Welcome to Common Gunsense

I hope this blog will provoke some thoughtful reflection about the issue of guns and gun violence. I am passionate about the issue and would love to change some misperceptions and the culture of gun violence in America by sharing with readers words, photos, videos and clips from articles to promote common sense about gun issues. Many of you will agree with me- some will not. I am only one person but one among many who think it's time to do something about this national problem. The views expressed by me in this blog do not represent any group with which I am associated but are rather my own personal opinions and thoughts.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Wednesday, July 27, 2011

Terrorists amongst us

Guns and extremists. Guns and terrorists. Guns and militia groups. Guns and mass shootings. Why does the word guns go with these other words? What is it about guns? When I first started writing this blog, I became aware of a sub culture of Americans who seem ready to take up arms against their own government. I used to think they were just a fringe group who reared their ugly heads occasionally in our country. But I am now convinced that this group is growing and that we can expect to see some attacks right here in our own country. We have already had a few of them. Frank Schaeffer has the same opinion. He writes about the Norwegian shooter here: "It seems Anders Behring Breivik longed for a "pure" and ultra conservative religion. He was a man of religious conviction, no liberals with their jeans need apply! Liberals beware." Schaeffer has lived the life of an ultra conservative Christian with extremist views. His father, Francis, was the architect of some of the current thinking of the far right. Frank has since left these views behind and has done a lot of speaking and writing about the world of the far right Christian conservatives. According to Frank Schaeffer, there is a group of Americans for whom the government is considered to be the enemy. "In a country awash in weapons and wallowing in the rhetoric of rebellion against an "evil" government, sporadic outbursts of murder tinged with political overtones seem as inevitable as they seem horribly "normal."" I believe we need to heed what Frank Schaeffer is saying here.

So who are these people who are living amongst us? AlJazeera examines the Norway attacks and home grown terrorists through a different lens. From the article:" But the combatants are not Islam and the West. Instead, the war is between the normal, sane people of the world and the right-wing zealots who see doom, destruction, hellfire and God's Will at every turn." And further-" These men are insecure, violently inclined, and illiberal. The outside world scares them. They hate homosexuals and strong women. For them, difference is a source of insecurity. Their values are militarism, conformism, chauvinism and jingoism. Worst of all they seek to pressure us into compliance while they work frantically to destroy themselves - and the rest of us with them." And finally, in a contrast between the American response to violent extremists and the Norwegian response: " Instead, he pledged to strengthen Norwegian democracy. This is what he said shortly after the terrorist attacks: "Our answer is more democracy, more openness to show that we will not be stopped by this kind of violence." His words illustrate the difference between a society that takes liberal principles as a foundation and one that treats them as an inconvenient luxury."

This article was written after the hearing on Monday in Norway to charge Breivik with his crimes. From this article, I learned that there was at least one security guard present at the sight of the shootings in Norway. "But Norway's royal court said Monday that those killed at the island retreat included Crown Princess Mette-Marit's stepbrother, an off-duty police officer, who was working there as a security guard." Some of the chatter coming from the gun rights extremists pointed to lack of security on the island. If only, oh if only, someone on that island would have had a gun, things would have been different. Apparently these folks have forgotten about the shooting of 4 police officers in Tacoma, Washington and the brazen killing of 3 Pittsburgh police officers in an ambush by Pennsylvania gun permit holder, Richard Poplawski. Read these words about Poplawski and wonder about comparisons to Anders Breivik-"It appears that what police may be looking at is a budding white supremacist who frequented one of the most popular neo-
Nazi websites and harbored an apocalyptic dread of the federal government." And this-"He slept with a gun under his pillow in a basement room filled with firearms and ammunition, convinced that Jews controlled the media and President Obama was scheming to take away his arsenal, friends and relatives said Saturday." 


