As we predicted, the man arrested for the New Orleans’ Mother’s Day parade shooting was a gang banger with a record. In fact, Akein Scott was out on $15k bond for a weapons charge when he opened fire on the crowd. Or, more likely, someone in the crowd. While the civilian disarmament industrial complex initially seized on the shooting to promote their agenda, they backed off when they realized it was a black-on-black crime, perpetuated by a hardened criminal, who’d been enabled by a lax legal system, overseen by a black Democrat. For them, the fact that Akein Scott should have been locked-up isn’t the key variable. Oh no. Check out this comment by DRZM underneath the CBS post . . .
I work with delinquent youth and young adults like Akein Scott every day and also conduct research on violence. This is a growing social epidemic that we need to organize collectively to solve. Many (but not all) of these kids are raised in violent homes or neighborhoods surrounded by poverty, drugs, and antisocial role models, with little hope or sense of how to really make something positive of their lives. They start affiliating with other delinquent peers and gangs, and get way more exposure to aggressive and violent media (videos, game, music) from a very early age than they get exposure to prosocial messages.
Some of them have untreated individual problems that make them more vulnerable, like ADHD and learning disabilities. But most of them probably start with healthy brains that are gradually broken by their environments. Gun access is part of the problem. I realize most legal gun owners would never commit this kind of act. At the same time, I wish the growing number of youth who are at risk for violence — both those who are easy to identify like this one based on their history, and those who are not — had ZERO gun access AND better mental health care AND better access to healthy role models and social messages from an early age. Until we tackle ALL of these problems, we and our children are increasingly potential targets.
Gun laws that assured ZERO access to guns for bad guys would severely infringe if not eliminate law-abiding Americans’ human, civil and Constitutionally protected right to keep and bear arms, and thus increase crime. This thought doesn’t occur to DRZM or his fellow gun control advocates.
But it’s a nice package of proposals. Let’s start with locking-up bad guys who use guns and see how that goes. M’kay?
The fact that it turned out to be a “black on black” shooting is certainly no reason to back off of anything. You guys are the ones who supply the criminals with their guns. You, who favor lax gun laws, are ultimately responsible.
Totally not the people who do the crimes. Not them at all.
I totally disagree with the author. The liberals who want those laws DO realize the impact and infringements it would place on legal gun owners. They just don’t care.
What a load. I supply guns to no one. The fact that liberal democrats let this clown out on bail rather than locking him up is the problem.
Me guys nothing. That is your issue, you gun grabbing piece of nonsense. You project the ills of the world on some subset of people you ideologically disagree with.
Neither I nor anyone I know who owns guns (and that number seems to be growing quickly) has never supplied any criminals with guns. Other criminals tend to be the ones who supply the guns.
Even we’re not the ones who supply these idiots with guns and you are, by not allowing John and Jane Q. Public to screen their buyers. That blood is on your hands, not ours.
Enjoy being the laughing stock of society for another round of your dumb, baseless, and indefensible comments.
There is nothing stopping John and Jane Q. from using a licensed firearms dealer to screen buyers and even handle the entire transaction. It happens all the time. When we buy firearms online from a licensed dealer they will not ship it to me directly, they have to send it to a local licensed dealer who then does the background check.
I think all private citizens who are selling a firearm to someone they do not know should do that, but I don’t believe it should be required.
Criminals are not getting guns one at a time from law-abiding citizens. It would take too long and be too much risk. They either steal them, buy them on the street from those who have, or have non-felon relatives buy them in a gun store or pawn shop with a background check. Unless the relative at the store admits he is buying it for someone else the sale goes through. And more background checks will not change that. Yes, it’s a straw purchase and yes it is already illegal but if you think someone who is buying a gun to give it to a violent felon friend cares, you are living in a dream! THEY DON’T CARE! They rationalize or ignore the reality of it, and probably get a bunch of cash to help with their rationalization efforts.
I don’t think it should be required, either. But I would like to be able to call in a background check just like dealers do at gun shows (and yes they do Mike).
Doing these things through a dealer would incur a fee, which is just another way the obstructionist gun control lobby has successfully campaigned to make law-abiding citizens shy away from exercising their right to sell their private property.
I am already well aware of where criminals get their guns. Mike is the one in need of a education.
Glad you see MikeB#’s as uninformed of the facts.
So I, because I favor minimal firearms regulation, am more responsible for the shootings in New Orleans than the man who actually pulled the trigger?
Your posts get more stupid and insipid with every passing day.
I didn’t say “more responsible.” Why is it necessary for you to mischaracterize what I said before arguing against it? Isn’t what I actually do say bad enough for you? Or are you so mendacious and unfamiliar with telling the simple truth that you can’t help yourself?
Then you deny that you mean what you say. Such pathetic, liberal nonsense. Your life is words on a page that you can twist and distort.
Why is it necessary for you to miscategorize an entire segment of the population as being responsible for something that they had absolutely nothing to do with in any way, shape, or form on any conceivable level whatsoever? Nothing you say is “bad enough” for us because you nothing you say is true, which means it’s actually bad for you for that specific reason.
I find it funny that a known, pathological liar is trying to lecture a group of people — which has proven itself to be more educated and articulate than you ever could or will be — about telling the “simple truth”. Well, the “simple truth” here, is that you are one-hundred percent, irrecoverably, incontrovertibly, undeniably wrong.
You said “ultimately responsible”. Isn’t the person who is ultimately responsible for a crime more responsible for it than one who is not?
No, not necessarily, Hal.
Yes, necessarily they are, Mike. Yes they are.
Mikeb30200 insists that everyone else is responsible for the crime, especially those who had nothing to do with it!
Isnt that why you are on the do not buy list also Mikeb, someone else committed a crime?
Mikey B?! Is it really you? It’s been so long… I figured you had choked on a cannoli and did the world a favor! How is Italy treating you?
As a computer savvy middle aged white guy who talks to people on the internet Mikeb’s demographic is ultimately responsible for child sexual predation.
Miley, you wouldn’t know truth, data, rationality or reason if it came up and bit you on your rump. Welcome back, it’s good to see your brand of reasoned discourse. So refreshing.
Let’s see how your logic applies to other crimes:
Parents who allow their children to play outside are just as responsible as the child predators that lure them into their vans and kidnap them.
