Sore Losers?

https://www.pilotonline.com/government/virginia/vp-nw-crime-commission-canceled-20191108-7gysattzzndn5f3sfwxkm62sle-story.html

Sen Mark Obenshain decided to cancel the final meeting of the Crime Commission study on firearm laws, saying it would be impractical for the Commission to complete its work due to the election results.

What a crybaby.

Sure, it is likely the the Bloomberg dependent democrats will obey their master and ignore the findings of the Commission, but that’s no reason to not make them publicly do it. Laws should be made based on rational analysis, not preexisting prejudice, and that was the point of having a report by the Commission as a basis.

The Commission will release what it has done so far, but it should dot its “i’s” and cross its “t’s”  and let the gun control advocates publicly reject reason in favor of emotion, to hold it against them later.

33 thoughts on “Sore Losers?

    1. It’s hard to have faith in persuasion when you know you are trying to win over people who have explicitly rejected reason. That said, you still have to take your lumps and stand your ground, You don’t just stop fighting because the deck is stacked against you.

      Soros is always out there, but this time around Bloomberg, through his EveryMom front, is the one who bankrolled so many of the Democrats.

      Like

      1. You make it difficult to support even well thought out positions when you go to such extremes.

        Bloomberg may or may not be any type of answer for the DEMs, but suggesting that those that will guide the State have “explicitly rejected reason” just makes you look bitter and old.

        Relative to future decision making; again, time will tell….

        Liked by 1 person

        1. OK, let’s test by reason.

          1) In a free country, I do not have to justify my choice of firearms or accessories. I have no burden to prove a “need” any more than you have to justify your choice of a car. If you seek to limit my choices, it is YOUR burden to demonstrate a public good worth curtailing my rights.

          2) If there is such a public good, it is YOUR burden to demonstrate the curtailments you propose will accomplish that good. If your remedy will not work, curtailing my rights is not justified.

          3) If there is a way to accomplish that same public good that does not curtail my rights, curtailing my rights is not justified.

          Are there any of those three points that you would care to dispute?

          If not, then which of the proposed measures meets those criteria?

          Like

          1. I’ll play;

            Your second point is the crux of the matter. And I agree the burden is on the lawmakers to demonstrate that their curtailments will be worthy of limiting your rights.

            However, since there is no way to know beforehand, the proof would only be in the analysis of the outcome. A dilemma a to be sure, but incremental measures need (IMO) to be undertaken as the existing situation is unacceptable.

            To use your metaphor; if my car of choice is a tank it would be denied me…

            Liked by 1 person

          2. ” the proof would only be in the analysis of the outcome”

            OK, let’s say we place a ban on the sale of AR and AK type rifles, but put a 10 year sunset provision on it so it expires if it produces no worthwhile results?

            Oh, wait, we did that in 1994, and it didn’t do anything, so it expired.

            We did that with the ‘one gun a month’ bill too, and it was repealed when it did no good.

            Now Northam proposes doing both again, and a lot more, without sunsets.

            Of course, confiscations can’t be sunsetted. Not everything can be undone after it proves useless.

            But you shouldn’t skip over the first point.

            There has to be a net public good to start with.

            In 2016, rifles of all types, not just ARs. were used in 378 homicides, but they were used 735 successful defenses against criminals .

            https://www.quora.com/How-many-times-has-an-AR-15-been-used-in-self-defense-in-America

            So, on net, civilian ownership of semiautomatic rifles is a small, but net good.

            So, what is your example of a measure that would meet all of the criteria?

            I have one, actually enforcing the existing NICS database laws as intended.

            Like

          3. I didn’t discount your first point, but your contention is not supported by the facts as DGU data is highly disputed (Quora?).

            As to the effect of actions already tried; again the data, particularly of assault-style weapons, is supportive of the bans effectiveness. And when things work/don’t work you try something else.

            However, we are in complete agreement on the NICS issue. I can’t imagine why (NRA) the flaws aren’t fixed and the data aggressively cleaned up.

