« REPORT VOTER FRAUD **Updated** bumped | Main | Woe the Obama Cultist »
November 05, 2008
Thank you, John McCain and Sarah Palin
American democracy survives because of steadfast Americans like you. You kept your promises, you kept your honor. It has been a tough fight and the skirmish lost, but Americans go on, the larger struggle to realize our real American values even if they need to wander in the desert until strength sees their return.
Stand up, stand up, stand up and fight. Nothing is inevitable here. We’re Americans, and we never give up. We never quit. We never hide from history. We make history. ~~ John McCain, 9/2008We won't Senator McCain and Governor Palin. Be assured fundamental American values can never be changed without a fight, a fight we will win.
Posted by Darleen at November 5, 2008 12:02 AM
Comments
Senator McCain has more dignity than his campaign and most of his followers and certainly more than his running mate.
Posted by: Josh at November 5, 2008 06:22 AM
Josh, you disengenuous twit. If it were not for Palin, McCain would not have carried but maybe one or two states.
The Fresh Prince of Bill Ayers has run one of the dirtiest, fraudulent, thuggish campaigns in history. When either Tel Aviv or Taiwan is but a memory some time in 2009 (as Biden alluded to) and Obama's approval rating ranks with Congress, some real journalists will start doing a Woodward/Bernstein act on the 2008 campaign.
President Bush will try and do everything to prepare Obama (GW is a class act, history will put him with Truman) but character will out and Barry has none.
Good luck with the looting thing ... a lot of small businesses and individuals are going to start looking to throttle back wealth creation. Peggy Joseph is going to be surprised when her neighbors refuse to have their pockets picked to pay her mortgage and put gas in her car.
Posted by: Darleen at November 5, 2008 06:38 AM
Palin killed him in the Philly and Cleveland suburbs. Worst decision ever.
Good thing you work in the non-productive sector so you need not worry about "looting" eh?
Keep your over-the-top freakout going, Darleen. Your whites-only hate coalition got spanked nine ways to Sunday. I kind of feel bad for McCain, who is an honorable man despite his dirty campaign. Your tears, however, are delicious.
Posted by: Josh at November 5, 2008 07:54 AM
I see the stock market is not riding the wave of Obama enthusiasm.
For the sake of my country, I hope Obama well.
Personally I don’t think him or his supporters are ready for the many criticisms to come.
Posted by: ML at November 5, 2008 08:11 AM
I think we've seen the evidence of that right here, ML.
Posted by: Chris at November 5, 2008 08:16 AM
Oh, we handled all the utter BS you clowns threw at Bill Clinton, and Obama slammed your smear tactics back in your face this campaign. We are experienced at dealing with the irrational hate-brigade.
Posted by: Josh at November 5, 2008 09:32 AM
Josh is right, I can hear the screams of “racism” now and every time we don’t like his policies.
Posted by: ML at November 5, 2008 09:55 AM
Of course they're experienced with the irrational hate-brigade. They carpool.
Posted by: Chris at November 5, 2008 11:02 AM
I don't know about you, Chris, but I've never ridden with someone who shouted "kill him" at a political rally.
Posted by: Josh at November 5, 2008 03:36 PM
"No tax but spend"
vs.
"Tax the rich - buy American"
Which is the stronger?
Posted by: centristderangementsyndrome at November 5, 2008 05:01 PM
Josh, you disengenuous twit. If it were not for Palin, McCain would not have carried but maybe one or two states.The Fresh Prince of Bill Ayers has run one of the dirtiest, fraudulent, thuggish campaigns in history. When either Tel Aviv or Taiwan is but a memory some time in 2009 (as Biden alluded to) and Obama's approval rating ranks with Congress, some real journalists will start doing a Woodward/Bernstein act on the 2008 campaign.
President Bush will try and do everything to prepare Obama (GW is a class act, history will put him with Truman) but character will out and Barry has none.
Funniest spoof EVER!!!!
From beginning to end one long rightwing fever swamp of delusion, of secret media conspiracies, of voter fraud where the votes counted equal exactly the average polling from RCP, of "thuggish" people doing things like calling radio stations (it's different definition of thuggish!)! Hysterical.
One last history noted for you, Dar, Truman was disliked because he integrated the Armed Forces and fired MacArthur (can you guess which wing of which party considered Doug a possible presidential candidate? If you said yours, you win a prize.). Georgie's unpopular because he's a massively incompetent, lying jackass who embroiled us in an unpopular was and destroyed our economy. Until and unless destroying an economy is deemed to be a good idea, I think you can doubt whether normal people (e.g. not you) will re-evaluate him. I'd tell you not to hold your breath, but I actually want you to breathe and take the Haldol for God's sake. Psychosis is just not attractive any longer.
But, damn, it is funny.