So when crazed and paranoid shooters use surprise and are so bent on killing their victims that almost nothing will stop them, someone with a gun may or may not make a difference. Jared Loughner was not stopped in Tucson by the gun permit holder who had his gun out ready to shoot. Instead he was stopped by people tackling him while he was reloading his Glock. Once they seized his gun, the permit holder didn't know who the actual shooter was and almost shot the man who had taken the gun from Loughner. This is the way it works when several people have their guns out at a chaotic scene. Who is the attacker? Who are the victims? Who are the other people with guns at the scene of an attack? Who will police think is the shooter when a lot of people have guns out? 



This article examines Breivik's version of Christendom and wonders about his sanity. Is he a madman? Is he actually a religious extremist? "The fundamental point is that Breivik could slaughter children without remorse precisely because it was a logical extension of his own worldview." His world view is a sick and dangerous one that could be shared by others. Is Breivik just another mass murderer? Unfortunately, we have had plenty of opportunities to examine the likes of Breivik from so many other mass shootings and acts of destruction. In this article it is noted that: "Almost by definition, mass murderers are well trained and comfortable with their chosen weapon of mass destruction. Guns are usually preferred, as bombs can be less predictable." 


Could it be that guns are powerful and intimidating? According to the assessment in the article above, guns are more predictable. Great. Let's look at the guns and ammunition used by Breivik. "Dr. Colin Poole, head of surgery at Ringriket Hospital in Honefoss northwest of Oslo, told The Associated Press that the gunman used special bullets designed to disintegrate inside the body and cause maximum internal damage. Poole said surgeons treating 16 gunshot victims have recovered no full bullets. "These bullets more or less exploded inside the body," Poole said. "It's caused us all kinds of extra problems in dealing with the wounds they cause, with very strange trajectories." Ballistics experts say "dum-dum"-style bullets also are lighter in weight and can be fired with greater accuracy over varying distances." Really? Breivik knew what he was doing. Why are these kinds of bullets even available on the market? Questions need to be asked.

Here's another look at the weapon of choice in many high profile shootings- the Glock- semiautomatic pistol. Why are these the pistols of choice? They can take high capacity magazines making it possible to shoot many people at a time. They are semi-automatic allowing for more shots in a shorter period of time, thus the ability to shoot more people. Why does anyone want to shoot many people at a time? Good question. There are a lot of Glocks in the hands of American citizens. They are efficient. They are effective. And then, it's worth looking at the assault rifle owned by Breivik- the Ruger Mini-14, "poor man's assault rifle". Breivik and others who have shot innocents in spree shootings know which guns will be most affective to take down as many people as possible. That is their intent. The guns are there for them and far too easy to obtain. That is the shame of gun policy which has allowed common citizens to own military style weapons. 


So, besides these crazed individuals, who else is living amongst us about whom we should be concerned? The militia groups. Here is the definition of "militia". It is generally perceived that militia refers to an organized group of people considered to be in the armed service or fit to be of military service. Yet many of my readers have claimed that ALL of us are members of the militia. This is their excuse to arm themselves in preparation for fighting against their own country. Some are members of actual militia groups. The Southern Poverty Law Center keeps track of insurrectionist activity around the country. On the website, there is a section about militia groups. I have written before about the Sovereign Citizens. That's one scary group of individuals. But there are others as well. Michigan is a place known for its' Militia groups. Check this out to see for yourself the kind of people who might be living in your neighborhood. If you wander around on this website you may find some pretty interesting and frightening things. 


We can't talk about this subject without talking about the role of some in the media to ramp up violent rhetoric. Glenn Beck made a ridiculous, uninformed and inflammatory comment about the Norwegian youth who were at the camp where the shootings occurred. I include him in this post because he is capable of inciting his viewers and listeners. And, in fact, there have been several incidents in the last few years where a shooter has admitted to being influenced by Glenn Beck. This California man said he wanted to start a revolution by attacking people who worked for an organization vilified by Glenn Beck. There are people out there with sinister ideas ready to act on them with just a little encouragement. Where is common sense?