            Liked by 1 person

          4. Lemme see if’n I have this straight…so to you the 2nd Amendment is to keep the government from becomin’ tyrannical, yet you think it’s okay for the President to use the power of his office invoke a constitutionally unchecked investigation of a US citizen by a foreign government.

            Hack!

            Liked by 2 people

          5. I’ll answer you points in reverse order.

            The NRA designed the NICS system. Since it was implemented as part of the Brady Bill, medical privacy laws have changed greatly making reporting of dangerously mentally ill people to the database impossible. Worse, there has been a policy change at colleges and high schools to not prosecute crimes committed by mentally ill students. The VA Tech and Parkland shooters, for example, had both committed felonies that would have blocked their purchases had they been prosecuted.

            Add to that that fewer than 1 in 1000 violations of the straw purchase provisions if the NICS system are prosecuted which pulls the teeth from the act. None of those are the doing of the NRA.

            The NYT plays some statistical games that are deceptive.

            The number of texting while driving accidents has also increased greatly over the same time period, and for the same reason. Prior to the 1994 Assault weapons ban, hardly anyone other than shooting enthusiasts knew what an AR15 was. They were rare and expensive. But during the ban, the patent expired and they became affordable. But even so, they were pretty much unknown to the general public until TV began to glamorize their full automatic cousins, Over the last few years, you will see on every cop show gun battles with criminals armed with full auto AR or AK rifles. In reality. those weapons are not used in crime in the US. (go ahead and look, you will find only 3, one by a cop’s wife and 2 by cops)

            It is almost as if the TV and movie people set put to popularize them. But even so, the number of people killed with AR or AK type rifles is very small compared to handguns, knives or even fists. The worst mass shootings were all with multiple handguns(with the exception of Las Vegas)

            What is your objection to the Quora article, The data in it is from the Center For Disease Control.

            The data was not what the CDC wanted to find, but they confirmed that defensive firearms use is effective and with every class of firearm, defensive uses greatly outnumber criminal use.

            Like

          6. You conveniently left out the NRA work to undermine the system they originally designed when they got too much push back from the right of right gun-nut crowd.

            https://www.cnn.com/2018/02/23/us/nra-criticizes-gaps-it-created-in-gun-background-system-invs/index.html

            And the CDC flawed data was a good example of the problems with DGU reporting. Very poorly done research with anti-gun bias all over it.

            You also ignore the basic issue of choice (tank?) as it pertains to individual “rights”.

            Finally, “Nancy” has a (related) point.

            Liked by 2 people

          7. “NYT: That Assault Weapon Ban? It Really Did Work”

            The NYT is lying.

            The lie begins with NYT’s definition of a “public mass shooting.” As NYT defines the term, public mass shootings are “incidents in which a gunman killed at least six people in public.”

            Notice that four dead and two wounded would not count as a public mass shooting for purposes of the NYT article.

            Notice, too, that many other sources, like the Congressional Research Service, use four deaths (not six) as the defining number.

            All of NYT’s numbers and percentages thus derive from its exaggerated, possibly alarmist, definition of public mass shooting.

            Wikipedia has an article on the assault weapon ban which includes references to more than 20 studies of the effect of the ban. As Wikipedia summarizes them, most of the studies show the ban had no significant effect on gun violence, or that positive effects were inconclusive for one reason or another.

            The NYT piece is just another example of fake news.

            Like

          8. Again, in reverse order

            No, Nancy does not. This is not about Trump.

            Regarding your tank, the Heller decision allows for restrictions on dangerous or unusual weapons. and we have restrictions on machine guns. The main gun on the tank fits the dangerous category, as you can blow up a house with it so far away you can’t see it.

            And, you can’t operate your tank on cit streets due to width and weight restrictions, but if you have a piece of property to drive it on, with the guns disabled, you can have one.

            Yes, the CDC has a string anti-gun bias, but even so, the data forced them to admit that private ownership of firearms saves lives.

