You know, it’s occurred to me that the teletype stock photo I often use for this feature is probably a foreign piece of equipment to most people under forty. Maybe I should find a new one. It’s hard to believe it’s Thursday already? Where have the weeks been going? I appreciate everyone’s patience about the light volume of posts here. I have to get items off my rather lengthy “todo” list and that means working longer hours, with not much time left for blogging. But I do have quite a lot accumulated in my tabs, since last week we did not have a news post. So here goes:
Eugene Volokh has compiled a list of recent events where mass shootings have (in some cases possibly) been prevented by armed intervention by civilians. This might turn out to be useful in your arguments with people who don’t agree with this whole gun thing, and I’m sure many of you have found yourself in that situation after the most recent events.
I’ve noticed left-leaning friends on Facebook have gotten more argumentative after this incident than previous events. Perhaps there is frustration over their side of the debate not advancing, and that’s making people more likely to start asserting their points. I only have maybe two friends on Facebook I would classify as hard core gun control supporters. Most of the rest support UBCs and maybe a few other things. You need to deal with each type differently.
The first type is your typical left-leaning moderate, or your more traditional modern liberals. These people haven’t really bought into the hard core progressive-left shibboleth. While they ain’t voting Republican any time soon, they aren’t necessarily embracing thew worst elements of the far left. A lot of tech geeks fall into this category. A key thing I’ve found with this type is they tend to apply reason very well, but the problem is that in the Venn Diagram of reason and the political process, there isn’t any overlap. People of this type correctly understand that compromise is part of the political process, but often don’t understand how it comes about. The political process is not reasonable people coming together to think their way through problems as is the case in most tech environments. To whatever extent reason plays a role in politics, it’s only as a cudgel with which to bash your opponent with in order to look like the stronger man. Compromise in politics is a result of struggle.
A question you’ll often hear from this type is, “How can anyone oppose Universal Background Checks?” What I would point out that there are significant trust issues with the other side. You can point out plenty of examples of their being duplicitous over UBCs, from trying to ban even temporary transfers, to trying to get other issues to hitchhike along, for dismissing our serious concerns, etc. I would avoid arguments against the concept itself, because then you’ll just get dismissed as a zealot and the conversation will be over. What you want to do is try to make them understand the trust issues at work. This is only from one side, of course. I’m sure our opponents could lay down examples of where they thought our side was being duplicitous, but that’s their argument to make, not your’s.
The greater truth here, which I’d never use on a reasonable type with little exposure to politics, is that it’s generally a bad negotiating tactic to come to the table and immediately serve your opponents one of your key positions on a silver platter. Why would we just give up on the UBC issue? Just because some people think that it’s the “right thing to do?” Hell no. This isn’t afternoon tea. We might be able to use that issue later as leverage if we need to avoid something we really don’t want to have imposed on us.
A smart strategy at the negotiating table is that your opponents shouldn’t get movement any of their issues unless they can force movement. In a democratic republic, that comes down to votes of lawmakers, and right now we control that chessboard. We don’t surrender pieces on the board just because someone else thinks we need to take pity on our opponent. That’s a good way to get checkmated down the road, and make no mistake about it, they do intend to checkmate us.
President Obama pointed to Britain and Australia, two countries that engaged in mass confiscation, as examples of what our country needs. Hillary said the Supreme Court got it wrong when it threw out gun bans in DC and Chicago. The game won’t stop just because they took a few pawns and a bishop. They intend to win the game, and the end goal of that is to see you check mated for real. Reasonable people see a lot of strength on our side, and a lot of weakness on theirs, and don’t understand why we can’t just reach an accommodation if our side would just give a little. Make them understand the duplicity of our opponents.
The second type is the strong gun control advocate. These people are often full of facts and figures they got from the left-wing news sites that feed them that shit. You will never convince this type, but that’s not the point of engagement. In fact, this type will generally start to look down on you for denying the power of their science on the impact of guns on society. The fact of the matter is much of what has been fed to them is either propaganda, half-baked nonsense, or outright fabrication. There is plenty of well-researched data on our side, but we also have our share of these things as well. Learn to tell the difference. But no matter what you have to say, it will boil down to dueling studies. This is probably one reason you don’t see NRA funding a lot of pro-gun research. At the end of the day everyone goes off their gut instinct. Your purpose is not to convince these people, but there are two reasons you should argue with this type.
For one, you want to signal to other gun people they may be friends with that they are not alone, and that there are people who think the same as they do who can hold their own with people regurgitating left-wing shibboleths about gun control. A lot of these folks you’re trying to reach aren’t even gun owners, but they have a gut agreement with the Second Amendment, but maybe they can’t quite articulate it. I was once one of these people. You need to reach them, and stir within them the desire to explore an issue they maybe just can’t quite articulate right now.
The second reason for engaging this second type is to present arguments to people they may be friends with who aren’t necessarily supporters or detractors. Show that our side is the winning side. People are naturally more attracted to the side that sounds like winners, and seldom want to hitch their horse to a card that isn’t going anywhere. I believe at the end of the day we will be the winners. Have the confidence and command of the issue to bring those kinds of folks with us. The only question I have, really, is how long it will take us to get there.
When arguing with people on social media, in all cases, we need to be the ones who are calm, cool, and collected. Don’t fall for people’s desire to escalate. If they keep flinging pooh at you, it’s better to just disengage. There is a point of diminishing returns, and you should always think, “If this debate were to end right now, who would someone with no dog in this fight think the asshole is?” If the answer is you, you’ve taken it too far. Help your opponent keep digging, but when you can’t continue without looking like the bad guy, it’s time to stop.
