TTAG Daily Digest – Blaming the AR, Talking About Guns and The Worst Gun Control Argument Made Today

MSNBC: ‘Real Criminal’ in Waffle House Shooting Was AR-15, Pro-Gun Culture

Stephens recently called or the repeal of the Second Amendment, too . . .

In a stunning attempt to shift blame for Sunday’s deadly shooting at a Waffle House in Tennessee away from the mentally unstable criminal who perpetrated the crime, on Monday, an MSNBC panel claimed that gun he used, an AR-15 rifle, was the “real criminal” and that America’s pro-gun culture was also responsible for the killings.

“What is your message, I guess I want to ask, to those who say, ‘Don’t touch my guns no matter what’?,” anchor Stephanie Ruhle fretted to New York Times columnist Bret Stephens early in the 9:00 a.m. ET hour. Seizing on the opportunity to immediately exploit the tragedy to push the gun control agenda, Stephens proclaimed: “Well, that’s exactly it. The problem that we have is that we have not just a legal regime, but a culture in which the way in which guns are treated as sort of ordinary household implements is precisely what leads to the deaths of the sort we just saw in Waffle House.”

Following Walkouts, Gun Control Forum Encourages Policy Conversation

“We thought it was really important that a march not be the last thing that gets done,” said Giancarlo Valdetaro, a member of the Roosevelt Institute, referring to the March for our Lives at Cornell that his organization led about a month ago.

The Roosevelt Institute, a student public policy think tank, organized Friday’s forum and presented perspectives from four students and a professor on topics ranging from legislation to cultural values surrounding guns. It also coincided with a second nationwide school walkout.

The panel included Sydney Eisenberg ’21 of the Roosevelt Institute, TJ Hunt ’21 of the Cornell Political Union, Denny Lee ’20 of the Speech and Debate Society and Quinn Otto-Moudry ’21 of the Cornell Republicans.

Valdetaro also emphasized the importance of how the conversation brought in voices from across the political spectrum, saying that the campus can often be a “liberal bubble.”

“We forget to talk about solutions and importantly we forget to talk to people who disagree with us,” Valdetaro said.

Oh, they don’t forget about them. They mostly just shout them down.

How to tell if the gun-control movement is going to be a major player in November

If under 25 voters actually make a difference this time, it will be a first . . .

With a couple of tweets, a survivor of the Parkland, Fla., high school shooting in February was able to get several companies to boycott Fox News’s Laura Ingraham’s prime time show after she mocked him.

And candidates in Virginia and Pennsylvania won competitive races recently while supporting gun-control measures.

But gun-control activists have seen a surge in activism before, most notably after the 2012 massacre of elementary school students and their teachers in Connecticut, only to have its effect on politics fizzle.

So will this time be different? No one knows for sure, but there’s evidence that the gun-control movement could be a political force this November.

courtesy nra-ila.org

California: Legislation Requiring Background Checks on Barrels and Other Parts Up For Hearing!

From the NRA-ILA:

Assembly Bill 2382, sponsored by Assembly Member Mike Gipson (D-64), would require precursor firearms parts to be sold/transferred through a licensed precursor parts dealer in a similar process to the new laws regarding ammunition purchases. It would further create a new crime for transfer of precursor parts without the involvement of a licensed precursor parts dealer and transfer to anyone under 21 years of age or prohibited from owning firearms. Precursor parts include items such as barrels, ammunition feedings devices and upper receivers.

Assembly Bill 2103, sponsored by Assembly Member Todd Gloria (D-78), would add certain requirements in addition to the already mandated training courses for a citizen to obtain a concealed carry license. Currently, concealed carry permit holders are already required to receive up to 16 hours training prior to receiving a permit and at least four hours of additional training every two years prior to renewal.

Behold The Absolute Worst Anti-Gun Argument Ever Made

Well, it’s the worst one today, anyway . . .