P.S. Palin's disapproval number is higher than her approval number (43/49) and 60% of American voters thought she was unqualified for VP! You better re-think that choice....unless you're in it for the hand-me-downs that is
Posted by: timb at November 5, 2008 06:12 PM
It's especially fun listening now to the truth about Sarah Palin leaking out...from liberal Obamamaniac outlets like FOX NEWS: Seems the little darling didn't know that Africa was a continent rather than a country, that she didn't know which countries were parties to NAFTA (maybe, like, the only three countries in North America? LOL!) and she was given to irrational temper tantrums about her media coverage, blaming her staff for the Couric interview even though she herself refused any prep for it. What's more, she appears to have spent even more than $150K on clothes, even putting $40K on her staff's personal credit cards. She's being described - by the McCain insiders, mind you - as a "Wasilla hillbilly looting Nieman Marcus". ... Gee and I thought the Democrats were the amoral looters!
The idea of voter fraud is just the frayed blankie Darleen's type of wingnut is going to need to get themselves through this period of American renewal. There's no way an authoritarian follower like her will ever be able to accept that her dear leaders were not only wrong, but incompetent and amoral. I think Paul Krugman put it best:
Last night wasn’t just a victory for tolerance; it wasn’t just a mandate for progressive change; it was also, I hope, the end of the monster years.
What I mean by that is that for the past 14 years America’s political life has been largely dominated by, well, monsters. Monsters like Tom DeLay, who suggested that the shootings at Columbine happened because schools teach students the theory of evolution. Monsters like Karl Rove, who declared that liberals wanted to offer “therapy and understanding” to terrorists. Monsters like Dick Cheney, who saw 9/11 as an opportunity to start torturing people.
And in our national discourse, we pretended that these monsters were reasonable, respectable people. To point out that the monsters were, in fact, monsters, was “shrill.”
Four years ago it seemed as if the monsters would dominate American politics for a long time to come. But for now, at least, they’ve been banished to the wilderness.
One can only imagine how difficult all this will be for the authoritarian followers like Darleen for whom these monsters were heroes.
Posted by: Leah at November 6, 2008 02:54 AM
Good thing you work in the non-productive sector
I was wondering about this...Is this Darleen who lectures about the eeeeevils of government and the glories of capitalism actually a ...gasp! government employee???
You mean I'm out here working 25 years in the private sector, earning my keep fair and square in the world of competitive capitalism, and this banshee is raging at me from the comfort of a GOVERNMENT job????
Oh, the hypocrisy! It burns!
Posted by: Leah at November 6, 2008 03:02 AM
Yes, that Krugman piece is a font of tolerance and nuance. I thought progressives didn't demonize their opponents?
Do you really think that the governor of one of our states doesn't know that Africa is a continent? Why would you believe such a ridiculous thing? I guess Barack Obama really thought that there were 57 states, then, huh?
BTW, no one except the reporter heard anyone shout "Kill him" at any rally. That one was already debunked.
I guess if you work somewhere you can't criticize your employer, according to Leah's logic. I'm sure that Leah has never, ever complained about her employers' way of doing things, or tried to make some improvements.
Progressives gloat like Cardinal fans. They're sore winners.
Posted by: Chris at November 6, 2008 06:25 AM
yeah, Leah, but it's only acceptable job for a social con: locking people up
Posted by: timb at November 6, 2008 07:23 AM
Leah,
Shhhhhh...we want the Palin cult to win the GOP civil war. If she gets the nom in 2012 we won't even have to campaign.
Chris,
"debunk" doesn't mean what you think it means, judging by your usage. Before you lecture us about sore winning, please take a gander at the November 2004 archives of a few right-wing bloggers.
Posted by: Josh at November 6, 2008 09:00 AM
Josh, everyone know a 2% victory by Republicans is a mandate, whereas a six seat Senate gain and a 7% Demo win is just a sign the country is evenly divided.
Any word on whether Obama has uttered the phrase "Political capital" yet?
Posted by: timb at November 6, 2008 11:50 AM
Josh -- Regarding the "kill him" claim -- the Secret Service was all through that crowd, and they take that kind of thing very, very seriously. It's their job.
None of them heard it. The Secret Service says it didn't happen. I believe them long before I believe you.
Posted by: Stephen R at November 6, 2008 12:32 PM
You don't have to believe me, believe the reporter who was there. I believe a reporter before I believe an agency who could either be (1) trying to cover its ass because it couldn't find the person who shouted it; or (2) still investigating and not wanting to tip their hand. Your naivete is touching though.