If we choose our engagements wisely, we can come out ahead after incidents like this. It’s my sincere belief that gun control is less popular now than it was when Democrats were convincing themselves it was a losing issue. Argue politely, but with confidence, and we will continue to ensure they get nothing.
It doesn’t mention anything about gun hypocrisy, but the daughter does claim that Rosie calling her a crazed runaway was a lie to maintain appearances. She claims she was kicked out, but the runaway claims when Rosie faced potential questions over why her underage daughter wasn’t around. The mental illness claims are simply because the daughter struggles with anxiety and depression after Rosie’s divorce from the only mother who ever cooked her a real meal and she was forced to live with Rosie who, apparently, loves smoking weed all day while the nannies often raise the kids.
Now this is a she said/she said case, but it just doesn’t seem like that much of a stretch to believe for those of us in the gun culture who have watched her lose control of herself when anyone disagrees with her on the subject.
I have no doubt at some point this shoe will drop, but it would appear our Divider-in-Cheif is preparing some more executive orders on gun control. This is kind of like news that Hillary Clinton is, in fact, anti-gun, which, of course, she is. Not even a decade ago, Democrats had convinced themselves this was a loser of an issue, and now they are clamoring to show the world who hates the Second Amendment more. This didn’t work out too well for Al Gore, when he doubled down on Clinton’s legacy on the issue. But the difference today is that Democrats have convinced themselves that shifting demographics has ensured they will win the White House in perpetuity.
No doubt as soon as the murderer’s name was known, his face was plastered all over the news. It was disappointing to even see people on our side doing it. Now it has come to light that the UCC murderer may have had the attention on his mind. Notice what the killer said about the Roanoke TV murderer:
On an interesting note, I have noticed that so many people like him are all alone and unknown, yet when they spill a little blood, the whole world knows who they are. A man who was known by no one, is now known by everyone. His face splashed across every screen, his name across the lips of every person on the planet, all in the course of one day. Seems the more people you kill, the more you’re in the limelight.
And thus the seed was planted in the mind of the next whack job. I feel a bad for quoting his writing here, but I want people to see, and see clearly, that when people on our side suggest the infamy the media offers these losers is a big part of what drives them to do these horrible things, we’re not blowing smoke. Here it is, plain as day for anyone to see.
Last night I was introduced to this effort by the family members of one of the Aurora victims. I’ve had a policy for a while now that I won’t mention the mass killer’s name. I won’t print their pictures or publish their manifestos. I won’t help them find what they seek. If only the media would do the same.
There was a concealed carry holder on campus, he had his gun, but was prevented from intervening by the school. Oregon seems to be like Pennsylvania, in the sense that it’s legal to carry on college campuses, but college campuses can still set policies for students, staff and faculty. He’s risking expulsion by coming forward with the fact that he was armed. Bad guys with guns can’t be stopped by good guys with guns if the good guys are locked behind closed doors and prevented from intervening. Our opponents were all atwitter yesterday about how there was a CCWer on the campus, as if to say “See! See! It doesn’t work!” Well, yeah, sure. It doesn’t work when it’s actively prevented from working.
Obama gives the thumbs up to exploitation of tragic events for political purposes:
Of course, he also repeats the lie that mass shootings are more common in America than in other countries. Most of the statistics he mentions are basically all lies. We must continue to fight him. We must ensure he gets nothing; not one inch more of our rights. That battle will start in Oregon.
And note folks, when he throws out “Great Britain” and “Australia” as examples of “doing something” he’s talking about mass confiscation. There is no mixing words about that. Britain and Australia tried to solve the problem by making the most common types of firearms that people have in this country illegal, and then confiscating them from their citizens. Don’t ever let these people tell you they don’t want to take away your guns. Their words say otherwise.
… Lauren Holter of Bustle, who points out the evils of the National Rifle Association for, before the mass shooting, mind you, sending a tweet showing how to get a good sight picture. Because I guess people who are into shooting just shoot wildly around the range, consequences be damned. Completely ignoring NRA’s 144 year history of teaching marksmanship, which is its primary mission (the political stuff exists only because people won’t fucking leave us alone), she then goes on to accept Bloomberg’s claim about school shootings hook, line and sinker, even though these claims have been debunked even by left-leaning fact checkers.
While the NRA focused on how shooters can improve their aim, 10 people were killed in Oregon because a school shooter knew how to aim a gun. It’s quite simple really — mass shootings always involve at least one gun.
Congratulations, that is officially the dumbest thing I’ve read all week. But don’t despair, there’s sure to be a lot stupid thing flying around the media until the Storm of the Century of the Year pushes all this off the front page, so maybe you’ll get topped.
Hillary Clinton slammed the Supreme Court as “wrong on the Second Amendment” and called for reinstating the assault weapons ban during a small private fundraiser in New York last week, according to audio of her remarks obtained by the Washington Free Beacon.
This is my shocked face. I had no idea Hillary Clinton was an enemy of Second Amendment rights. No idea she supported assault weapons bans! I figured it wouldn’t be too long before Hil was out on a hunt with Sarah Palin sporting an AR in .308. Good thing we have the media around to keep us informed.
Keep in mind that early reports are almost always wrong, but clearly this is a major mass shooting event. You can expect our opponents to immediately begin exploiting this tragedy. Remember that Oregon is controlled by anti-gun Democrats. This could be the end of the Second Amendment in Oregon if Oregon gun owners don’t start immediately mobilizing to counter what is no doubt coming.