People who leave their doors unlocked are just as responsible as the person who illegally enters their home and steals their precious belongings.
A person driving through a high-crime area is just as responsible as the gang banger who breaks in his window at a stop light and steals his wallet at gunpoint.
Oh, the gun owners are responsible for that last one too.
Jeff, I like the way you inserted “just as” in there. You’re a slick one, you are.
You are correct. You didn’t say “more responsible” you said “ultimately responsible”. Your complaint of mendacity is ironic.
You are correct MikeB! Now do you know anyone that wants to purchase the last of my stolen guns? Preferably a black kid in a single parent home?
I see what you did there, Mister Guy. Well-played.
ROFL…. Good one. Too bad the criminals who sell the guns don’t give a flying fart who they sell to as long as they have the cash. Oh wait… you’re talking the illegal arms dealer supplying both sides of the gang war. I got it now. (Yeah, they don’t care about either side, or their ethnicity and age either as they see selling to both sides as perpetual income.)
Who exactly are “you guys”? That sort of collective blame by association is no less reprehensible than if RF had said “those people” always commit this kind of crime. The fact remains that the shooter was on bail for a weapons charge. In a tougher enforcement environment he would not have been on bail but in jail instead. I somehow doubt that any of the “you guys” that you refer to handed Mr. Scott a firearm and with a hearty farewell sent him off to bring mayhem to a parade. Is it any wonder that a criminal acted in a criminal manner?
Instead of addressing a laundry list of social ills, the solution to all of society’s woes is to ban firearms from people who are not criminals, are not on drugs, and are not part of the problem? Last I checked I,and millions of people like me, including the armed intelligensia of TTAG, haven’t shot up any mother’s day parades and yet you want to blame me for Mr. Scott’s actions?
In fact, you could almost Akein Scott was the victim in all this. After all, if weapons weren’t so readily available to the criminal community he wouldn’t have gotten hold of one and been compelled to go shoot up that parade.
As a solution, I propose that we enact legislation making it illegal to sell or give a gun to a felon, and gun stores should run background checks on buyers to ensure that they aren’t felons.
This should serve to universally punish law-abiding citizens and prevent future felons from becoming victims of readily-available firearm possession.
And this, coming from the guy who started slavery in America! SHAME ON YOU!
Mikey, where have you been? I must admit that I missed you.
Show me the statistics that say stolen guns are the #1 source of guns used by criminals. I believe a majority come from straw purchasers and family members. If somehow gun theft was eliminated explain why the black market would not find another source such as Mexican cartels or the Russian mafia.
Have I been so absent lately that you’ve forgotten everything? There are four ways you lawful gun owners supply the criminal world with guns, theft, straw purchasing, private sales without background checks and all those times when one of you turn bad. In each of those, lawful gun owners are involved in the transfer of guns from their proper owners to criminals (the 4th way is a little different). And all the rest of you who fight for laws which continue to allow that to go on unabated, are also responsible.
Awesome, I am responsible for a bunch of crimes! What now? Are you going to arrest me or something? I didn’t think so, haha!
What we have forgotten is what it’s like to laugh at someone so inept and so clueless. There are exactly zero ways law-abiding citizens are responsible for supplying criminals with guns, at least two reasons that you and your idiot kind are.
Specifically, you and your idiot kind’s successful campaign to bar access to the NICS from John and Jane Q. Public from screening their buyers. Secondly, you and your idiot kind have also successfully lobbied to make HIPAA such an obstacle as to make it virtually impossible to add the mentally ill to background check databases –even if they’ve been adjudicated in a court of law as mentally defective.
You and your idiot kind are directly responsible for straw purchases from the get-go, and are also directly responsible for the arming of the criminally insane. That blood is still on your hands and your hands only, and there is no washing it off so long as you support gun control.
There are four ways in which you law-abiding citizens are responsible for all crime: accidents, as accessories, negligence, and actually committing crimes. In each of those, law-abiding citizens are involved in enabling the commission of crime against the community (the 4th way is a little different). And all the rest of you who fight for laws which continue to allow that to go unabated, are also responsible.
Poor lucu, so how is it that our own govt. acknowledges that over 92% of killings by illegal use of a gun, are committed by career criminals, gang members, suiciders & crazies each year?
Anyone who completes a straw purchase is not a law-abiding gun owner, so is not the subject of the discussion.
Anyone who shoots someone without a good reason is not a law-abiding gun owner, so is not the subject of the discussion.
“private sales without background checks”
Anyone who knowingly sells a gun to a criminal is not a law-abiding gun owner so is not the subject of this discussion. Granted, it can be hard for people to tell if a stranger is a criminal, so it would be nice if the government would let private sellers call in for background checks. I personally would require a carry permit so I know the buyer have been vetted.
So you are holding victims of crime responsible for being victimized? OK, you’ve shown who you are quite clearly. If you truly believe this, you have no place in a free society.
My nostalgia has just evaporated. You never answered the real question.
As for your good guy who has gone bad that is a phony concept. Not every criminal gets caught the first time he commits a crime., most do not. So just because a person “without a record” gets caught doesn’t mean he was honest man up to that point. Straw purchasers are generally criminals who haven’t been caught yet.
You left off one the major sources of gun for criminals in major metropolitan areas: dirty cops. It’s well documented.
So, I will restate the question for you. Assuming you choke off the straw purchasers and stolen guns explain why the same people who import drugs and engaging human trafficking won’t fill the demand.
“Assuming you choke off the straw purchasers and stolen guns explain why the same people who import drugs and engaging human trafficking won’t fill the demand.”
They will. But that method would never replace the tremendous availability that is happening now. But, the real question is, why would you want to make it so easy for criminals to get guns that importing them illegally is not necessary? Wouldn’t you want to make it harder, even at the cost of a bit of inconvenience?
That’s all we’re talking about remember a little inconvenience. I’m not saying eliminate all civilian guns. I’m saying civilian guns should be better controlled, that’s all.
Wow mikeb. Ive never met anyone as close minded as you. MY WAY IS RIGHTAND ALL YOU PEOPLE ABIDING THE LAW ARE WRONG AND EVIL. Ive never made a straw purchase. Anyone breaking into my house to steal my guns would be ill advised. And I am in the business of buying not selling. Next argument?