Posted by: Josh at November 6, 2008 04:00 PM
Actually, Newsweek reports this week the following:
The Obama campaign was provided with reports from the Secret Service showing a sharp and disturbing increase in threats to Obama in September and early October, at the same time that many crowds at Palin rallies became more frenzied. Michelle Obama was shaken by the vituperative crowds and the hot rhetoric from the GOP candidates. "Why would they try to make people hate us?" Michelle asked a top campaign aide.
The racism of the wingnut crowd is a real stain on our country right now. My teenage kid works in an afterschool program in our predominately conservative district. Today, a 7 year old told him, "I hate Obama. I hope he gets shot soon." Conservatives really need to look deep down inside and see what kind of people they have become.
Posted by: Leah at November 6, 2008 05:42 PM
Leah you silly bint, how long do you think you'd be working in the private sector without law enforcement and the judiciary?
Those ARE legitimate government functions, and that's the arena I have worked in for over ten years. I've also worked private sector and been a SAHM, and have raised four productive daughters who would never think like Peggy Joseph it is ok to rob her neighbors to pay her mortgage and put gas in her car.
Posted by: Darleen at November 6, 2008 05:54 PM
I see Darleen. YOU provide a needed service. Just you and those you work with. All other government functionaries should be starved in a bathtub.
I come from an NYPD family. I know the reason we have law enforcement. Of course, being New Yorkers (and therefore, not idiots), they were/are all also staunch enemies of the NRA, which put so many bad guns and cop killing ammo on the streets. We understand the function of government here. It's just you gun loving education hating assholes we don't understand.
Posted by: Leah at November 6, 2008 06:01 PM
What a fucking idiot.
Posted by: Chris at November 7, 2008 03:18 AM
Leah
It's just you gun loving education hating assholes we don't understand.
Guns are the problem?, yet I have a funny feeling more bad liberal drivers kill far more people then those conservative gun touting criminals.
Since cars kill 6 times more people then guns are you going to start screaming about how evil cars and car manufacturers are?
Posted by: ML at November 7, 2008 10:00 AM
Liberals are bad drivers now too? Wow. It's amazing you can't even see how irrational your hate has made you ML.
I don't know the stats and too lazy to look them up. I would guess that more people DO die in car accidents than in gun incidents. The difference, of course, is that our society now requires cars in order to function. But we DO require all drivers to be licensed, with both a written and practical test. And we DO have mandatory insurance for all cars and mandatory registration. Do you think gun owners would go for that - every single gun being forced to carry mandatory insurance that would cover the potential loss of life or capacity that gun might cause? What do you think? And classes, written tests and hands on exams for each and every gun owner? Plus laws governing the use of guns while under the influence....Just impose our driving/car restrictions on guns. That sounds like a modest proposal...that the NRA would scream bloody murder over.
Posted by: Leah at November 7, 2008 03:34 PM
Sure, we could have those "modest" proposals. The insurance thing alone would kill gun ownership, which is really the whole point, isn't it?
Perhaps we should have insurance for every deadly object in your household, like knives. How many people were killed by knives? I'm too lazy to look it up, but I think you should have to take a written test to buy a kitchen knife and then insure it against potential harm.
BTW, in honor of our socialist gun-grabbing overlord, I went out and bought three guns yesterday, including an evil black "assault" rifle. Congratulations to The One for unintentionally swelling the coffers of gun manufacturers and dealers all over the nation.
BTW, the NRA already offers safety courses and promotes them heavily.
Posted by: Chris at November 8, 2008 03:03 AM
The only reason insurance rates would be so high on guns is because actuarially they represent such a great risk. That's the whole story right there. The function of a gun is murder. Nuff said. They should be treated with a gravity that reflects their function.
It's a sign of the mental illness of wingnut Americans that Chris reacted to the election of a black president by purchasing an assault weapon. It is terrifying to all sane people knowing that the most unhinged Americans also tend to be the most attracted to guns. The odds of this good man surviving his term are terribly slim. And make no mistake about it - it will be because of the kind of thought processes that infest right wing thinking. While you personally may not be a potential assassin, you know full well there are unbalanced freaks and sickos among you, listening to your vitriol and sharing in your orgy of gun buying. It will be on your head as much as theirs if the sick winger fantasies come to pass.
Meanwhile there isn't a sane American out there who wouldn't support insurance for deadly weapons. Pay to play, sicko.
Posted by: Leah at November 8, 2008 05:19 AM
Leah
Yes, liberals are bad drivers but not the only bad drivers. Liberals only care about themselves and their driving habits bares this fact, I have personally witnessed this here in Los Angeles evidenced by the Obama stickers proudly displayed on the back of the car that just cut me off without checking their blind-spot first and they were Kerry stickers before that.
Guns are inanimate objects nothing more nothing less, to claim their sole purpose is murder shows how completely irrational you are.
You like all liberals focus on the symptoms while deliberately ignoring the cause, guns are inanimate objects and like other inanimate objects not the only means to murder, so why pretend that they are? For shits ‘n giggles maybe?