I have found that the articles about the Norway attacks keep coming. Below are just some of them that may help us understand why and how the horrendous attacks in Norway took place. We may well see more of these attacks so learning all we can now could help with preventative measures.

  • Here is an article about the mental state of Anders Breivik.
  • Here is an article about Breivik's views about women.
  • Here is an article about whether or not Breivik is a Christian
  • Here is an article about the inevitability of more, and possibly worse terror attacks
  • Here is an opinion piece from the London Evening Standard about gun laws in Norway and in Britain and whether lessons can be learned

39 comments:

  1. "Some of the chatter coming from the gun rights extremists pointed to lack of security on the island. If only, oh if only, someone on that island would have had a gun, things would have been different"

    Many, if not most police departments now agree that active shooters must be confronted with force as quickly as possible in order to end the attacks. We self-defense proponents think that an armed civilian could have provided that force. This chart of active shooter incidents bear out that some active shooters have indeed been stopped by armed civilians:

    http://excalibersecurityservices.com/documents/100323_incident_analysis_spreadsheet.pdf

    The presence of an armed civilian, or a off-duty police officer, might not have prevented the tragedy in Norway, but could the presence of an armed civilian made it any worse?

    ReplyDelete
  2. When seconds count, armed officers are more than an hour away...

    There is no way someone on that island having another gun could have made this worse.

    (We aren't even getting into a political party having a youth summer camp, that is just creepy.)

    ReplyDelete
  3. The presence of an armed civilian, or a off-duty police officer, might not have prevented the tragedy in Norway, but could the presence of an armed civilian made it any worse?

    Indeed.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Japete: “Jared Loughner was not stopped in Tucson by the gun permit holder who had his gun out ready to shoot.”

    This needs correcting. Zamudio DID NOT have his gun out. At no point did it leave concealment. I know you know this because it has been discussed here many, many times. I won’t accuse you of lying, so it must be just a typing mistake.

    Japete: “Instead he was stopped by people tackling him while he was reloading his Glock.”

    It was after the gun jammed, which means he completed the reload and closed the slide, but it failed to feed which is what extended Glock magazine are prone to do. We are thankful because this malfunction saved many lives, but it was not a normal reload that allowed him to be stopped.

    Japete: “…an off-duty police officer, who was working there as a security guard.”

    Wasn’t he the first one killed? No one says guns can prevent a blind ambush. Second, was he armed? We have heard a lot that active duty street cops don’t carry guns in Norway. Did this off-duty officer acting as a security guard have a gun on him?

    A base Mini-14 is perfectly legal in all 50 states, and under the expired federal ban. It only becomes illegal when you add an “assault feature” to it like a folding stock, pistol grip, or flash suppressor. It sounds like you maybe shifting away from a policy of just banning “assault weapons” to wanting to ban all semi-automatics. Is that correct (also basing this conclusion on a comment you had toward commentator “sean” who proposed banning all semi-automatics in a previous thread)? I think this would make a lot of sense from the perspective of someone who doesn’t approve of guns for defensive use, so I won’t argue with the logic. I’ll oppose it for sure, but it actually makes sense compared banning guns based on the arbitrary features of “assault weapons”. There is a clear-cut functional difference between a semi-automatic and a manual loading gun, but for someone who believs in gun rights, that difference s also vital for self-defense.

    Japete: “Why are these kinds of bullets even available on the market?”

    Because hard bullets are called “cop-killers”. A soft, expanding, or fragmenting bullet is designed to not over penetrate and only do damage to the intended target, as opposed to going through walls or body armor. It minimizes collateral damage. Not only is it extremely valuable for self-defense, but some ranges actually require the use of fragmenting bullets to reduce ricochet.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Joan,

    Thanks for posting my previous comment!

    "Yet many of my readers have claimed that ALL of us are members of the militia. This is their excuse to arm themselves in preparation for fighting against their own country."