Btw how are your 1-2 commentors on your blog (usually arguing against your emotional, irrational statements) doing?
Being stolen from is not supplying. That’s called being a victim of crime.
Straw purchasing is a crime, so law abiding people don’t do that.
Selling a long arm without a background check obviously isn’t how criminals get guns given that the number of crimes that are committed with all rifles are less than the number of people struck by lightning in the US in a given year, the number committed with no-background-check purchased rifles so small that no one is interested in keeping track of it.
Holding someone accountable for their potential to do harm is so backwards and absurd… I don’t even know what to say. The cases of this happening are anecdotal and the potential to do harm of every person who has some money and can walk on their own is so huge that firearms access is a wiz in the ocean.
I thought LaLa Land only existed in parts of California.
Now I see it has truly infected your brain and that of every gun grabber pushing the confiscation agenda.
Do you also believe that if a woman is raped while dressed provocatively it’s her fault? Do you think she got what she deserved?
Holding victims responsible for the crimes of the perpetrator is a morally reprehensible thing to do.
Have you no sense of justice at all?
Just like the mob couldn’t replace the liquor supply during Prohibition?
If organized crime can supply wars they supply the American criminal market.
That’s an awfulyl broad mischaracterization.
Almost all of my guns are at home in my safe. One is on the desk in front of me.
I haven’t supplied any criminals.
Tom, you want laws which allow private sales without background checks, and you oppose any legal requirement to use a gun safe at home, am I right? Then, you need to accept the results that come as a result of that kind of laxity. You are responsible.
You and your idiot kind have already made it impossible for John and Jane Q. Public to run background checks on their buyers to begin with, Mike. You’ve also made next to impossible for the mentally unstable to be added to those background check databases to begin with. Safe storage laws don’t work to start with, and impose an undue burden akin to a poll tax. You, and you alone, are still responsible. We are not.
Mike, you want to laws which allow free will without government oversight, and you oppose any legal requirement to have a subcutaneous tracking chip at birth, am I right? Then, you need to accept the results that come as a result of that kind of liberty. You are responsible.
Excederine, there is nothing stopping John and Jane Q. from using a licensed firearms dealer to screen buyers and even handle the entire transaction. I don’t know where you cooked that up from but it is incorrect. Any licensed dealer will do the background check for John and Jane Q. Public. Now John and Jane themselves have no business looking at what is in the NICS. That is private information. But they can use the system to check out potential buyers.
Gosh. I see the light now. I’m going to hang my head in shame.
The only way you could enforce a required gun safe law is to have the police or inspektor come into a person’s home. Do you really want to go down that road? I sure don’t.
Mikeb, you’re against laws for neutering all male humans; you are responsible for rape! See how easy it is to blame other people instead of accepting that bad people do bad things?
I will go you one better. I want all on the book gun laws repealed. If a man cannot be trusted with a weapon, then he cannot be trusted to walk the streets.
When you start making my house payment, then you can tell me I have to use a safe, until then FOAD.
I’d like to think the majority of ‘us guys’ are pretty good at employing the common sense that is apparently lost on the left. To wit: I currently have a gun listed on utahgunexchange.com. Since it’s a private transaction, I don’t have to require any proof of anything to sell it, but I’m smart and know that certain people are worried about certain things. So I require a photocopy of a UTDL/CFP and signed bill of sale. These are for my own records only, as a CYA measure in case the gun is used in a future crime or something. A guy just called and asked if his relative could pick it up for him. I said sure, as long as they’re willing to provide me with the above documentation. He quickly changed his mind about his interest. Was he a criminal? Maybe. Did I need a law requiring NICS check, bill of sale, etc. to prevent what essentially could have been a straw purchase? Of course not. Common sense means you shouldn’t need a law. And we don’t.
Here’s the thing with “legal requirements” like for safe storage of a firearm:
Whenever proposing a new law, replace “It shall be unlawful to” with “I get to lock you in a cage (where you will be raped) for”
Mike, I get to lock you in a cage (where you will be raped) for keeping a firearm not in a safe. It does not matter that you did not harm anyone. You broke the legal requirement. Now get in the cage. And get raped.
Does that sound like a civilized or reasonable thing to do?
Lock up the people that actually hurt others (like by shooting up a parade). Leave everyone else alone.
I’m not sure if you are serious. Assuming you are, a fatal flaw in your argument is that this kind of violence is very rare in rural areas where many if not most kids grow up with guns in the home. Internationally, there is no correlation between number of guns in private hands per capita and murder rate (overall, the correlation is weakly negative in fact, which shows that if anything more guns = lower murder rate). Finally, within this country, the murder rate has dropped as the number of privately owned firearms per capita has increased. But surely you know all this?
He knows this. He just refuses to acknowledge it because it interferes with his narrative, and completely cuts the legs out from any and every argument he could possibly make. He’s a known, pathological liar with a bone to pick with exactly the wrong people.
Oh, I’ve been trolled. Well, not the first time and probably won’t be the last.
Real ALL of you comments and YOU NAILED IT! Good work
Gun owners whose guns are stolen are “supply[ing] criminals with guns” in exactly the same way that rape victims supply rapists with sex.
Oh, I’m sure he’ll find a way to blame rape victims, too, I’ll bet.
Of course it’s the victims fault to these assholes; they’d blame the victim because she didn’t try to heroically fight off her rapist by, y’know, throwing up or peeing on herself.
Bam! Outta the park!
I need to remember that one.
Hmmm… I believe that it is Akein Scott who is responsible.
You liberals supply them with the money, via welfare, SNAP, TANF, EITC, etc. that they use to acquire the guns, knives and bats that they use to commit crimes. Yes, you liberals and your welfare state are literally and directly funding crime.
Who exactly is making choices for young Mr Scott, then? That ‘ultimately responsible’ logic is ludicrous. If you can make a connection between my gun and his crime, then I have decided it’s your fault my dog chewed up my wife’s shoe.
Are you seriously suggesting that the real crime here is the sale of the gun? Who says the guy didn’t steal it? Aren’t attempted murder and possession of a weapon by a violent offender to be considered?
Why do grabbers refuse to acknowledge that murder is still illegal?
All of these problems among the blacks go back to LBJ and his “Great Society.” You know what he said when his package of welfare programs passed, I presume?