Example: Rocks have been used worldwide and are still used to kill people in the middle east, shall rocks be outlawed? If the answer is no then why not?
News flash:
Laws only work on law-abiding citizens.
Most gun crimes are committed by “criminals”, we call them “criminals” because they do not obey the laws, so how do you get them to purchase this insurance on a gun they acquired illegally or they legally cant own because of a prior conviction?
What dollar amount of insurance would cover loss of life?
Does it cover all life lost by use of a gun, like say the criminal who breaks into your home and you shoot and kill him, does this insurance give money to his family to discourage future home robberies?
Amazing that you think life is cheap enough to put a monetary price on it.
Also strange that you would want only criminals to have guns, how anti-American and
pro-criminal of you.
But I shouldn’t be surprised, I am just a “hater” and it’s the liberal way.
Posted by: ML at November 8, 2008 12:28 PM
Car insurance is there to cover the cost of loss of life or limb, as well as property damage. What's the difference? Does Geico think life is cheap?
Car accidents are often the fault of uninsured drivers or lawbreaking (drunk) drivers. Does that mean we should not have such laws?
Check out the BradyCampaign.org website and their fact sheets. Just a few:
A gun kept in the home is 22 times more likely to be used in an unintentional shooting (4 times), a criminal assault or homicide (7 times), or an attempted or completed suicide (11 times) than to be used to injure or kill in self-defense.
Nearly all childhood unintentional shooting deaths occur in or around the home. Fifty percent occur in the home, and 40% occur in the home of a friend or relative.
A 2003 study indicated that the presence of a gun in the home made it 6 times more likely that an abused woman would be murdered than other abused women.
In 1998, women were 101 times more likely to be murdered with a handgun than to use a handgun to kill in self-defense. Women were 302 times more likely to be murdered with a handgun than to use a handgun to kill a stranger in self-defense. Women were 83 times more likely to be murdered by an intimate acquaintance with a handgun than to kill an intimate acquaintance in self-defense.
Chew on that for awhile.
Posted by: Leah at November 8, 2008 01:32 PM
So I'm mentally ill because I purchased guns in the face of an anti-gun President-elect and Congressional leadership. Huh, I thought that was simple cause and effect. Thanks for pointing out that I'm a racist, because I hadn't noticed until just now. I thought I didn't like Mr. Obama because I disagree with almost all of his policies.
Why would you assume that I needed guns because a black man will be President? Is that some of that progressive tolerance on display? Do you really not understand the logic train that would lead people to purchase things that are legally available now, but may not be in the near future?
Posted by: Chris at November 8, 2008 02:01 PM
Makes perfect sense, Chris. If guns were to become suddenly illegal (which of course, they're not going to be) we should all make sure to get lots and lots and lots of them now. Why is that? Are you going to be eating them up and needing more when you run out? ncluding assault rifles, of course. I mean what would America be without the right to have assault weapons in every home?
It's your asinine extremism that's the problem, Chris. Obama won't be President for two more months. After that, he'll be President, not king. Aside from the fact he has stated he respects the Constitutional right to bear arms, the U.S. Congress is NEVER going to introduce legislation to ban guns. They CAN'T, because we have a Constitutional right. Geez, you're a dope.
Obama has made the perfectly rational point that unregulated gun ownership is not an entitlement, a perspective shared by big city Republicans (such as Giuliani) as well. With rights come responsibilities. If you want to own forty guns, then pay insurance on forty guns. If you want to own even more dangerous guns, like assault weapons that have no purpose other than efficient destruction of human life, then pay the appropriate insurance.
You know our founders couldn't have envisioned the Timothy McVeighs of the future. They weren't talking about nutjobs with an unnatural lust for ever more destructive weapons. You don't need an assault weapon for any reason whatsoever - not to hunt, not to defend your family, not for anything...unless you're having paranoiac fantasies a la Red Dawn. And if you are, yes, you're mentally ill.
Posted by: Leah at November 8, 2008 02:29 PM
Leah
Car insurance is there to cover the cost of loss of life or limb, as well as property damage. What's the difference? Does Geico think life is cheap?
I don’t think you really understand what insurance is. I don’t know if I can explain it to you very well.
I get insurance whether business, health, life, car or home to protect me and my family against a contingency = ( being an event that may but is not certain to occur ).
Insurance is for my personal protection, it does not prevent someone from bringing litigation against me in the event that I cause the injury, death or whatever to someone or their property and however that is done is completely immaterial.
That insurance also has monetary limits, such as car insurance only has say a $100,000 limit, if I cause and/or am legally found liable for damages above and beyond that my insurance does not cover it and I am personally responsible for those damages.