The standard gun control talking points do not apply in this case because the shooter’s guns had already been seizedby authorities prior to this massacre, so the gun grabbers took a different approach this time around. Many of them immediately pointed to Shaw as proof that you don’t need a gun to defend yourself against an armed assailant. The Parkland activists, in particular, were quick to seize on this idea. As Emma Gonzalez put it:

“The local police say a man at the scene wrestled his gun away – looks like you don’t need to arm a teacher (or a resource officer) to stop a shooting. There goes the sales pitch for @SmithWessonCorp.”

That tweet was “liked” 20,000 times. David Hogg’s tweet making the same argument was “liked” more than 50,000 times. Apparently the gun grabbers believe they’ve really stumbled onto some kind of brilliant point here.

They have not. On the contrary, they have stumbled onto something utterly nonsensical.

comments

  1. avatar tdiinva says:

    So where is the “breaking” story on the Toronto vehicle homicide? More people have been killed in vehicle ramming attacks in the last three years than mass shootings in the US.

    1. This is a gun blog. No guns were involved.

      1. avatar tdiinva says:

        You have published on other mass vehicle attacks. If you want to refute gun control advocates then presents a perfect opportunity.

        1. avatar Grace12 says:

          Curious that Zimmerman has not responded to comments about editorial policy. If push comes to shove in out constitutional republic Zimmerman like Farago will be gone never to be seen or heard from again. With maybe one exception the mantra of the editorial staff of ttag is “We support the Second Amendment but—-.”

        2. avatar Anonymous says:

          Grace12,

          Are you done now?

        3. avatar Chris T from KY says:

          The question that asked after the last vehicle attack is, “would you shoot at a moving vehicle that was trying to run over people?”

          Well would you?

      2. avatar David Pigg says:

        Time for a serious conversation about cars with automatic transmission and mufflers.

        1. avatar Green Mtn. Boy says:

          Perhaps rental vans being hi capacity.

        2. avatar anonymoose says:

          We need to ban electric cars because they are too quiet and therefore unsafe. No more silenced death machines!

      3. avatar pwrserge says:

        This is a gun POLICY blog. Using case examples of why the commies’ arguments are pants on head retarded is EXACTLY what we should be doing. One nutjob killed almost three times as many people with a van as the most recent nutjob with an AR-15.

        1. avatar tdiinva says:

          Reading between the lines I believe we have a change in editorial policy since TTAG was sold.

      4. avatar New Continental Army says:

        You could consider a car to be a massive, self propelled, but rather slow, bullet.

        1. avatar BierceAmbrose says:

          Canada’s metric, so probably the fearsome .9mm full-auto truck. It couldn’t be a .45 … some of the victims were hit, and lived.

          /meta
          Too much? I’m never sure.

        2. avatar Justsomeguy says:

          Not as big a reach as you might think. The “shot” (movement of the van) is propelled by multiple explosions in the combustion chambers and their discharge is muffled.

          “Under 26 USCA § 861 (a), firearms is defined as “”a shot gun or rifle having a barrel of less than eighteen inches in length, or any other weapon, except a pistol or revolver, from which a shot is discharged by an explosive if such weapon is capable of being concealed on the person, or a machine gun, and includes a muffler or silencer for any firearm whether or not such firearm is included within the foregoing definition.” United States v. Adams, 11 F. Supp. 216, 217 (S.D. Fla. 1935)”

      5. avatar California Richard says:

        Guy who ran the people over hopped out of his car with a gun and pointed it at the 1st responding cop. After a Mexican standoff, the cop ran away…. sounds like a relelavent gun story to me.

        1. avatar SouthAl says:

          Yup. tdiinva hit the nail on the head a couple of posts upstream.

      6. avatar Greg says:

        A quick search shows that TTAG did infact cover previous automotive attacks.

      7. avatar Ed says:

        Well, that didn’t take very long. Look how fast the tune changes when the Canadians are signing the paychecks.

        TTAG*

        *(Unless unflattering to our Home and Native Land)

        1. avatar Anonymous says:

          There are no Canadians signing paychecks. Their ad company that purchased them is out of Austin.