Lets see, no God, no morality, no right or wrong, kids with no father influence, constantly playing the race card for gain, abuse of the welfare system, a drug and gang driven culture, a subculture driven by a “put the blame on others” belief system, all these philosophies reinforced by a broken education system pushing the aforementioned beliefs on children.
And you want to blame gun owners? That’s about the most shortsighted, dumbest statement I have read in recent memory. You either have a twisted agenda or you are just plain stupid. I think the latter.
Mike, you really give liberals a bad name (for the record I’m a card carrying dirty liberal, just one you strongly supports the 2A).
So does the firearm represent a metaphor (for societies ills) or is it intrinsically evil (inanimate though it may be)? Should it not bother you infinitely more that someone (anyone) would want to perform wantan violent acts? Isn’t that what our focus should be on, the part about the guy wanting to cause havoc? But rather you choose to focus on his implementation strategy?! Would your stance change had he used an SUV to cause a similar level of mayhem? Would you be calling for more stringent driver license requirements? Maximum speed limit of 25mph everywhere all the time?
Does that line of reasoning not strike you as a wee-bit incomplete. Let me come at this a different way. If you take the emotion out of it and just purely want to problem solve the situation (I’m appealing to the armchair intellectual in every liberal), wouldn’t it be more effective to say legalize drugs than to be arguing about background checks or magazine capacities? How many more lives would be saved if there was no drug money at stake?
“You guys” are the ones who create the criminals and who, are, more often than not, the criminals yourself. FOAD. I own guns to protect myself from “you guys.”
No need to thank me for taking a stand against the mess you create. It’s reward enough knowing that cowardly criminals will steer clear of an armed home and go after ones like yours. Ah, what a lovely thought.
We do not “supply” a POS with guns.
He either steals ’em, or buy’s ’em illegally with money “supplied” by someone who didn’t have a gun.
All right, for all you pretend simpletons who are making believe you don’t understand what I mean, I’ll try to spell it out. Of course the criminal is responsible for what he does. But, by the same token, you are responsible for what you do. So, let’s say, a thief comes into your house and takes your gun from under the pillow in the bedroom. The thief is responsible for the theft and you are responsible for having failed to safely store your gun.
Another example: you sell a gun privately to someone who turns out to be a criminal. The buyer is responsible for whatever misuse he gets up to, and you are responsible for having sold the gun to someone without a background check which would have disqualified the buyer.
Everybody is responsible for his own.
So if a gun is stolen from my nightstand behihind the LOCKED doors of my house its my fault?! Do I have to logchain my tv to a stud for that to be the criminals fault?
“So if a gun is stolen from my nightstand behihind the LOCKED doors of my house its my fault?”
Yes, V, it needs to be in a safe.
That’s cute. Mikey, a criminal, freeing the rest of the criminal class from their culpability.
No fool our government supplies criminals. See op fast and furious.
Was someone else also responsible for your last bowel movement? It would make about as much logical sense.
I hadn’t seen you around in a while. Ah, good times. That is to say, when you were gone.
hey mike where do you live? something tells me its in a all white neighborhood with no crime. why don’t you go live in the majority minority areas like Detroit or Camden? Are you racist?
He lives in Italy, a nearly all white country with different problems and plenty of crime. He can’t see it from under the sand where his head resides.
“…you should not demand facts or proof for that which is self-evident.”
“Much of what I say and think is not able to be proven with “facts,”…”
“Gun control advocates do not expect criminals to obey the laws, that’s why the laws are aimed at law-abiding citizens.” – MikeB
Now, everyone, stop feeding the troll.
we also supply criminals with bullet heads, mikeb, and save the taxpayers money in the process. you can thank us later.
If wishes were trees the trees would be falling
Listen to reason
Reason is calling
Your feet are going to be on the ground
Your head is there to move you around
I wish I’d find a pot of gold on my doorstep tomorrow. But Mikey Numbers keeps stealing it before I can get it!!
I still don’t know why anyone would feed that troll.
Mayhap he teethed on .22LR and one he hadn’t yet eaten went of, like they do. Evil bull-its…
So… by DRZM’s own admission, the problems are, in list order: violent homes; poverty; drugs; antisocial role models; hopelessness; gangs; violent media; and sometimes ADHD/learning disabilities. And yet the solution is to ban guns?
Can we just please commit mass suicide now? Because the barbarians are taking too damn long!
Actually because of global warming, we only have to have a little more patience as since the vast majority of such progressivus idiotus’s live in coastal cities, they will soon flood and rid us of their prescence due to global warming!
But the DO have “zero gun access” because it is 1. illegal for minors to have access to guns, and 2. the parents are properly instructing and preventing access.
Oh that’s right, these are CRIMINALS who do not follow laws or parental guidance.
Never mind. Nothing to see here, move along.
“I wish the growing number of youth who are at risk for violence — both those who are easy to identify like this one based on their history, and those who are not — had ZERO gun access AND better mental health care AND better access to healthy role models and social messages from an early age. Until we tackle ALL of these problems, we and our children are increasingly potential targets.”
Cue the unicorns pooping rainbows…
I like unicorns, but I don’t think they poop anything.
Or the Nyan Cat
A large portion of DRZM’s comment is true and accurate. Unfortunately it leaves out one little variable: free will. I’ve worked with kids from that kind of background that had all manner of problems, but the desire to go shooting up a parade was not on the agenda. Free will makes a difference.
It’s never the fault of the shooter. He always has some disease or disorder, most of the time concocted by a panel of psychiatrists who wrote whatever version of the DSM that the disease or disorder originated in.
People never deliberately do anything bad because they simply want to, I guess. They’re all sick and if ONLY we had a therapeutic total state run by experts this would’ve never happened!
If you disagree with me you just have oppositional defiant disorder! (/sarc)
“They’re all sick and if ONLY we had a therapeutic total state run by social workers, this would’ve never happened! ”
See? I fixed it for you. I’ve only run across ONE decent social worker in my 65 years. The rest are statist control freaks, and boy, if the legal system ever allows them to sink their filthy talons into you, they will NEVER voluntarily let go.
“This is a growing social epidemic that we need to organize collectively to solve.”
I love how even after the media has been forced to admit that crime rates have massively fallen over the past 20 years, they STILL try to claim that we have increasing crime.