The other thing you don’t understand with gun negligence or “accidents” in the home, you cant sue yourself and if done to other homeowners insurance would cover it.
I would like to hear you tell those who I presume are only a “select few” women that I gather from those “102 times more likely” buzz stats who did use a handgun in self-defense to prevent a rape and or murder that they should give up that second amendment right.
What you are really looking for is some deep corporate pockets.
Posted by: ML at November 8, 2008 02:58 PM
I do understand insurance, ML. Thanks for the refresher though.
If you injure someone in a car accident and they sue you, they will get at the least whatever your insurance covers you for. This means they will get something for their pain and suffering. You may have no other assets, which would make suing you pretty ineffectual...but at least they will get SOME compensation. It's the same thing with guns. There would be a minimum compensation for any injury caused by that gun. And yes that would cut down on gun ownership because most people couldn't afford to keep dozens of unnecessary weapons in their house and even fewer could afford to keep dozens of truly insane assault weaponry.
The Brady site has a few more stats to drive home how out of control America's gun infatuation is, and how incredibly sick:
In 2004, 29,569 people in the United States died from firearm-related deaths – 11,624 39%) of those were murdered; 16,750 (57%) were suicides.] In comparison, 33,651 Americans were killed in the Korean War and 58,193 Americans were killed in the Vietnam War.
In 2004, firearms were used to murder 56 people in Australia, 184 people in Canada, 73 people in England and Wales, 5 people in New Zealand, and 37 people in Sweden.[8] In
comparison, firearms were used to murder 11,344 people in the United States.
•In 2005, there were only 143 justifiable homicides by private citizens using handguns in the United States.
More about guns in the home:
For every time a gun is used in a home in a legally-justifiable shooting there are 22 criminal, unintentional, and suicide-related shootings.
The presence of a gun in the home triples the risk of homicide in the home.
The presence of a gun in the home increases the risk of suicide fivefold.
And for those concerned about the taxpayers:
A study of all direct and indirect costs of gun violence including medical, lost wages, and security costs estimates that gun violence costs the nation $100 billion a year.
At least 80 percent of the economic costs of treating firearm injuries are paid for by taxpayer dollars.
I'm not saying insurance is the answer. But it's pretty damn obvious we've got a problem. And the answer isn't to keep buying more guns. By that logic, the answer to heroin addiction is to keep shooting more heroin.
Posted by: Leah at November 8, 2008 03:30 PM
Leah
CDC death stats 2005,
total deaths 1,664
1.3% firearms ages 1-4 = 22 deaths
29.6 % drowning = 493 deaths
29.4% MV Traffic = 489 deaths
total deaths 1,343
2.8% firearms ages 10-14 = 37 deaths
58.6% MV Traffic = 763 deaths
9.8% drowning = 132 deaths
total deaths 13,997
0.9% firearms ages 25-34 = 136 deaths
50.3% MV Traffic = 7,047 deaths
31.3% poisoning = 4,386 deaths
total deaths 16,919
0.7% of firearm ages 35-44 = 114 deaths
39.8 % poisoning = 6,729 deaths
38.4% MV traffic = 6,491 deaths
From the stats provided 309 deaths by firearm is considered outrageous and worthy of great attention while 14,794 deaths by motor vehicles or the 625 deaths by drowning or even 11,115 deaths from poisoning don’t bother you?
Yeah, guns are the issue not cars, drowning or poisons, are you crazy?
Posted by: ML at November 8, 2008 04:04 PM
I forgot to mention those stats are unintentional injuries.
Posted by: ML at November 8, 2008 04:12 PM
No, the issue is all about not being allowed to do or own things that some others deem to be unimportant, or scary, or that they just don't like.
Posted by: Chris at November 8, 2008 04:21 PM
You're comparing apples to oranges, ML. Most gun deaths are INTENTIONAL...going back to what I said earlier - that the purpose of a gun is to cause death. Most recent stats show gun deaths per year is about 30,000 in the US (about half and half murder vs. suicide). Of those a mere 150 or so are the acts of a self defending citizen....a miniscule percentage.
Researching this, I see that gun deaths actually ARE quite comparable to car accident deaths in this country. It's even worse than I thought. Thanks for helping me get educated.
Posted by: Leah at November 8, 2008 04:32 PM
Chris, what is it exactly you find "important" about owning and using guns? Just curious. I'm especially interested in what you find "important" about owning an assault rifle. I mean it - I don't get the thrill of gun ownership. Maybe if it's explained to me, I could understand why it's worth the high price we pay for it, with an obscenely high rate of gun death compared to the rest of the civilized world.
Posted by: Leah at November 8, 2008 04:35 PM
Leah
The only firearm violence that any victim could possibly have a cause of action against would be that of the criminal variety, how many of those perpetrators would really have this insurance that you’re thinking of?
