Nov 17, 2009

Extremist gun group wants America to go back the the lawless Wild West


It takes a certain kind of person to claim the answer to the epidemic of gun violence is more guns, but that’s the solution some 2nd Amendment zealots continue to push.

Every year in this country guns kill over 30,000 people, and 70,000 more people are shot and injured. Zealots like John Lott tried to make the false claim that that allowing adults to carry concealed weapons significantly reduces crime in America, but that myth has been debunked by peer reviewed studies.

Now, the gun lobby is using the false scare tactic that President Obama wants to “take their guns” to sell and push more guns into the system and do away with common sense gun control laws. The goal is to sell more guns at all costs.

More guns also means more accidents, like the CCW instructor who accidentally shot one of his students in the face in a class in Oakland County or the 12-year-old Homer boy who died after accidentally being shot in the head by his own father. There is also the accident at a recent gathering of gun extremists called the” Michigan Open Carry, Inc.,” when a man accidentally fired his semiautomatic handgun while attempting to unload the gun in South Haven.
Last summer one of the racist, tea baggers showed up at an appearance by President Obama with a borderline treasonous sign and with a loaded 9mm handgun in a holster strapped to the outside of his pant leg.

This has led to a push by some groups like open carry to go back to the days of the old West and gunslingers with six-guns strapped to their sides. I thought we had evolved past that, but apparently not.

The Livingston County Daily Press & Argus did a feature on this group’s push to advocate open carry. Apparently, it’s legal to carry a gun strapped to your side without a carrying concealed weapons (CCW) permit.

The article quotes a Melvindale resident who has a CCW, but for the past year he has chosen to carry his .45-caliber handgun “holstered on his right thigh.” I’m baffled as to why. It’s obviously not about personal protection. The only reason I can think of is to intimidate people.

This is just ridiculous. What kind of world is this where you are surrounded by people wearing firearms strapped to their side?

13 comments:

Not Anonymous said...

In answer to your question "what kind of world is it where you are surrounded by people wearing firearms strapped to their legs?"

A world where Tyranny is just one piece of legislation away.

By the way, the guy that showed up at the tea party with a gun strapped to his leg was a black man. I guess I should applaud you in recoginizing that people of any race (not just whites) can be racist, even though that person wasn't a racist.

Oh, and you gave two examples of people with firearms strapped to their legs. Can you be surrounded by two people in different cities?

Communications guru said...

Tyranny? Please. I’ll answer the question myself since you refuse to do it. A world where people like you want to turn back the clock to the days that were only old, not good.

By the way, the race of the man carry the gun is irrelevant, but the fact is William Kostric is not black. http://www.zimbio.com/William+Kostric

“Can you be surrounded by two people in different cities?” What are you trying to say, anonymous?

Republican Michigander said...

What an absolute crock of bullshit. You can quote me on that.

Leave it to a former newspaper editorialist to be an anti constitution zealot. If you don't want to be around firearms, get out of Livingston County and go to the West Side of Chicago. They don't have guns there. Anti-freedom zealots like you would fit in well there. Enjoy the crime rate there too.

There are two common sense gun control laws. The first is the Second Amendment. The second is Article 1 Section 6 in the Michigan Constitution. The rest is anti-rights talking points with no basis in reality.

Guns don't kill anyone. They never got up and fire themselves. Most so called gun deaths (which have been dropping for 15 years) are also suicides. Irrelevant. Another BS talking point from the leftist media and their editorialists.

On the same note, gun uses in defense are estimated by a low number of 800,000 to over 2.5 million depending on which study. The one outlier is 108,000, which is still much higher than the total homicide rate. Anti-gun researcher Phil Cook, estimates the study to be in between those numbers.

Don't like guns, move to Chicago.

Republican Michigander said...

BTW - Better the Wild West than West Chicago.

Communications guru said...

Really? I can quote you? Why would I want to?

I’m not a “former newspaper editorialist.” I’m a former reporter that on occasion wrote an opinion column. The one time I did write a column on the CCW issue, it was factual, and you could not debunk a single thing I wrote. I’m far from an “anti constitution zealot” or anti-freedom. There are restrictions on the most important Amendments of the Bill of Rights, the 1st Amendment. Why would there not be some restrictions on the 2nd Amendment?

Why would I or should I leave Livingston County? They don’t have guns in Chicago? Not even you are that stupid.