    They claim that because from a formal legal standpoint it is true:

    U.S. Code, Title 10, Subtitle A, Part I, Chapter 13, Section 311. Militia: composition and classes

    (a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.
    (b) The classes of the militia are—
    (1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and
    (2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia.

    In today's usage, I would think that women are included as well. I believe that the legal structure for calling the unorganized militia into Federal service still exists. Prof. Eugene Volokh, do you care to comment?

    It is most unfortunate that the word "militia" has been overloaded with the additional connotation of a civilian, armed, paramilitary group often believing that an apocalyptic event is neigh, and that the government will use that event to strip citizens of their rights, and thus must be resisted. I think most self-defense proponents consider these "militias" to be the lunatic fringe, not to be compared to the citizen soldiers of our early history that had to provide their own weapons and gear, and take time out of their own occupations and trades to muster for training.

    Please don't paint us self-defense proponents with the "militia" brush. Breivik, Seung-Hui Cho, and Charles Whitman, are exactly the kinds of people that we want the physical ability, and legal capacity, to defend ourselves against.

    ReplyDelete
  6. So the Ruger Mini-14 is just an assault gun that is legal in 50 states and also in Norway. Read this http://www.startribune.com/world/126262593.html
    ' He said Breivik used a semiautomatic rifle that he appears to have been modified to make it into an automatic rifle."

    No problem there!

    ReplyDelete
  7. "the Glock- semiautomatic pistol. Why are these the pistols of choice? They can take high capacity magazines making it possible to shoot many people at a time."

    Two reasons --- the first, because all the police use Glocks and Glock is now what the Smith and Wesson revolver was in the 1980's. People who know nothing of firearms know the Glock name and ask for it. The most popular model is the Glock 19 which has a smaller magazine than the Glock 17 that most police carry because we civilians don't need to shoot as many people as the police.

    The second reason is this firearm is because the Glock, constructed entirely of porcelain, is capable of passing through airport metal detectors completely unnoticed. The only downside to this amazing weapon is the price, which is quite expensive.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Japete: “So the Ruger Mini-14 is just an assault gun that is legal in 50 states and also in Norway.”

    If you want to define “assault gun” as anything semi-automatic, then yes. The Mini-14 should be classified the same as the AR-15 or any other semi-automatic rifle/carbine. Either try to ban them all, or none of them. Same goes for an Uzi, Tec-9 and Glock or M1911. All or none. In the past, gun control groups have tried to separate the Uzis from Glocks, and the Mini-14s from AK-47s based on features that have nothing to do with lethality- it is arbitrary and makes no sense. It is the silly “assault feature” definition that your side developed that keeps the Mini-14 legal. We have been telling you all along it makes no difference. It is what we have been railing against for decades.

    ReplyDelete
  9. " The second reason is this firearm is because the Glock, constructed entirely of porcelain, is capable of passing through airport metal detectors completely unnoticed." This should not be reassuring to anyone, Robin. Do you think that's a good idea?

    ReplyDelete
  10. What do you call those features then? What do you say when someone can make a semi-automatic into an automatic gun and mow down 68 people in one span of 2 hours? I call that a dangerous gun because of the ability to change it into a weapon of war.

    ReplyDelete
  11. Robin said
    "The second reason is this firearm is because the Glock, constructed entirely of porcelain, is capable of passing through airport metal detectors completely unnoticed. The only downside to this amazing weapon is the price, which is quite expensive.

    Ah the elusive Glock 7 I hear it actually costs more than a police chief makes on a month

    ReplyDelete
  12. I sleep with a gun near (not under) my pillow and I have a basement full of guns (and a garage full of ammo). Does that make me a terrorist or cop killer? I'm just wondering so that I can turn myself in before I do something rash. I wouldn't want to go to prison, because ours aren't near as nice as Norway's.