      8. avatar Anonymous says:

        9 dead, 16 injured in the van attack.

        http://kdvr.com/2018/04/23/suspect-in-custody-after-van-strikes-multiple-pedestrians-in-toronto/

        All you need to do is put up a headline like: Guns or Vans? And then speak the obvious (that perpetrators will find a way) while emphasizing that the MSM always points the finger at the gun, and not on the perpetrator or our decaying nihilistic culture.

        1. avatar Gunr says:

          What kind of van was that? Was it an “Aggressive Response” van, the 15th one off the line, an AR-15?

      9. avatar Bloving says:

        I’d wager that van was fitted with a suppressor to reduce the engine noise.
        🤠

        1. avatar Geoff PR says:

          We must have a law banning mufflers on rental vans.

          It’s simple common sense – That way, people can hear the van coming up behind them when they are walking along a city sidewalk…

      10. avatar Jonathan-Houston says:

        Missed opportunity, justified with a weak sauce cop-out?

        Yikes. The shaky start to the post-RF era continues to shake…..

    2. avatar Ed says:

      I’m afraid Dan left out something:

      “This is a >>>now a Canadian<<< gun blog."

      Surely you can't expect them to publish – or ALLOW the publication of – a post that makes their disarmament culture look anything other than enlightened and admirable.

      Meet the new Bosses, folks. Thus it begins.

      1. avatar tdiinva says:

        Are you being sarcastic or are the new owners Canucks?

        I can say Canucks because my mother is from Saskatchewan.

        1. avatar tdiinva says:

          I knew about the change in ownership. I didn’t know that the new owners were Canadian. Dan needs to be up front about the changes in editorial policy. It cries out for a Housekeeping article.

        2. avatar tdiinva says:

          You failed to do your homework.

          I still think Dan needs to highlight changes in TTAG editorial policy. Robert’s claim that the ownership change won’t affect the content seems to be untrue in this instance.

    3. avatar ChiGurh18 says:

      I had been wondering about this, too. Seems like the first crack in the TTAG fortress, how long until this blog goes down…Very sad, indeed.

      Why can’t we have a Pro-Gun Rights blog that doesn’t sellout like the progressives.

  2. avatar Dave Lewis says:

    A “precursor part” will be a lump of aluminum or iron. How a length of black iron pipe? That was a 12 gauge shotgun barrel in the Philippines back during WW2. A piece of pipe and a shotgun shell got you a real rifle. You can’t make this stuff up.

    1. avatar Mark N. says:

      I suspect this bill is by the same idiot that last session proposed a bill to ban 80% lowers that was so poorly worded it would have banned blocks of raw aluminum. Since that didn’t even make it out of a Democratic Party controlled committee, he is trying to copy the success of the ammunition registration/”background check/registration initiative by requiring all internet purchases to be processed by an FFL with the same “background” check required to purchase ammo (which consists of producing picture ID and an instant check against a searchable list of prohibited persons in California). If they can’t ban guns, they will make it too expensive to buy or maintain them–one piece at a time.

  3. avatar anarchyst says:

