the Donkeyrats, I have seen the light. They have legitimized the hate-speech of racist ***ks.

    Just sayin’….

    1. avatar DaveL says:

      It’s a matter of principle. In America, every person is supposed to have certain inalienable rights before the law, regardless of whether the respect of those rights is optimal for crime reduction. We consider it an injustice to deprive a person of freedom because he happens to share some characteristic with some third party who has committed a crime, again whether or not it’s optimal for crime reduction.

      I’m sure you can see where I’m going with this.

    2. avatar anonymous says:

      > We consider it an injustice to deprive a person
      > of freedom because he happens to share some
      > characteristic with some third party who has committed a crime

      No we don’t.

      If somebody with a gun commits a crime, then everybody with a gun is responsible and must be deprived of their freedom. It’s how we protect freedom.

  7. avatar defensor fortissimo says:

    As far as the “high capacity” mags at virginia tech go, it’s fairly common for institutions like the brady campaign etc, to claim that any number of rounds past a certain number is high capacity. It’s classical bait and switch, claim that they only want magazines that border on impracticality as far as self defence goes while all the while include fine print that covers a huge portion of standard carry weapons.

    1. avatar Johnny says:

      If a gun can have more than zero rounds in it, its high capacity for the Brady Bunch.

  8. avatar mountocean says:

    Excellent dissection. As always, I love the graphs.

    1. avatar Carry.45 says:

      The graphs sure are a thing of beauty.

  9. avatar Dave says:

    I thought this quote was enlightening:

    “[E]ven a cynic must marvel at the all-round phoniness of the debate over repeal of the assault weapons ban. … The claim of the advocates that banning these 19 types of ‘assault weapons’ will reduce the crime rate is laughable. … In fact, the assault weapons ban will have no significant effect either on the crime rate or on personal security. Nonetheless, it is a good idea, though for reasons its proponents dare not enunciate. I am not up for reelection. So let me elaborate the real logic of the ban. … Its only real justification is not to reduce crime but to desensitize the public to the regulation of weapons in preparation for their ultimate confiscation. … Yes, Sarah Brady is doing God’s work. Yes, in the end America must follow the way of other democracies and disarm.”

    Charles Krauthammer, 1996

    From: http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/mar/17/gifford-gun-grabbers-blowing-smoke/

  10. avatar ChuckN says:

    Found this gem in a bio of Tucker, “When Georgia’s first black
    congresswoman, Cynthia McKinney, started her campaign for
    re-election, Tucker scathingly remarked, “McKinney has allowed
    her campaign to sink into a morass of race-baiting, name-
    calling, and anti-semitism. These unfortunate tactics could not
    only cost her re-election but also set back the cause of biracial
    politics in the South.”

    At first glance it may appear that Ms. Tucker has been corrupted
    by willful ignorance. After reading about her, it’s hard to conclude
    that there is any ignorance involved. Her current actions and
    words are willful and premeditated.

  11. avatar Mediocrates says:

    Beautiful. I don’t care what your intentions are, good or bad. The Constitution of the United States is inviolate. I swore an oath to defend said Constitution from all enemies, foreign and domestic. I will still honor that oath today.

  12. avatar Shenandoah says:

    Lady, you’re about as qualified to write about gun culture as I am to write for Vogue.

  13. avatar Ralph says:

    Another total deconstruction by the master,

    In a battle of wits with Bruce, this beyotch is disarmed.

  14. avatar Aharon says:

    Give me a few minutes exposing you to the clothes and shoes in Cynthia’s closet followed by examining her jewelry and perfume collection, and you’ll know what a real buying sickness is all about. I can only imagine what toys she has in her nightstand drawers.

    1. avatar Ralph says:

      I really don’t want to think about what’s in her drawers.

      1. avatar Aharon says:

        You are benefiting from her buying sickness if you have stock in Duracell.

    2. avatar 16V says:

      Hey now, what’s wrong with toys?

  15. avatar xer 21 says:

    As a correction on you VA Tech comment in the article, only the G19 had 15 rounds, not both. the other gun was a Walther P22, which uses 10 rd magazines.

    Gasp, that would have still been legal!

  16. avatar Lance says:

    Another fascist (&%^%$ saying ban gun even know they wont so they wine. Instead of seeing the facts gun bans dont work a crap. And the ididot forgot under the 1994 law high cap replacment and gradfather mags where still legael not way to stop mass shooters.

    1. avatar Shenandoah says:

      Beer is fun.

  17. avatar ThomasR says:

    Hmm, According to Cynthia, I’m mad man because I believe that being a free man is more important than being a servant and outright slave to the state.

    Wow! What can be said about this woman is beyond words, but that she is a slave in everyway possible except for wearing physical chains is obvious.

    The fact she is black with the history of the first gun control laws to disarm freed blacks is obscene and an abomination.

  18. avatar Hurricane says:

    Why is Tucker propping her head up with her fist?

    1. avatar Lucas D. says:

      You have to brace it like that when you have that many screws loose.

      1. avatar bigcuz says:

        OY! Give us some warning next time; you almost owed me for cleaning the coffee out of the keyboard!

  19. avatar Alex Peters says:

    I wonder what Ms. Tucker’s ancestors would have to say about civilian disarmament?

  20. avatar Greg in Allston says:

    She looks like she’s giving herself an uppercut. She might as well knock herself out to avoid the beating the Bruce has given her.

    What a tool and a maroon. Is that the best they can come up with? …..Pathetic.