    --JMB's Ghost

    ReplyDelete
  13. Robin:

    "The second reason is this firearm is because the Glock, constructed entirely of porcelain, is capable of passing through airport metal detectors completely unnoticed. The only downside to this amazing weapon is the price, which is quite expensive. "

    I am sorry, Robin, but this is completely untrue. Porcelain is not used in the manufacture of Glock pistols. The frame, magazine body, and several other components, are made of polymer, plastic, which makes for a lighter weight and helps resist corrosion in wet environments. Other components, such as the barrel, slide, trigger group (I believe) and others are made of steel.

    The "urban myth" that a Glock pistol can pass through airport metal detectors dates back to a specious report by Jack Anderson, and long since refuted. The rumor did contribute to the allure of the new pistol, however. See this article in Business Week:

    http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/11_04/b4212052185280_page_3.htm

    "The Federal Aviation administration concluded that if screening personnel paid attention, they would be able to detect the pistol. "That was a big 'oops' moment," says Richard M. Aborn, a former president of Handgun Control Inc., now known as the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence. "We made the classic mistake of failing to do our homework." "

    The previous post was correct. Breivik had this pistol because it is common in military and police service throughout Europe.

    ReplyDelete
  14. Japete: “What do you call those features then? What do you say when someone can make a semi-automatic into an automatic gun and mow down 68 people in one span of 2 hours?”

    2 hours? You can mow down 68 people with a muzzle loader in that time span.

    I am hesitant to believe that his gun was converted to fully-automatic, because this is often a point of confusion. It is possible, but I am not convinced. I have also heard that it was semi-automatic, which is more believable. Regardless, the only thing that matters is being semi-automatic. These are the features that your group uses to define assault weapons (plus being semi-auto with a detachable magazine): pistol grip, flash suppressor, threaded barrel, barrel shroud, folding/telescopic stock, bayonet lug. None of them have a lick to do with being able to be converted into a fully-automatic firearm. They also don’t have a lick to do with mowing down people.

    Do you think the Mini-14 without any of these features should be banned?

    ReplyDelete
  15. ""The second reason is this firearm is because the Glock, constructed entirely of porcelain, is capable of passing through airport metal detectors completely unnoticed." This should not be reassuring to anyone, Robin. Do you think that's a good idea?"

    What I think is it's an old lie originated by the Violence Policy Center and perpetuated by the ignorant.

    The frame of the Glock is made of polymer, not porcelain, and the barrel, action, and receiver rails are made out steel. There's close to a pound of steel in even the lightest Glock, and they are easily caught by metal detectors.

    ReplyDelete
  16. "So the Ruger Mini-14 is just an assault gun that is legal in 50 states and also in Norway."

    The Mini-14 is a perfectly ordinary wooden-stocked semi-auto rifle.

    http://www.chuckhawks.com/ruger_mini14_review.htm

    ReplyDelete
  17. Japete,
    Though we disagree a lot, one thing we can agree on is regulating the porcelain/ceramic Glocks (the Model 7), since they're such an obvious security risk on planes.

    ReplyDelete
  18. "This should not be reassuring to anyone, Robin. Do you think that's a good idea? "

    Enough passengers with the Glock 7 on an airplane and we will never have another 9/11.

    ReplyDelete
  19. Sometimes I publish comments for their audacity and total outrageousness.

    ReplyDelete
  20. Note to the comment posted by a rude and offensive person from Phoenix- stay off of my blog. You are not welcome here.

    ReplyDelete
  21. Dear Max, I think you are new to my blog. I don't usually publish insults to myself or others. Therefore, I am not publishing your remarks. You and I will disagree and continue to disagree though I can see that you think I know nothing and you know a lot more than I do. You may know a lot more about guns and I have a point of view that is not shared by you. That does not make me wrong and you right.

    ReplyDelete
  22. Robin said...

    The second reason is this firearm is because the Glock, constructed entirely of porcelain, is capable of passing through airport metal detectors completely unnoticed. The only downside to this amazing weapon is the price, which is quite expensive.