Oh yea, guns don’t kill people, people kill people. Now that is an absolute crock of bullshit. By the way, the media is conservative. That NRA inflated number is also an absolute crock of bullshit. According to a study called “Comparing the Incidence of Self-Defense Gun Use and Criminal Gun Use" by the Harvard Injury Control Research Center, 2009,”
“The opportunity for a law-abiding gun owner to use a gun in a socially desirable manner--against a criminal during the commission of a crime--will occur, for the average gun owner, perhaps once or never in a lifetime. It is a rare event. Other Regular citizens with guns, who are sometimes tired, angry, drunk, or afraid, and who are not trained in dispute resolution, have lots of opportunities for inappropriate gun uses.
http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/research/hicrc/files/Bullet-ins_Spring_2009.pdf

That 2.5 million lie was based on a telephone survey of 5,000 people. Please. According to “Myths about Defensive Gun Use and Permissive Gun Carry Laws” Berkeley Media Studies Group, 2000:
“Many people are amazed that projections about national phenomena can be made based on a telephone survey of a few thousand adults. While many surveys of this type can provide useful information about national phenomena, in this particular case the public’s skepticism is warranted. The primary problem is that, even if the Kleck and Gertz’s estimates were accurate, defensive gun use is a relatively rare occurrence in that only 1% of respondents reported a defensive gun use during the previous 12 months.
http://www.bmsg.org/pdfs/myths.pdf

I don’t understand this preoccupation with Chicago. It’s a great city. I saw a lot of it when I was stationed in Great Lakes. I’ll take Chicago over the Wild West any day. I was born and raised in Michigan, and I’m not going any where.

Republican Michigander said...

Pistols are illegal in Chicago with its high crime barring a SCOTUS decision. Since you are bitching about firearms laws here in low crime Livingston County, that is more in line with your views. I was here long before you were, and we'll keep our firearms here.

As far as the Harvard survey, that was funded by the Joyce Foundation (http://www.joycefdn.org), a rabid gun grabbing group that also funded the VPC, which is pushing a total ban. One of the board members of the Joyce Foundation was your guy, Mr. Obama before he became a senator. Joyce also funded the Johns Hopkins anti-gun department. Money talks.

Communications guru said...

I knew Chicago was a great city.

Are you kidding? You were in Livingston County before I was, so I should leave? Love it or leave it? That is the most ridiculous thing you have ever said. Are you seriously using that as an argument? I’m here because it’s my wife’s hometown, and she has been her longer than you.

I agree Livingston County is a low crime area, so why do people need to walk around with a six-shooter strapped to their side? After all, there are more gun accidents than instances of defensive uses of a hand gun. Plus, is this push to carry guns happening only in Livingston County? Of course not.

It was funded by the Joyce Foundation, so what? Mr. Obama? Do you mean President Obama? My guy? He’s the President of the United States; of course he’s my guy. Are you saying you are not a U.S. citizen?

How about the Berkeley Media Studies Group? Here’s some more for you:
The gun debate’s new mythical number: How many defensive uses per year?” Journal of Police Analysis and Management, 1997
“The myth of millions of annual self-defense gun use: A case study of survey overestimates of rare events” Chance - American Statistical Association, 1997
“Defensive Gun Uses: New Evidence from a National Survey” Journal of Quantitative Criminology, 1998
“The Relative Frequency of Offensive and Defensive Gun Uses: Results from a National Survey”, Violence and Victims, 2000

The simple fact is that defensive use of a handgun is a rare event, and you can’t debunk that fact.

Not Anonymous said...

What a weird pissing contest. It matters who was here first? Well, if that's the case, then I'll join in. My ancestors greeted your ancestors when your ancestors arrived. Wish my ancestors had used their bows and arrows a little more judiciously. Apparently, a liberal or two slipped in.

Communications guru said...

It doesn’t matter who was here first, and that’s why he used it an argument. Well, this country is a lot better off because of liberals. Social Security, Medicare, unemployment insurance and the FDIC: you’re welcome.

Not Anonymous said...

Social security: Operating in the red in seven years. Out of funds in 29 years.

Medicare: Operating in the red within five years.

Unemployment insurance: You keep complaining about the legislature needing to extend it.

FDIC: 122 banks closed this year alone and the FDIC is running out of money.

Congrats to you the socialist Democrats or liberals or whatever you're calling yourselves these days. More failed and failing programs while you plan to increase taxes for the next four years while the benefits from that tax won't appear until four years from now.

I can see why you're so proud. You're bankrupting the country into socialism.

Communications guru said...

“Social security: Operating in the red in seven years. Out of funds in 29 years.” Another rightwing lie.

“Medicare: Operating in the red within five years.” Another rightwing lie.

“Unemployment insurance: You keep complaining about the legislature needing to extend it.” Your point?

“FDIC: 122 banks closed this year alone and the FDIC is running out of money.” The running out of money part is another rightwing lie. Good thing those banks were insured, or depositors would have lost their savings.

There is no such thing as a socialist Democrat in this country, and that’s a fascist Republican talking point. I’m a liberal Democrat. Please tell me what conservatives have done for this country.

I’m proud because liberals have made this the great country it is, anonymous.

Not Anonymous said...

You might want to read your social security statement when you get it. It does come every year. On the front page, right side, about 1/3 the way down, it gives you the years that it will be operating in the red and then it gives you the year it will be exhausted.

Caught you in another lie, asshole.

Communications guru said...

Sorry, anonymous asshole; wrong again, and you have never caught me in a lie and never will because I don’t lie.