There’s not even any statistical evidence that suggests that these particular incidents are trending, either. When you actually look at the data, it’s a roller-coaster from 1990 to today. It’s constantly up and down, and up and down again. It’s nuts.
Two of my most-hated words:
followed closely by the phrase
You picked up those two words, too. Beware when you hear them. They reek of Acorn and progressivism.
She was refering to “delinquent youth”
What she missed is, it has been a social epidemic for a long time….See Chicago.
She is not wrong overall. And, it will never be fixed….ever….because the leaders they have keep them in mental chains and there is little way to break the broken family cycle.
” those who are easy to identify like this one based on their history, and those who are not ”
wait, inner city blacks cannot own guns because they are all dangerous and don’t know how to comport themselves in civilized society? puke.
reality check: if i wave enough benjamins in front of anyone, they will do mostly what i ask. Drugs are a business and frankly i do not see dangerous psychopathic youth, i see people trying to make a living the best way they know how. Illegal businesses tend to be dominated by people willing to resort to brutality and violence to maintain control (because that’s how you are successful literally killing the competition). I find it curious that 5 years after we repealed prohibition, violent crime went down substantially. I read that the leader of the BGF made 250k from the Baltimore city jail, tax free. Who would not want to make that kind of money, college education or not? I think that these youth have plenty of role models. We need to decriminalize drugs and channel their capitalistic instincts elsewhere.
DRZM has explained the symptoms but ignores the disease. The social conditions that manufacture the Akein Scotts of the world are generated by what Walter Russell Meade calls the “blue social model.” This model of society is run by a kleptocracy that services a dependent populatiion, all fed by tax dollars from ever shrinking productive class. The blue social model’s ultimate destination is Detroit.
The primary factors that cause violent crime to be concentrated in one relative small demographic group are the percentage of children born out of wedlock, the percentage of the population on welfare and the length of time the blue social model has been implemented in a jurisdiction.
If you want to reduce crime and violence in this country ban Democrats not guns.
This is word for word a description of ur-fascist economic populism. “The rich and the poor steal from the hard working, productive middle class!”
It isn’t true, except in your silly world of black helicopters and impending paratroopers from Mother Russia
Now that is classic Facsist doublespeak. Put a bunch of words together that mean nothing but sound intelligent.
You are pretty dated. If I were a Facsist like you I would welcome the Russians with open arms. Maybe you didn’t get the message the USSR died in 1991.
So tell me why do all cities controled by the Democratic Party follow this pattern. The blue model is the Fascist model.
no, this is what an actual fascist is. It was the economic populism that characterized Nazi Germany, Franco’s Spain and Mussolini’s Italy. It characterizes the right leaning neo-nazis in Greece and now Russia.
I’m sorry if that makes you uncomfortable so you start calling other people fascists. It has to do with your own ignorance though.
I am so glad that you decided to respond because upon rereading your initial post I realized how clueless you are.
The kleptocratic class is not the generic rich, it is the government class and their cronies. The very people who populate the Fascist [Democratic] Party. People who make their money by the hard work and intelligence whether it’s Joe the Plumber or Bill Gates constitute the productive class.
Your use of this kind of rhetoric confirms that you somehow missed the end the Soviet Union 20+ years ago.
Except that fascism is a left-wing ideology. We’re laughing at your ignorance, not the other way around.
No, the Fabians [ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fabian_Society ] and similar organizations decided long ago that paratroopers would not be feasible, and this has nothing to do with Russia (in fact, some USSR survivors are doing all they can to warn us http://english.pravda.ru/opinion/columnists/28-12-2012/123335-americans_guns-0/ ). It’s not black helicopters. It’s school teachers, university professors, most of the press, and the useful idiots they spawn. The vast majority are convinced they are doing the right thing, too.
Google “IRS tea party”
Now, tell us again how paranoid we are.
yes, okay, the internal revenue service director (appointed by bush) investigated the tax exempt filings? As in they literally did their job? And the only “social welfare” group that was denied tax exempt status was a liberal one? Yeah, sounds like a massive conspiracy to me.
More noise from the right wing scandal generation machine.
Except, templeton, that the IRS admitted to deliberately targeting conservative groups while giving liberals a pass and even giving them favored service. So, no, it’s not right-wing propaganda. It’s an actual left-wing scandal that is now out in the open and is incontrovertible evidence of even more wrong-doing by the government.
You know who else was appointed by Bush? John Roberts. The action is wrong, regardless of who appointed him.
They didn’t give them “favored service.” They rubber stamped every tea party group for exemption, even though they are blatantly political organizations. If there is a scandal here, it’s that.
1) The acting director that was offered up (in fact is being allowed to finish his term on schedule) has only been in charge for the last seven months or so. Not the guy who should be getting roasted (or not the only guy at least).
2) Who cares who appointed the guy? Regardless, Bush was a big government guy too, little different in practice from most dems. He who played a big role in giving us the Patriot Act is no friend of freedom. Don’t try to weasel out of this by making it partisan. Not buying it.
3) Many of the tea party groups stonewalled by the IRS STILL haven’t been granted their status. Is there much difference between being denied and not having status granted? Especially when it has already helped cripple them beyond the 2012 elections?
4) The worst offense is still not being discussed by the media much, that is the IRS turning over private records to a leftist organization, by that organization’s own admission [ http://www.propublica.org/article/irs-office-that-targeted-tea-party-also-disclosed-confidential-docs ]. This is by the way an org funded by two convicted felons that made their pile in the sub-prime mortgage disaster. They served their time but got to keep the loot. Now they are using their plunder to further the progressive agenda, and had been doing so with the complicity of our own government it seems.
You can keep trying to brush this off as partisan bickering if you want to. I don’t think it’s going to work.
Except that they absolutely did show preference for liberal groups, while sending conservative groups through the ringer –by the IRS’s own admission.
Precisely. Address the “growing social epidemic”, which is irresponsible people & parents. Instead that kind of behavior is encouraged by the government. Why? Because that means the government gets to be responsible, creating a perceived need for a broad, ever-expanding, all-controlling State.
Just ban the guns, then they’ll go away like drugs did when we banned them.
Perfect! You got it!