    The problem is, we have allowed the anti Second Amendment crowd to define the terms.
    A firearm is a tool which possesses no evil intent on its own. Assigning intent to an inanimate object is the epitome of insanity. Demonizing a weapon on “looks alone” also marks the accuser as an unstable individual who is also insane. Call them out on their illogic and insanity.
    Another dirty tactic the anti-Second Amendment crowd uses exposes children to potential and actual harm by putting them in “gun-free zones”. These people care not one wit about children, but uses them for their own nefarious purposes.
    We need to TAKE BACK the argument…
    When the antis blame the firearm for the actions of a criminal, state that: “a firearm is an inanimate object, subject only to the intent of the user”. Firearms ARE “equalizers” and are used to preserve life and make a 90 lb. woman equal to a 200 lb. criminal”.
    When the antis attempt to justify their “gun free zones” counter their misguided argument with “you mean, criminal safety zones” or “victim disarmament zones”.
    State that “we protect our money, banks, politicians and celebrities, buildings and facilities with PEOPLE WITH GUNS, but protect our children with “gun-free zone” signs”.
    When the antis state that: “you don’t need and AR-15”, counter with, “Who are YOU to consider what I need or want?”
    When the antis criticize AR-15s in general, counter with: “you mean the most popular rifle of the day, use able by even the smallest, weakest person as a means of self-defense. Besides, AR-15s are FUN to shoot”. Offer to take them to the range and supply them with an AR-15, ammunition and range time. I have made
    many converts this way.
    When the antis state that: “You don’t need an AR-15 to hunt with”, counter with “AR-15s ARE used for hunting, but in many states, are prohibited from being used to take large game because they are underpowered”.
    When the antis state that: “AR-15s are high powered rifles”, correct them by stating that “AR-15s with the .223 or 5.56mm cartridge are considered medium-powered weapons–NOT “high-powered” by any means”.
    When the antis state that: “the Constitution was written during the time of muskets, and that the Second Amendment should only apply to “weapons of that time period”, state that: “by your logic, the First Amendment should not apply to modern-day telecommunications, internet, television, radio, public-address systems, books and newspapers produced on high-speed offset printing presses. Only “town-criers” and Benjamin Franklin type printing presses would be covered under the First Amendment”.
    When the antis state that “only law enforcement and government should possess firearms”, remind them of the latest school shooting, as well as Columbine, where “law enforcement” SAT ON THEIR HANDS while children were being murdered, citing “officer safety”, afraid to challenge the shooter, despite being armed to the hilt. The government-run murderous sieges at Ruby Ridge and Waco are also good examples of government (mis)use of firearms. Let’s not forget the millions murdered under communism by their governments AFTER their firearms were confiscated.
    This tome can be used to counter any argument against any infringement of our Second Amendment.

    1. avatar tdiinva says:

      Unfortunately, most opponents of the right to bear arms would agree with you on the First Amendment.

    2. avatar Justsomeguy says:

      The collectivist could not exist without the manipulation of language. The ability to change definitions is their only way to win an argument, hence the need to interpret the Constitution as a living document. Clarence Thomas has a good quote to that effect, but I can’t find it just now.

  4. avatar bobo says:

    California: Legislation Requiring Background Checks on Barrels and Other Parts Up For Hearing!

    From the NRA-ILA:

    and cali’s numerous gun owners look to the NRA to DUCK out and copout like a little scared bitch, the last dozen times they could have helped fight this nonsense!

    not one more Membership buck sent their way ever again -GOA all the way—that dog fights for rights!

    1. avatar Mark N. says:

      Really? How many law suits has GOA sponsored in California? How often does its name appear in the news here? Hell, I here more from the SAF here than the GOA. It is a lobbying group, sure, but quite frankly, its results in California are no better than the NRA’s, because the deck is stacked against them on the political front. There is no chance of winning on that front whatsoever.

      1. avatar bobo says:

        Yep stacked deck and the NRA RUNS like a pussy form every fight in this state–yet bugs me monthly for ‘donations’ FUCK them!

        the last few times the GOA did not run and the SAF is a good one too for sticking around to fight.

        But the NRA does not get anymore money out of me when they only ‘kicked back’ 100K of OUR states Donations ( or is that DOnothings) to fight the bullet ban crap here a year plus back===wimps!

        if you don’t fight in the hard places–the ones that the other side wins most of the time–then you are a wimp!

  5. avatar Boris Smolin says:

    Guess it’s time for CA gun owners to start getting out of state P.O. Boxes to ship their parts to. They’re really going to have to because I doubt many manufacturers are going to start serializing mags and and other random parts just to satisfy Cali’s idiocy.

  6. avatar Sian says:

    “The local police say a man at the scene wrestled his gun away – looks like you don’t need to arm a teacher (or a resource officer) to stop a shooting. ”

    Yeah so this is what the third time in 30 years that an armed attacker was stopped by direct unarmed intervention by a target? Either he jammed his rifle or his magazine went dry, do you think he had a reload on him while mostly naked?

    And the guy got away, and he was armed when the police caught up with him, which they did through an enormous expenditure of manpower and effort. He could have killed more people at another location, or he could have been stopped in his tracks earlier by an armed victim.