More than 50 people if that?
Posted by: ML at November 8, 2008 04:36 PM
No, if a child killed himself with a gun at your neighbor's house - cause of action. If a distraught family member uses one of Dad's assault weapons to blow her brains out - cause of action. If your child is killed on a sleepover because he becomes the innocent victim of domestic violence in a house with a gun - cause of action. If a gun nut husband kills his wife because he was drunk and the gun was right there - cause of action by the rest of the family.
The point isn't just that there would be causes of action because there'd be plenty. The point would be that having to carry insurance on a deadly weapon would disincentivize indiscriminate gun ownership. If you have an in ground swimming pool on your property, your homeowner's insurance rates will skyrocket. What's the difference?
Posted by: Leah at November 8, 2008 04:44 PM
Most gun deaths are INTENTIONAL...going back to what I said earlier - that the purpose of a gun is to cause death.
So if I shoot you in the foot, then you conclude that the gun was meant to cause death no matter where I point it and beside the fact of where the bullet impacts, some people intend to kill their victims but do not succeed other do not intend to kill and do. What is so hard to figure out about that?
Unless you are crazy!
If a distraught family member uses one of Dad's assault weapons to blow her brains out - cause of action
Breaking news, family sues itself.
You are crazy.
Posted by: ML at November 8, 2008 04:46 PM
ML, you don't need to insult me to make your point. Of course family members sue one another. Let's say Mary's sister, Jane, is visiting for he holidays, has been very depressed. She notices Mary's husband keeps guns and manages to get a hold of one and blow her brains out. Jane's parents might sue - or her husband - or her children. But either way, if Mary's husband had to pay insurance for his guns, he'd have a lot less of them and he'd be keeping them safeguarded a lot better.
I'm not even sure this is the right way to address this plague of gun violence that America suffers under. But the first step to fixing a problem is realizing we have one. The unnatural infatuation of guns is a peculiarly American disease. Canadians own guns at a similar rate to ours, yet their gun death rate is a fraction of ours. What do you think explains that? What is it about American gun owners that causes them to kill themselves or others at such a wild pace?
Posted by: Leah at November 8, 2008 04:58 PM
Leah
I was not trying to insult you, much, I was trying to be funny and sarcastic in a futile attempt to drive my point home.
I am sure you can come up all kinds of crazy scenarios, the fact of the matter is you are speaking about less than 100 or so people per year while thousands die of other less note worthy causes I guess.
From your scenario I think gun safes or gun locks should be mandatory not insurance.
Like here in California, the most gun restricted state in the US.
For the record I own more than one firearm and have owned assault rifles of the Heckler & Koch variety, fun stuff.
Switzerland has a requirement that all citizens own and keep an assault rifle in their home, yet they have the lowest crime rate imaginable, why?
I will give you a hint at my guess, it has nothing to do with the guns.
Posted by: ML at November 8, 2008 06:01 PM
Don't insult her, she thinks I'm mentally unstable because I have guns, and a racist because a black man is President.
It's really none of your business why I like guns, just like it's none of my business why you enjoy whatever hobbies you have, Leah.
I started thinking about owning a gun and teaching my kids how to use it when some idiot came to my door and acted like a complete goofball, and I realized that if he neutralized me at the door, he was in a house filled with women and children. Now, where could I find a multiplier that mitigate a man's natural strength and speed advantage over women and children? Hey, I know, how about a gun?
Years later, I purchased a handgun from a friend. I now know how to operate one safely, and so do two of my three children. One of my daughters refuses to touch it, which is fine, except that a gun is only a tool, and if you won't think about learning how to use it, then you remain ignorant of its operation. You also remain ignorant of its dangers. I wanted my children to understand what guns were, how they worked, and what they were for. Two of them know, and they don't have to be afraid of them. They don't have to pay them any mind at all, as far as I'm concerned, but they have a working knowledge of them.
I collect guns because I have found that I enjoy shooting. It's a skill that must be practiced in order to acquire, like golf. I don't like golf, but I don't begrudge anyone's interest in it. Hey, those golf clubs look pretty dangerous. Maybe they should be insured in case anyone grabs one and bashes someone's brains in with it.
An armed citizen is an independent citizen. I have the means to defend my house and family if need be, and I have the means to defend my civilization, if need be. I really don't think it will come to that, but why not be prepared?
Posted by: Chris at November 9, 2008 02:10 AM
Thanks for answering Chris. I agree shooting is a fun hobby and I understand that there is also an interest in guns as collectors items. However your idea that a gun in the house has made your family safer, or you more independent, is completely belied by all the available facts. I brought many of them over from BradyCampaign.org. Won't keep boring you, but they speak for themselves.