How is it as a Democrat and a liberal myself, I have the capacity to understand that this person should not have been out on bond, PERIOD. I’m going for a stretch here, but I think it’s safe to say that this wasn’t a properly permitted person, legally carrying their gun and getting caught up in a bad self-defense situation. Nope, this was a gang-banger, caught illegally possessing a firearm and arrested. And because the system is too overworked with non-violent inmates, we have someone illegally possessing a gun, released…JUST SO HE CAN GO GET ANOTHER GUN AND SHOOT AT PEOPLE. And I’m willing to bet my ridiculous paycheck, that he didn’t obtain the first *OR* second firearm legally. But let’s make more laws for those that legally purchase firearms. Yup, that will do something for this type of problem.
Ask the other liberal Democrats that question. They are the ones that seem not to have the capacity to see past the end of their noses, oblivious to unintended consequences and human nature, and insist on more laws and more government to fix anything.
Most blue collar union democrats living around any major city are pretty pro gun.
Left libertarians are pro gun.
Pretty much true, from what I’ve seen. “Left libertarians” are actually liberals in the true, classic sense (liberals wrote our constitution and led the Revolutionary War).
The problem isn’t with liberals as such, nor Democrats as such, but with the progressivism that’s infected everything.
I like the idea of progressivism in abstract, as well as liberalism. The problem is that these two labels are slapped on behavior that is neither progressive nor liberal.
I suppose I am a Classical Liberal, or a Left Libertarian, or a Social Liberal, or Fiscal Conservative, or a Conservative Progressive, or a Capitalist.
one article says all the guns were stolen. There are a lot of pro-gun democrats, dont let the propaganda fool you.
Left libertarians didn’t write our constitution. I don’t know where in the hell you guys came up with that.
Many of our founders were simply classical liberals.
Ok so it’s his parents’ and segments of his community’s violent and criminal behavior that begets his. All of those people should have been put in jail too. Just like he should be put in jail to prevent his violent and criminal behavior from affecting the next generation. You can make the behaviorism argument, but it means if you want to stop it you need to change the environment. Right now the environment is the lax legal system and enforcement Robert describes.
I’m sure there are a lot of factors contributing to why someone behaves a certain way, but because some of them are external doesn’t excuse them from responsibility for their actions. Now me and the guns in my safe and one on my hip because people like him are made in communities like his is enabling this behavior? GTFO.
I can’t control other people or their communities that I am not a part of. I could render assistance if requested, I can make a suggestion if asked for it, but to truly make something happen in some other group of people unsolicited requires an act of leverage, which is an act of violence. Whether it is “for their own good” or not, you are committing an act of violence against them.
And besides, the people in those communities are WAY smarter about their problems than people who are on the outside. They may have a higher rate of guys like this in their midst, but they are still as a majority good honorable people, just as good an honorable as the next good honorable person.
DRZM knows more than we do. After all, he’s done research.
If you count “research” as searching your personal feelings and then looking for crony junk science to fit their conclusions (instead of the other way around), then, sure.
I checked the definition of “research.” It does not include navel gazing. Ergo, DRZM has never done research.
I am so happy Mikey B Numbers is paying us a surprise visit. As a felon, the constant projection of his own inability to act lawfully/bear arms responsibly onto others is an enduring example of statist hypocrisy.
Don’t worry Mikey boy, I will continue to be a RKBA absolutist until even felonious puppets like yourself are free to bear arms again.
I’d like to know more about Mikeb’s criminal past. What are the public details?
I don’t have the details, but it had something to do with a turkey baster and a monkey.
That is criminal activity only in NY and CT. In Mass you can get a permit.
I remember seeing Mikey discussing his activities while on his road to righteousness. http://3bxsofbs.infamousanime.net/?p=4488
I asked him to set the record straight once when I was new to the site and it turned into a big “WHO DO YOU THINK YOU ARE HOW DARE YOU QUESTION MY PAST WHAT MATTERS IS MY ARGUMENTS THE CONTEXT OF MY PAST MEANS NOTHING” drama fest.
This line of argument is both correct and true. In the case of many of M#’s arguments, his past has no bearing on the truth of the proposition in question. In fact, many of his arguments are indeed logically correct however, he seems to equate making a correct argument with establishing definitively the truth of a proposition. When the premises used to make argument in support of your proposition are in doubt or empirically established false, those arguments are no longer of use in divining the truth of the proposition. Best case, the truth value is indeterminate. Worst case, it is false.
I agree with you in theory but I don’t think it’s that simple. To start, seldom are his arguments logically correct. Okay… one time he said silencers shouldn’t need tax stamps… even a broken clock is right twice a day I suppose. Next, there ARE discussions in which both context and motives matter. They may not be applicable in the case in a^2 + b^2 = c^2 but they sure as hell matter here.
Laws/regulations/reductions in liberties are not mathematical equations; they are complicated matters that often have unforeseen/undesirable secondary, tertiary and quaternary consequences. For this reason, the people advocating for such things, as well as their motives, truly matter because those things oftentimes influence those consequences.
In this case, the advocate is Mikeb302000. He uses the internet as a tool to influence readers into believing in gun control. This gives him some very limited power to shape the civilian disarmament narrative. Because this could eventually contribute (directly or indirectly) to how future laws are shaped, HIS CONTEXT AND HIS MOTIVES MATTER. The context surrounding him is as follows:
He has forfeited his RKBA through felonious crimes and left this country to live abroad long ago.
I am therefore forced to wonder, if people like Mike are shaping the argument then what would those consequences look like? First, he has no actual skin in the game; those consequences will have absolutely no effect on him in Italy and as such he is a zero-liability advocate. Second, data indicates that areas with decreased firearms regulations experience reductions in crime. As a former criminal, I believe that Mr. Bonomo defaults to empathizing with other criminals. He advocates for systems which would place the honest citizenry in a position of greater risk while providing enhanced occupational safety for people more like himself. He might not even be self-aware enough to know that he does it… he just does.
Because I reject his context and his motives, I have no choice but to confront him about the same. Every time I see him here. No exceptions. To do otherwise would indicate acceptance. I do not accept that an ex-pat felon who cares more about criminals than citizens can be a legitimate voice in shaping this debate nor will I permit him to be so on TTAG. Nor will many of the other commentators here… and rightfully so. I will therefore continue to confront him about his context and his motives because I do not accept that he has any legitimacy within the scope of this argument.