    This is a false statement that won't die. Glocks are not made of porcelain. The lower receiver is made of polymer with steel inserts for the slide to ride on. The slide is steel as is the barrel. Thay have to be steel to contain the pressure that a fired round generates.

    The mini-14 is carried by more farmers and ranchers than any other small rifle. Being a gunsmith, I can convert one to full-auto. The only question is why? Full auto fire is inaccurate and a waste of ammo. It's also not something Joe Blow can do in his garage.
    I have one of these and enjoy taking it to the range. I also keep it around for home defense. I take it coyote hunting and use it on small varmints.

    True assault weapons are select fire arms like the M-16's our military carries. The semi-auto copies are just plain rifles. The only reason the anti's hate them is because they look scary. They are no more dangerous than the bolt action rifle I hunt deer with. The truth is, in a close in fight, I would rather have a shotgun.

    ReplyDelete
  23. MAgunowner:

    Glock Model 7: It is most difficult to regulate a gun that does not exist. That gun us an urban myth:

    http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Glock%207

    Google is your friend.

    ReplyDelete
  24. The second reason is this firearm is because the Glock, constructed entirely of porcelain, is capable of passing through airport metal detectors completely unnoticed. The only downside to this amazing weapon is the price, which is quite expensive.

    What's really funny is that it appears japete&co. still buy this old myth. This whole thread has made me chuckle with the misinformation and outright falsehoods breathlessly passed around as scary fact; i.e. "dum-dum bullets," the "poor man's assault rifle" and now a "porcelin" Glock - and it appears some actually buy this dreck.

    Once again - you're entitled to your own opinions, folks, but you're not entitled to your own facts. The "dum-dum" bullet is simply a soft point, required for hunting; the Mini-14 is quite an ordinary semi-automatic, and there is no porcelain Glock nor any other firearm.

    It also exposes the VPC as a source of much of this misinformation and falsehood - they're hardly a credible source at this point.

    This was a horrible tragedy, to be sure. But this tragedy was not accomplished by things (nor especially mythical things), but by a person. A gun didn't shoot a single soul - a person did. The classic lone nut, it appears. He and he alone is responsible.

    If you can find a way to predict and stop the lone nut who is willing to go to any lengths to do harm, good luck. I know of no way to do so. And I see no reason to continue this attempt to disarm his victims.

    ReplyDelete
  25. where did I insult you? I'm mesmerized...look, you are not intellectually honest. it seems to me you are more interested in propaganda and non-sequitur statements than in a serious discussion.

    you don't even consider the possibility of changing your mind, what's the point of having a blog then? you are just talking to your belly bottom

    I reread what I wrote. there is no insult there. it seems to me that you felt just some embarassment for the amount of illogical questions you were asking and you just looked for the emergency exit door of censure. very mature.

    look, I'll leave you to "combing your doll hairs", that's iwhat you are really doing here. but remember that if you are not convincing intellectually honest and not ideologically committed gun owners like me, your crusade is pointless.

    ReplyDelete
  26. Al AlJazeera said "These men are insecure, violently inclined, and illiberal. The outside world scares them. They hate homosexuals and strong women."

    I think I'm having a cognitive dissonance moment.

    Did you quote a media origination from the part of the world that routinely HANGS homosexuals and women that are ACCUSED of adultery. (unless they stone them) That believes that women should not be seen in public unless accompanied by her husband or an adult male family member (all the while wearing a portable tent) That makes it illegal for women to drive cars or be doctors (unless they treat only women) or lawyers and would ban them from being educated if they could.

    "illiberal" indeed.

    "insecure" This is the folks that you cannot draw a cartoon of the deity right? That demand that the quran be on the "top" of the Border bookshelf, right?

    "violently inclined" Do we even need to go there? Do you worry that when you go to the farmers market that someone might be intending to park a truck bomb there? How often does that happen here. there?

    Quick check..

    We that have a woman secretary of state, women at the top of the court system, women doctors women lawyers and women running for president.