Switzerland has a requirement that all citizens own and keep an assault rifle in their home,
Not even close, ML, though Switzerland does have a higher than average gun ownership than most of Europe. Only militia personel are allowed to keep their ONE automatic weapon in their home. They are also issued a set amount of ammo for the weapon - which is sealed and inventoried on a regular basis to make sure there is no unauthorized use. When a militia member leaves service (max. age 30), he may keep his weapon BUT "the rifle is sent to the weapons factory where the fully automatic function is removed; the rifle is then returned to the discharged owner. The rifle is then a semi-automatic or self-loading rifle."
Clearly they understand the need for gun control.
Although they are a society that enjoys shooting for sport and respects guns, they have no problem abiding by many stringent regulations. For one thing, a permit is required to purchase a gun, which requires them to state the intended use and to pass a test. The permit is issued for only that ONE GUN. If you want to buy another, you need to get another permit and again justify your need for it. Ammunition is also strictly regulated. Antique collectibles and hunting rifles do not require permits. Automatic weapons and selective firearms are ILLEGAL in Switzerland except for those demonstrating a specific requirement. Even the keeping of millitia weapons is being re-examined, since nearly all Swiss murders and suicides occur because of those weapons.
yet they have the lowest crime rate imaginable, why?
I will give you a hint at my guess, it has nothing to do with the guns.
Perhaps because it has respect for the rule of law and human dignity. "The Swiss Army maintains tight adherence to high standards of lawful military conduct. In 2005, for example, the Swiss prosecuted recruits who had reenacted the torture scenes of Abu Ghraib."
Got all that from just a quick web browse. With so much knowledge at our fingertips these days, there's no excuse for anyone to be ill informed.
Posted by: Leah at November 9, 2008 03:17 AM
Leah
Did you know that Military service in Switzerland is compulsory for males?
Posted by: ML at November 9, 2008 10:20 AM
Question: Your argument about criminals and deterrence doesn't tell the whole story. Don't statistics show that most people are killed by someone they know?
Lott: You are referring to the often-cited statistic that 58 percent of murder victims are killed by either relatives or acquaintances. However, what most people don't understand is that this "acquaintance murder" number also includes gang members killing other gang members, drug buyers killing drug pushers, cabdrivers killed by customers they picked up for the first time, prostitutes and their clients, and so on. "Acquaintance" covers a wide range of relationships. The vast majority of murders are not committed by previously law-abiding citizens. Ninety percent of adult murderers have had criminal records as adults.
Question: But how about children? In March of this year [1998] four children and a teacher were killed by two school boys in Jonesboro, Arkansas. Won't tragedies like this increase if more people are allowed to carry guns? Shouldn't this be taken into consideration before making gun ownership laws more lenient?
Lott: The horrific shooting in Arkansas occurred in one of the few places where having guns was already illegal. These laws risk creating situations in which the good guys cannot defend themselves from the bad ones. I have studied multiple victim public shootings in the United States from 1977 to 1995. These were incidents in which at least two or more people were killed and or injured in a public place; in order to focus on the type of shooting seen in Arkansas, shootings that were the byproduct of another crime, such as robbery, were excluded. The effect of "shall-issue" laws on these crimes has been dramatic. When states passed these laws, the number of multiple-victim shootings declined by 84 percent. Deaths from these shootings plummeted on average by 90 percent, and injuries by 82 percent.
For other types of crimes, I find that both children as well as adults are protected when law-abiding adults are allowed to carry concealed handguns.
Finally, after extensively studying the number of accidental shootings, there is no evidence that increasing the number of concealed handguns increases accidental shootings. We know that the type of person who obtains a permit is extremely law-abiding and possibly they are extremely careful in how they take care of their guns. The total number of accidental gun deaths each year is about 1,300 and each year such accidents take the lives of 200 children 14 years of age and under. However, these regrettable numbers of lives lost need to be put into some perspective with the other risks children face. Despite over 200 million guns owned by between 76 to 85 million people, the children killed is much smaller than the number lost through bicycle accidents, drowning, and fires. Children are 14.5 times more likely to die from car accidents than from accidents involving guns.
I view Brady as I view MADD .. they've gone beyond their initial common sense into outright propaganda.
Posted by: Darleen at November 9, 2008 10:48 AM
Did you know that Military service in Switzerland is compulsory for males?
Yes I did, ML. But you said: "Switzerland has a requirement that all citizens own and keep an assault rifle in their home," That really caught my eye, so I checked it out. All males currently active in the militia (i.e. some portion of men between 20 and 30) keep their automatic weapons at home, with rationed, controlled ammunition. After that, they MUST have the weapon converted to a semi-automatic, and they MAY keep it at home, if they wish. That's quite different, and as you can see, Switzerland has a great deal of gun control legislation.