Hal, I’ll tell you what my context and my motives are. As a participant in this argument, I propose questions and ideas that press your buttons. My motivation is I won’t be bullied by the likes of you and the rest of the TTAG sycophants. That’s what.
Criminals get their guns from you legitimate gun owners in the four ways I’ve outlined. You can do all the smoke and mirrors you want to try and obfuscate that unpalatable truth, but there it is. And your involvement in it is undeniable. Even those of you who keep your guns in a safe and never sell privately without a background check support the lax laws which make those practices possible for millions. Stop shirking your responsibility. If you want it that way, then accept the results.
When I say that his arguments are logically correct, it means that some of those he has presented here conform to established rules of logic and are valid. Which is to say their conclusion follows of necessity:
All cups are green.
Socrates is a cup.
Therefore, Socrates is green.
Note that this argument proceeds from false premises to reach a false conclusion and is thus not sound. Those few of M#’s posts which are actually argumentative in a logical sense, and are not simply rhetorical in nature (and therefore unable to arrive at any form of truth), are of this variety. To attack such arguments, as you have done, ad hominem does a disservice to the cause of truth, for the characteristics of the speaker are irrelevant to the argument at hand and are only useful in a rhetorical context – unless of course we are developing propositions as to how and M#’s holds certain premises as true which is outside the scope of this discussion. Let’s entertain, for the sake of exposition, that what he proposes in this thread is actually argumentative and not simply rhetorical:
“You guys are the ones who supply the criminals with their guns. You, who favor lax gun laws, are ultimately responsible [for the shooting].”
Can you spot the fallacy of this argument? I wish we had spoiler text for these occasions… post hoc ergo propter hoc this argument is therefore fallacious. Let’s try and beef it up, with what I can only assume are the suppressed premises he’s operating under:
“You guys are the ones who supply the criminals with their guns.“
(All TTAG readers favor lax gun laws)
(All who favor lax gun laws bear ultimate responsibility for shootings)
(shooting is an action)
(If you bear ultimate responsibility for an action you are ultimately responsible for the action)
“You, who favor lax gun laws, are ultimately responsible [for the shooting].”
This argument is valid, but is it sound? What evidence have we of the truth of its premises? I won’t do this for you as this argument is fundamentally ethical and moral in nature. As to utility of its conclusion for our society I would direct you to how our system of law handles liability, which may also serve appropriate challenge to its truth – depending of course on your ethical framework.
Identify rhetoric for what it is, tolerate it not. Attack premises. Find truth through logical discourse and empirical discovery.
NEGATIVE Mikey. You are not a participant in this argument. You are an ex-pat felon who is, at BEST, a source of amusement on this site. Even in the rare event that your ramblings are logical they don’t make it past the “hyprocite-statist-felon” filter and we are forced to disregard any input you have.
That’s the way it goes. There are a lot of topics to be discussed on the internet where being an ex-pat felon is not a disqualifier. Food, wine, beer, music, golf, woodworking, etc. But in the scope of THIS subject matter your input is less than meaningless. I assign the same level of credibility to your arguments that I would give to Dr. Gosnell if he decided write a pro-life missive.
Admittedly, many of us here are RKBA absolutists so it’s fun to use you as a statist metaphor but that’s about as far as your influence goes. Well, that and the four people who read your blog… you know, the one you shamelessly promote here and use to “cite” your assertions?
On the democratic underground he stated this:
“mikeb302000 (638 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-26-11 12:00 PM
Response to Reply #7
38. we weren’t talking about me.
you already know that what I did or didn’t do 30 years ago is not an open subject. It’s off topic and the only reason you bring it up is that you think it’s some kind of witty personal attack, and that my not talking about it makes me guilty. You’ve probably read all the Linoge posts about it and some of the others, if you’re bringing it up. So now I’m telling you. I’m 58, what I did when I was 25 has nothing to do with this post and I don’t respond to your bullshit interrogation.”
In other words, no privacy for gun owners but privacy for himself. This is typical statist hypocrisy. For thee, and never for me.
So, the turkey baster and the monkey are real possibilities.
Even after 25 years, the monkey still hasn’t gotten over it.
I feel bad for the smelly little animal. I feel bad for the monkey, too.
I never knew that Mikey was a poster on the DU. My respect for him has decreased from its already low level.
This reminds me of when I meet people who did stupid things while they were young and they lord that fact over others like it gives them some kind of experienced and learned perspective that is unattainable without having been stupid in the first place. Like some grand exercise in re-framing their stupidity into a positive attribute.
I like to point out that when “I was 25” I was already wise enough not to do stupid, violent, or criminal things. As are most people.
So if MikeB is devising policies to protect society from himself I think he should call the FBI and/or the Italian equivalent and request to have himself put on the denied list if he isn’t already, and maybe just report himself as an potentially unstable person of interest or something. No joke, that would be an impressive act of fortitude demonstrating his motives are true and not just some kind of self-projection/redemption exercise.
Hal, you and the others know next-to-nothing about me. The real question is why are you so obsessed about it that you’d do all that research. Why do you care?
I’ll take a guess. Some of the things I say really get to you, the responsibility thing, the exaggerated DGU thing, and others. Rather than argue straight up, you deflect the attention with these supposedly relevant (and old) issues.
This is consistent with your philosophy, never give an inch, use any trick or ploy to win. Just remember, only like-minded gun-rights fanatics buy your nonsense.
All that research? Hahahah, try two minutes of google, guy. Trust me, if I wanted to I would put your full name, DOB, list of current and previous addresses and full criminal history here for everyone to see. I don’t do that because frankly I am not a hypocrite. I still respect your privacy, even if you would gladly take it away from gun owners.
Oh and, by the way, if standing for civil rights and liberties makes me a “gun-rights fanatic” then I will wear that title proudly. Furthermore, I discuss libertarianism with people on a near-daily basis and I have stirred those ideas in MANY minds. It’s actually been quite easy because ultimately the message is more powerful than any of your statist ploys: when in doubt, always default to liberty. That message will ALWAYS take root in those folk who are strong of will and mind. It will always defeat you.
Now onto more important things… if I send you cash do you think you could send me a jar of black olive tapenade? I wouldn’t mind some peperonata too if you can get your hands on some 🙂
Hal, you are so full of it.