    We have openly gay legislators at all levels of government, and if you have ever been to San Frans gay pride parade you understand just how accepted gays are at every level of society. Heck, we have "the pink pistols" gays with guns organization (that is totally embraced by the local gun clubs btw..)

    We can count on ONE hand the number of christian terrorists that have gone on mass murdering sprees in the last decade, citing religion.

    Want to count the number of times their clergy have issued fatwah's saying it's ok to attack women, children and "innocents"?

    Can anyone even begin to count the number of them that have committed mass murder, with explosives, in the name of their religion?

    Several hundred at least.

    We should listen to commentary from them?

    I need to sit down. I feel the vapors coming on.

    ReplyDelete
  27. As you may recall, anon, I am not the one who started with the porcelain thing. Plenty of you have been writing about it on both sides and it turns out that it's an urban myth, or so you say. I am not a gun expert. I leave that up to you guys.But don't accuse me of passing on the information on one side or the other as you are want to do. This tragedy, by the way, was accomplished by a thing. For without that thing, it could not have been accomplished. As for the VPC- I would expect that you would hate any site that I use. The VPC of course does plenty of research on these issues and just because you don't like what they say does not mean it isn't true. You didn't find that the VPC said anything about Glocks made of porcelain. They merely researched the Glock pistols and what they are, why they are so available and so popular. Find me something on the link I provided that is not true. Indeed, many of the quotes in the linked article are from the Glock site or from people who use and own Glocks.

    ReplyDelete
  28. First of all, anon, there are so many insulting comments sent my way that maybe you didn't. But if you don't think "combing your doll hairs" is not insulting then you are the one with the problem, not me. And if you are reading this blog because you think I should be ideologically committed to gun owners like you, you have the wrong blog. That is the furthest thing from what I am doing on this blog. I am not going to change your mind because you are so ideologically committed on your side. I am changing the minds of reasonable people who read this blog. That is my purpose here. If, along the way, I happen to engage in a semi-reasonable conversation or discussion with someone on your side, then we may actually move a little in one direction or the other. At the least, we may understand each other better. There is no way to do that when you tell me to go "comb my doll's hair". That means to me that you have absolutely no interest in being reasonable or engaging in any kind of sensible conversation. You may want to try another blog since mine is not what you are looking for obviously. And if you want to engage in actual conversation without insults, then maybe we can communicate.

    ReplyDelete
  29. Well sit down then 18Echo. Are you aware that AlJazeera has people working for the organization who live in the U.S.? Are you aware that it is one of the most read news sources in the world? My neighbor, right next door, is Lebanese. He is married to an American woman. He and his family are one of the most liberal on the block. He reads AlJazeera every day to get a balanced view of the news along with his reading of American papers and papers from the Middle East to get news of his home country. His wife does not wear cover nor do his daughters. They look like any other kid on the block. His wife converted to Islam but they also celebrate Christmas. You can read all about AlJazeera here- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al_Jazeera. I think you will find that your impressions are wrong. I do not agree with the way women and homosexuals are treated in the Middle Eastern countries. That does not mean that AlJazeera supports those things. This is the English language version and if you read the article I linked to, you will see that they present a lot of controversial topics and not necessarily friendly towards the governments that practice the intolerance. As a media outlet, they are widely read and present a view we don't always get in our own country. If we can't expand our viewpoints by reading other sources, we are lost as a country. It is always instructive to me to read what people from the outside think of us. When traveling abroad, I am always interested in what the news and the people in other countries think about us. . I believe your comments say more about your own views than mine. " Many people see Al Jazeera as a more trustworthy source of information than government and foreign channels. Some scholars and commentators use the notion of contextual objectivity,[12] which highlights the tension between objectivity and audience appeal, to describe the station's controversial yet popular news approach.[13] As a result, it is probably the most watched news channel in the Middle East.[citation needed]" . You can see on this link that Al Jazeera is not without it's detractors and controversy. Such can also be said for some of the American media outlets. So, take your smelling salts and relax, 18.