John R. Lott! Of course, it's easy to see how he is one of your heroes, Darleen. He of the convoluted reasonings that inevitably end up proving all his predetermined ultra rightwing conclusions.
Let's just give Lott the benefit of the doubt for a minute. Let's say carrying concealed handguns reduces street crime. But what about these stats?
Of females killed with a firearm, almost two-thirds of were killed by their intimate partners.
Access to firearms increases the risk of intimate partner homicide more than five times more than in instances where there are no weapons, according to a recent study. In addition, abusers who possess guns tend to inflict the most severe abuse on their partners.
In 1998, for every one woman who used a handgun to kill an intimate acquaintance in self- defense, 83 women were murdered by an intimate acquaintance using a handgun.
This is obviously a complex issue, which is why it deserves a lot more serious consideration than the shrill 2nd Amendment fanatics will allow. There is definitely a cultural issue at work here. You should check out the book "Gun Show Nation" by Joan Burbick. The gun culture is not a friendly place for women. (Just check out Alaska's national lead in rates of rape, domestic violence and sexual abuse.) Guns in the home are a great danger to families and not primarily because of accidents. A little 8 year old just murdered his father and another man in Arizona - after being trained by that father to use the very gun that killed him. Why in hell were they teaching an 8 year old to use a 22?
Much as you'd like it to be, the American plague of gun violence is not a simple matter of all the good guys sticking a handgun in their holster. For one thing, plenty of the "good" guys .... really ain't.
Posted by: Leah at November 9, 2008 12:15 PM
"I don't know the stats and too lazy to look them up."
*snort* You should start all your comments with that.
"I would guess that more people DO die in car accidents than in gun incidents. The difference, of course, is that our society now requires cars in order to function."
Outside the military, gun are used in self-defense far more often than they are used to kill. The ratio is something like 6 to 1. Legally, the police have No responsibility to protect you. None. ZERO. You are responsible for you own protection, and unless you're a 6'4" bruiser or a black belt, a gun makes that possible. Sounds like a necessity to me.
"But we DO require all drivers to be licensed, with both a written and practical test. And we DO have mandatory insurance for all cars and mandatory registration."
Not true, actually. A ten year old can legally drive a car **on private land**. My older brother learned to drive a large truck when he was 12.
"It's a sign of the mental illness... that Chris reacted to the election of a black president by purchasing an assault weapon."
Noooo... His reaction to a **gun-grabbing** president was to buy a gun. You really need to wtart rubbing two brain cells together instead of just knee-kjerk assuming that everything is racism and hatred. Methinks you're projecting.
Regarding the Brady stats -- they regularly manipulate the numbers -- for instance, none of those stats distinguished "legally owned" guns. Their numbers for "children" killed include 17-year-old gang members shot by other gang members. They phrase it so it looks like they're talking about little Billy finding Daddy's gun in a drawer -- those types of accidents are actually extremely rare. The self defense stats talk about _shootings_ in self defense -- when quite frequently (and in fact, most often) people are able to warn off an attacker simply by _displaying_ the gun -- the attacker flees without a shot being fired.
Brady ignores all of that. No, sorry... Brady doesn't _ignore_ it -- they're well aware of it, but actively hide it. That is, they lie.
All of this is beside the point regarding the Second Amendment. The founders of this country had just fought a war to throw off the yoke of an oppressive government. The _point_ of the Second Amendment is that the government should never be more powerful than the people. ANY time the government has the power to decide what is "appropriate" or "legitimate", that balance is gone. The Constitution is quite plain -- and any gun restrictions are abhorrent to the clear intent of the founders.
Regarding your claims that Obama respects the Second Amendment -- he's lying, and his voting history proves it. His gun control consists of things like banning _ammunition_, rendering gun useless. His gun control consists of "reasonable" sounding things like banning gun shops within five miles of a school or park -- until you realize that a five mile radius is actually a very large area, and such a law, if enacted, would shut down about 95% of all gun stores in the country.
Posted by: Stephen R at November 10, 2008 08:20 AM
Outside the military, gun are used in self-defense far more often than they are used to kill. The ratio is something like 6 to 1.
Since YOU of course are not too lazy to look up stats, could you kindly source that bit of nonsense for me, please?
Legally, the police have No responsibility to protect you.
I realize this is technically true, but it really makes you wonder why all those hard earned taxpayer dollars are being wasted on salaries for Darleen and her friends, doesn't it?
Just a hint, StephenR, but that patented wingnut style of insulting the intelligence of those who disagree with you is perhaps the first bit of ineffective rhetorical styles you might want to rethink. I know you all worship fat Rush and admire the way he spits and shits on his fellow Americans, but these election results might be your first clue that the rest of your country isn't particularly attracted by it.
Posted by: Leah at November 10, 2008 04:38 PM