    1. avatar Cliff H says:

      The first report I read on this attack indicated that the shooter’s rifle had jammed and he was working to clear it when he was disarmed. The rifle was wrestled away from him and tossed over and behind the counter, at which time the shooter turned and ran.

      Not discounting the heroism of the man who disarmed him, just saying you have to wait for all the information to be released.

      And for those idiot schoolchildren, did you miss the part about he shot and killed FOUR PEOPLE before he was disarmed? If the Waffle House was not a Gun Free Zone (again with the GFZ) and any patron had been armed he might have been dropped in his tracks even as he brought the rifle through the door. Or better yet, knowing the restaurant was NOT a GFZ, he would not have shown up at all.

      Meanwhile, how long do we wait before we find out what was going through his drug-addled brain?

    2. avatar Kenneth says:

      Plus, the perp was arrested by a man with a gun. So he wasn’t stopped by the good Samaritan(who says he was only interested in saving himself: https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/waffle-house-shooting-tennessee-man-who-wrestled-ar-15-away-n868291 ) but was, in the end, STOPPED(in this case, through arrest) by a man with a gun.

  7. avatar General Zod says:

    Yeah, an unarmed guy wrestled the rifle away from a murderer and saved lives. Just imagine what an armed teacher can do in a school – and for that matter, where are all the idiots (hmm…like Hogg…) who were insisting that the cowardly deputies in Florida couldn’t possibly have taken on a murderer with an AR-15 while armed with mere pistols – well, James Shaw didn’t have a pistol, he just decided to do something instead of hide or die.

    Let’s count how many times the idiot anti’s contradict themselves this week…

    1. avatar RA-15 says:

      I can’t count that high, said the Hogg. But but. ….

  8. avatar New Continental Army says:

    I think we’re missing a golden opportunity here. Obviously since it’s just SO easy to disarm an attacker using a gun, (now that it happened once, that means it happens all the time!) then logic shows guns actually aren’t that effective as weapons, and have absolutely no need to be regulated in the least bit. After all, since you can simply strong arm a rifle from an attacker with ease, why bother even worrying about guns?

    1. avatar Armed man says:

      Since any unarmed man can stop a shooting, and Mr. Hogg was unarmed, perhaps he would like to explain why he didn’t stop the shooting at his school.

      1. avatar barnbwt says:

        That’s because he was nowhere near the shooting, despite his histrionics. Better is to ask him why his classmates chose to die rather than snatch away an AR, if that’s so plausible a tactic.

    2. avatar uncommon_sense says:

      New Continental Army for the win!

      The only problem is that gun-grabbers will immediately change their tune once we use their own argument against them. And that is because their words are nothing more than an attempt to somehow resonate with people and win them over. Gun-grabbers and their ilk will vomit words — any words and as long as it takes — to get people on their side. Reality, facts, and consistency are irrelevant to them.

  9. avatar Gov. William J Le Petomane says:

    So… just hide in the bathroom until the gunman’s gun jams, then rush him and wrestle him to the ground. Brilliant strategy!

    1. avatar New Continental Army says:

      Well, the problem with that is, liberals get confused as to what bathroom to use, so they’d make easy targets as they sat there deciding which gender they felt like today.

      1. avatar Gov. William J Le Petomane says:

        Dammit, would somebody please teach these people (is it OK to call them people?) eeny-meeny-miny-moe!

        1. avatar ColoradoKid says:

          From an old Barney Miller episode, Let’s go with “…one potato two potato…”

  10. avatar barnbwt says:

    Freaking Boxer-Rebellion nutjobs. “Our beliefs shall be our shield. Divine justice shall deflect their bullets! The ghosts of gun violence will rise up and smite the nonbelievers!”

    Bald chick didn’t even bother to ask the guy whether he’d have preferred an alternative besides grabbing a gun & getting shot.