    ReplyDelete
  30. The posts about porcelain Glocks are just jokes. It was a quote by the character John McClane from the movie “Die Hard” in 1990:

    That punk pulled a Glock 7 on me. You know what that is? It's a porcelain gun made in Germany. Dosen't show up on your airport X-ray machines, here, and it cost more than you make in a month.

    The quote gets made fun of a lot because nothing he said about the gun was correct, from the model number, to what it is made of, to where it is made, to it being super expensive. He even got the myth part wrong, by saying it could avoid X-ray machines instead of metal detectors. Plastic and porcelain would show up just fine on an X-ray. The movie may have ultimately contributed to the fear mongering that Glocks could evade metal detectors.

    ReplyDelete
  31. With factual sources like "Die Hard" as the basis for VPC's reports, how can we not believe them?

    --JMB's Ghost

    ReplyDelete
  32. Die Hard? provide me with a link or an actual usage of that on the website of the VPC. I don't know what you are talking about.

    ReplyDelete
  33. japete said...
    Are you aware that AlJazeera has people working for the organization who live in the U.S.? Are you aware that it is one of the most read news sources in the world?

    Well this is one point we can agree on. I in fact saw them here in Saint Paul during the RNC although I have no way to tell if they lived in the US. I also skim their new sight for information that is yet to hit US news or will never hit the us news cycle. You do however need to take what they report with the same tablespoon of salt as any other news agency they all have agendas.

    ReplyDelete
  34. japete: "Why are these the pistols of choice? Why does anyone want to shoot many people at a time? Good question."

    Glock pistols are the number one choice of police departments in the US. More police officers probably carry Glock pistols than carry many other brands of competing pistols combined.

    Why are Glock pistols one of the most popular types among gunowners? Simple and obvious: Ask police officers why they carry Glock pistols -- the answer for other gunowners is the same.

    Short answer: It's one of the best guns to defend yourself against bad guys who are attacking you.

    ReplyDelete
  35. Sounds like a vicious circle to me. We make Glock pistols readily available in the illegal market, straw purchasing, stolen or without background checks from unlicensed sellers- oh and the legal market. So then more people have them out on the streets so our L.E. has to buy them to protect themselves from all of those people on the streets who have them. And then you guys must have them to protect yourselves from the perceived threats of the guys with the Glocks on the streets?

    ReplyDelete
  36. japete: "Sounds like a vicious circle to me."

    The problem with that theory is this:

    When did semiauto pistols go on sale in the US? About 1900. When did 14-shot semiauto pistols go on sale in the US? About 1935.

    Why did police mostly start using semiauto pistols only in the last 30 years? Criminal violence went up -- for reasons having little to do with gun design (see paragraph above). Police started noticing that in shootouts with criminals, their 6-shot revolvers were often emptied before they had hit the bad guy even once.

    ReplyDelete
  37. The other problem with that theory is that Glock specifically marketed their pistols to US law enforcement as a way into the US firearms market. Once the non-sworn citizens saw how useful they were, they started buying them as well.

    --JBM's Ghost

    ReplyDelete
  38. I have elaborated on my post of July 27 on my own blog here:

    http://leftcoastconservative.blogspot.com/2011/07/norway-active-shooters-and-common.html

    After looking at the data, I modify my assertion that an armed individual would not have made the situation worse. The data clearly show that armed resistance to these attacks is almost 100% successful.

    The amazing thing (to me anyway) is that unarmed resistance is 80% successful! Still, if given the choice, I would opt for a firearm to boost my chances to as close to 100% as I could.

    ReplyDelete
  39. It's next to impossible to read the graphs you linked to in your own blog, Left. Since it's so small and unreadable, it's difficult to examine the stats for their truth and the situations for the authenticity. But thanks for sending this. My view has not changed as a result.

    ReplyDelete