“Trust me, if I wanted to I would put your full name, DOB, list of current and previous addresses and full criminal history here for everyone to see. I don’t do that because frankly I am not a hypocrite.”
You don’t do it because it’s not there – the “full criminal history” I’m talking about. You and your friends keep asking questions about me and all you come up with is inuendo and wild guesses.
I ask again, why are you so obsessed with it? It’s creepy.
mikeyb……………its all about proving, once again, the LIBERAL HYPOCRISY that goes along with the typical liberals lies and bs to take the law abiding American’s citizens rights/guns away
as YOU like to demonize us by spouting about gun fanatics……………….WE point out the truth about you America hating liberals
its all about ignoring the 2nd Amendment cuz it does not fit YOUR liberal agenda……………..typical for America haters like YOU and your president…………obamacrook
I was able to find Mike B’s full name, date of birth, previous residences, and some employment history on the internet for free. I’m almost curious enough to pay the nominal charge for his other public records.
You’re a creepy guy, Don. Most of the AI are shaking their heads and asking WTF. Of course, we won’t hear that from any of them because you guys are all loyal to one another, and I’m the enemy. So much for honesty and integrity, huh?
Mikey’s. shut up about tat which you know nothing about. Just because you don’t pay attention to enough posts here to see that fairly often we argue and disagree. We aren’t loyal to just everyone, just the folks with valid, reasonable points. You love painting with the roller don’t you?
I have your name and I have some base data. That’s all I need, believe me. You are worth confronting here but you are not worth a violation of my standards of conduct. There is no honor in publishing your personal information even if you are a statist puppet without scruples. Using restraint and living by a code is what separates the good guys from, erm, you.
Well, what the hell are you talking about it for, Hal. Do you realize how infantile that sounds, “oooh, what I could do to you if I wanted.”
If you’re arguments are so strong about gun rights, why do you worry so much about me personally?
“Most of the AI are shaking their heads and asking WTF.”
You’re correct but they’re not doing it for the reason you think they are, my Italian friend.
I don’t “worry” about you or your personal failings. I also don’t “worry” about the strength of our arguments. If those arguments were weak, we wouldn’t be winning.
However, I will continue confront you, marginalize you and mock you out of principle. Principles… something you lack. Statist drones like Hmmmmm are ultimately trying to do the right thing even if they have been manipulated into supporting the wrong causes. On some base level, I can respect that. But you… *you* are not trying to do the right thing. You are a bad guy looking out for the well being of other bad guys. When you comment, I feel compelled to highlight what little we DO know about your past and how laughably inappropriate your presence here is. To do otherwise, as I have previously indicated, would indicate acceptance. You do not have ANYONE’s best interests at heart besides your own and those like yourself. It is important for other readers to see you for what you are; a duplicitous, awful person who cloaks himself in phony righteousness.
The post about my ability to pull your records was related to your narcissistic assertion that I had done a lot of “research” about you. In reality all that amounted to was 1-2 minutes of googlefu. You’re pretty gabby on the interwebz buddy boy so typing in “MikeB302000” nets about 1000 results. Furthermore, seeing as how I did NOT take the time to pull your personal data (which is easy by the way), your claim that I am “obsessed” with you is demonstrably false. That’s just a sad attempt to shift the onus onto me and away from your credibility. But to answer your question “Well, what the hell are you talking about it for” my quick google search was in response to reader Don’s request for information about you. It was not because your arguments “get to me.” That, my cannoli licking friend, is your ego getting the best of you again. Trust me, NOTHING about my support for the RKBA “gets to me.” I would support it unconditionally even if the numbers WERE on your side (which they aren’t), even if more guns DID equal more crime (which they don’t) and even if the number of lives saved was fewer than the number of lives taken in anger (which is not the case).
My advice: go start a blog about ethnic Italian food because you will never be a credible voice for civilian disarmament. Period.
The DU is exactly the place I would expect someone of his ilk to post. By the way, U are pretty tough on rtempleton. Take it easy on the guy. After all, he took time off from drooling all over his hand-carved statue of Obama to spend time with us today.
Armed government employees are more of a threat to me than any criminal. When can we start disarming them?
Holy smokes Ralph. I need to make sure to NOT be eating or drinking when I read your posts. The stuff ends up on my keyboard and screen.
I will buy you a drink should we ever meet.
Speaking of “off topic”. Why do you guys insist on feeding the troll? Isn’t this TTAG or have I got the wrong site?
Because unlike most of the rest of the Statist-run anti-gun (READ: anti-human rights) forums out there, we still welcome dissenting opinions.
We just don’t sugar-coat our dissection of opinions that are based solely and completely on emotional conjecture and crony junk science (which all anti-gun arguments are comprised of without exception).
“Gun laws that assured ZERO access to guns for bad guys would severely infringe if not eliminate law-abiding Americans’ human, civil and Constitutionally protected right to keep and bear arms, and thus increase crime.”
Why does it have to be black or white? I realize it will never be perfect but we can keep searching for the best possible solutions.
I got to the party late, nonetheless-well done guys. Mikey numbers was given good feedback, at least from my perspective. Trolls are due forceful responses, and they truly get so here at TTAG. For the record, as a law abiding gun owner and carrier-I am NOT responsible for what CRIMINALS do.
Untill we do this this & this the crime will keep happening, or CC holders can put a real hitch in akein’s/gangbangers get along. I’m going with option number 2, Randy
“Gun laws that assured ZERO access to guns for bad guys would severely infringe if not eliminate law-abiding Americans’ human, civil and Constitutionally protected right to keep and bear arms, and thus increase crime.”
That’s not entirely true. You want ZERO access to guns for bad guys? Lock them up and throw away the key!
“Gun laws that assured ZERO access to guns for bad guys would severely infringe if not eliminate law-abiding Americans’ human, civil and Constitutionally protected right to keep and bear arms, and thus increase crime. This thought doesn’t occur to DRZM or his fellow gun control advocates.”
It occurs to them, they know it full well. They know that the only way to keep guns out of the hands of criminals, is to keep them away from the law-abiding. They simply know that admitting that out loud is a political non-starter.
Now I am going to do my breakfast, after having
my breakfast coming again to read more news.