  11. avatar RA-15 says:

    Syracuse N.Y. Sunday post standard 4/22/18. See article full page picture of AR-15 on cover. It reads in part : forget the “slippery slope” and all the rest- banning assault weapons doesn’t mean we can’t preserve right to handguns, rifles. Samuel Gorovitz ,special to the post standard. Marty Hayes. President of the armed citizen’s legal defense network :he grants that assault rifles are solely meant for killing people. This 2 page article is so absolutely hypocritical. These idiots wouldn’t know an AR-15 from an Ak-47. Nor do they know the existing laws in N.Y. in regard to fixed 10 round magazines or less , featureless rifle’s vs not , which in N.Y. you have no features , or you have your 10 rd mag fixed to rifle in a manner that mag can not be removed by any means or it is a felony to own. Yes break upper from lower , insert 10 rounds , repeat. What ignorance !! That’s an assault rifle ? What is a 12 guage with a 10 round magazine loaded with 9 pellet buckshot considered ? Yes it is legal. A quote from said article ” no private citizen needs an assault weapon,which is vastly deadlier than a hunting rifle” these people make me so sick to my gut , I live in N.Y. I feel like N.Y. life is not living. It is being dictated to. Thanks gov Cuomo and the likes of you that make what used to be an ok state , into a cesspool of political left wingnuts that propagate these lies to the people of N.Y. as far as my AR-15 being a more deadly rifle than a hunting rifle “it is the latter” and calling it an assault weapon only made to kill people. Tell that to my Winchester 30/30 now that will kill a bear. Don’t mumble bullshit people , please get your facts correct before trying to convince unknowing people that your facts are true. They are not. Which makes you liars . or dumb as tits on a bull. Try the factfull truth once in a while !! You may feel good about yourselves. Check Sunday post standard Syracuse N.Y. no good argument for assault weapons. I have an argument , see assault weapon deffinition in your Miriam Webster dictionary. Or Wikipedia. Learn apples from oranges before you shout out for all the other likeminded idiots to hear !

  12. avatar Tom in Oregon says:

    “ guns are treated as sort of ordinary household implements“

    Well, they are in my house. So what’s the big deal?

    1. avatar DaveL says:

      Mine too, the takeaway being this: Nobody who gets blisters from his melon baller has any business telling other people what is or is not an “ordinary household implement”.

  13. avatar Scoutino says:

    You don’t need a gun to defend against mass murderer – if you are willing to wait around until he kills enough people and runs out of ammo, or until his gun jams. Then you can tackle the attacker and if he doesn’t have back-up gun, if he can’t unjam his gun, if you are younger, bigger, stronger or better trained, you can stop him. Easy as that!

    1. avatar Patrick says:

      Technically, every mass shooting will be stopped, as there are only so many people out there. However, in the range of zero casualties to total annihilation, I’d like to think that we’d all want to stay as close to the former as possible.

  14. avatar GS650G says:

    Brett Stephens was a RINO at the WSJ for ears until he left for the NYT. Good riddance

  15. avatar W says:

    Perhaps the real question is why Stephens, who claims to be conservative but is clearly largely heterodox, feels the righteousness of telling people far from his experience, that of a wholly east coast, large city dweller, how to live. “Yes, I am from the land of skyscrapers and went to exclusive boarding schools,” he may as well write, “but everyone else, across all forms of our land, needs to live this or that way.”

    Sure, some people will use the shorthand of calling him a conservative or Republican. But doing so doesn’t really describe him well. More descriptive is that he’s just another media elite in New York, hanging out with fellow elites, promoting their elite worldview and elite right of birth in telling others what to do or how to live.

    As for the bulk of his argument, Stephens, do a soupçon of research (language he ought to understand). All rifles in this country, including the scary little black one you name, are involved in about 400 homicides a year. Does this really justify the level of involvement that you recommend?

    TL;DR: Stephens is kind of a bad joke. Yet still he sits on his media throne telling his shrinking pool of readers that others ought to be more like them.

  16. avatar Joe R. says:

    The ‘Real Criminal’ in Waffle House Shooting Was MSNBC, the MSM, the evil MFn POS (D) and cack-bag soros.

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