  21. avatar dwb says:

    i keep thinking about a recent Atlantic article about how the D lost in 1994 and later on, by endlessly demonizing gun owners. I guess some lessons have to be re-learned the hard way.

  22. avatar jwm says:

    If gun buying is a sickness, keep the cure to yourself bitch.

    1. avatar DisThunder says:

      I’ve got a fever, and the only prescription is a paratooper-stock M1 carbine!

  23. avatar dwb says:

    … and dont forget that “liberal” Kagan is a gun owner who reportedly took her first antelope in Oct. She wont be fooled. Libs who count her in their court on this will be disappointed. I would not be surprised to see a 6-3 decision striking down some of these laws.

    1. avatar Aharon says:

      I think Kagan is a wild card and we really can’t rely upon her. Her enjoyment of hunting with a bolt-action does not mean she is against having universal background checks, or more gun control for handguns and/or semi-autos.

    2. avatar Eric S. says:

      I think that’s wishful thinking. She could just be another Mark Kelly. “I’m a gun owner and I think no one else should be.”

  24. avatar Soccerchainsaw says:

    These arguments that magazine limits are useless because the shooter can change out mags quickly strikes me as potentially harmful. I know you’re only responding to the anti’s “reasoning” for bans or limits but it gives ammo to expanded bans in the future. I would stick to the argument good guys shouldn’t be at a disadvantage to the bad guys and certainly not because the bad guys have done bad things with them. Also, that we should have weapons on or above par with those used by the police/military.

    1. avatar Eric S. says:

      Mag limits are very harmful to the self defender. A mass shooter will prepare and have as many magazines on them as they can carry for rapid reloading (and as seen in CT they will have practiced). While you may have a spare mag in your bedside gunsafe you can’t deploy it rapidly unless there’s a lull in the action. The only effective ammo you have is that which is in the gun.

    2. avatar Sixpack70 says:

      This is the information I presented to my legislators. It is a good focus and true. These bans only screw the law abiding citizens and grandfathering, while allowing us to keep what we have, screws our children and grandchildren.

    3. avatar DaveL says:

      There’s a big difference between a mass shooting and self-defense. A mass shooter starts out under no threat, usually picking the least threatening circumstances they can find, like a kindergarten classroom. They tend to range unopposed for several minutes or even hours, firing and reloading at will. A few seconds makes no difference to them.

      In a self-defense situation, you are already under threat. That threat may already be no more than a few yards away and probably armed. When you’re in a firefight, being the one who runs out of ammo first is a Very Bad Thing. When you’re being charged by a knife-wielding maniac on PCP, a few seconds is an eternity.

      Maximum theoretical rate-of-fire and magazine capacity make a difference in a fight. That’s why our military doesn’t carry bolt-action rifles anymore. But murder, even mass murder, isn’t a fight.

  25. avatar Angel says:

    Guess what? I have a fever! And the only prescription, is more guns.

  26. avatar SAS 2008 says:

    Another argument to the VA Tech high capacity mag comment comes from the report from the review panel to the governor. On page 74 It says:

    The panel also considered whether the previous
    federal Assault Weapons Act of 1994 that banned
    15-round magazines would have made a difference
    in the April 16 incidents. The law lapsed
    after 10 years, in October 2004, and had banned
    clips or magazines with over 10 rounds. The
    panel concluded that 10-round magazines that
    were legal would have not made much difference
    in the incident. Even pistols with rapid loaders
    could have been about as deadly in this situation.

    http://www.governor.virginia.gov/TempContent/techPanelReport-docs/FullReport.pdf

  27. avatar John says:

    This might be slightly off topic, but has anyone ever done a study of the likelihood a CCW stands of getting murdered compared to a non CCW holder? I’d be interested in seeing that statistic.

    1. avatar DaveL says:

      That bare statistic on its own might not mean much. It’s like statistics about having a gun in the home vs. risk of homicide – which way does the causal arrow point? It’s entirely possible for concealed carry to make people safer yet still show an elevated risk of homicide among CCW holders simply because a pre-existing, heightened risk of homicide would naturally lead people to take self-defensive measures, such as getting a CCW.

      I’m sure castles whose walls were packed with archers and boiling oil were probably at higher risk for being sacked than those with only a desultory guard.

  28. avatar KY1911 says:

    Yes…buying guns is a sickness. An insidious disease that drains my wallet every chance it gets.

  29. avatar punmaster says:

    Can I fetishize the 2nd Amendment and Cynthia Tucker?

    Yes, it does involve two different fetishes.

  30. avatar pinecarpenter says:

    The only “sickness” I see is people wasting the time to read shit written by women with lezbo hair-dos that know nothing,,second, people reading it, then taking it with anything more than a grain of salt..that’s sick.

  31. She is not stupid. bio here: http://www.uexpress.com/asiseeit/bio.html

    What does that tell you?

  32. OFA $ is paying for disinformation distributed in the low information voter (pta mommies reading uexpress advice articles) channels thru proxies like Ms. Tucker.

    Pathetic hypocrisy after calling out McKinney for doing the same.

  33. avatar ANTHONY says:

    Let’s change the paradigm a bit shall we? A change in the article title is in order. “Is progressive liberal myopia a sickness”? There, I would be so bold as to assert that my title addresses the malady so much more succinctly. Statistics, reality and logic be damned! Full speed ahead with liberal feelgood thoughtspeech. Let me end on one intrinsic point that I’m sure will be shared by many readers of cynthi’s absurd arguments. Go ahead, try to take them from me. Wow, I feel better already! 😉

Write a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

button to share on facebook
button to tweet
button to share via email