            CNN misstates the Prinz decision, and it is irrelevant in VA, In VA, the State Police voluntarily conduct the background check using the FBI NICS database as well as it’s own information. The NRA did not object to mandatory reporting in convictions, only the requirement that local police perform the background checks without Federal compensation.

            I note you do not address the refusal to enforce clear violations of the Straw Purchase provision. Straw purchases are the overwhelming source of modern firearms for felons. Why should we accept new laws when very effective ones we already have are not used?

            Like

          9. Oh, but it is very much “on point”.

            Now that you have demonstrated your willingness to accept and defend real tyranny, you have thus undermined your irrational assumption that the government, by way of the 2nd, inanely advocates the violent overthrow of itself by half-wits with AR-15s and pocket copies of the Constitution. As a result, lawful firearms can now be defined to certain calibers, magazine sizes, and actions suitable to Scalia’s “lawful purposes”, e.g., hunting, skeet, etc.

            But wait, we’re not done, it’s a win-win.

            Since the weapons of citizens are now within certain parameters, we have the police agencies to follow suit, e.g., since citizens are restricted to, oh say, .25 caliber 2-shot derringers (hyperbolic restriction for the point in question), the police must give up their 15-round 9mm Glocks in favor of .38 long barrel revolvers, which they can then carry in underarm holsters like the RMCP.

            It gets better. With their service weapons safely tucked up under their arms, they no longer have an excuse to NOT WEAR a seat belt. This alone eliminates the majority of on-duty deaths and injuries and the tax burden they represent.

            And all because you cannot recognize the real danger of Trump.

            Liked by 2 people

          10. Again, still not about Trump, and I have not brought up the 2nd Amendment as yet. I proposed three criteria for a proposed law to meet to be justified on its own merit,

            Like

          11. “ we have restrictions on machine guns”

            Pendantic, response. Nancy was addressing 2nd Amendment interpretation which is clearly “on topic”.

            Your Tank lecture was a great supporting agreement for more restrictions on gun possession. Reasonable restrictions, of which you appear to recognize few (if any), are a worthy and needful legislative move for our electorate.

            Liked by 2 people

          12. “Yet you have not proposed any that meet the test of reasonableness I proposed.”

            Not his job to propose reasonable restrictions on a deadly menace, it’s yours to propose some acceptable allowances for it.

            “I have not brought up the 2nd Amendment as yet.”

            What? Are we suppose to forget the last 68 years of your life?

            Liked by 1 person

  1. Your accusations that those wanting to curb gun violence by Constitutional means have rejected reason is pathetic. The simple fact of the matter – and you display it all the time – is that it is the NRA-types whose attitudes and positions are shaped by emotions and irrational fears.

    “Front” is a very loaded and ugly word for people seeking peaceful and long overdue change. And without threatening any sort of “Second Amendment solutions” if they fail to get their way. Your use of it confirms my previous sentence.

    Liked by 1 person

    1. Could that be because your idea of reason dose not match that of any one else on the thread? Just an observation of someone who came late to the discussion.

      That, and when one person calls something reasonable, you immediately decry it as unreasonable. Therefore, I propose it is YOU that is unreasonable. You can say all that you want and try to act reasonable, when in actuality, you really aren’t as reasonable as you would like others to believe.

      Like

        1. It is not a “test of reason.” It is a test of values.

          Your apparent belief that reasoning from YOUR postulates is the only valid reasoning is just another form of the solipsism that dominates your views on every subject.

          Here is some VALID reasoning from MY postulate that human life is the highest value – higher even than the pleasure or emotional comfort people get from having a gun around.

          1. There is no higher goal than saving human lives.

          2. The presence of guns costs human lives.

          1. Therefore, we should reduce the presence of guns every way we can.

          Liked by 1 person

          1. I will grant that human life has a high value, though a life of slavery to someone who does not disarm has substantially less value.

            But your second postulate is nothing but your own prejudice already disproved on many levels.

            First, the presence of guns in SOME hands may be a threat but in others it is at worst harmless.

            Second, note the link above, when the CDC set out to prove your postulate, they reluctantly came to the opposite conclusion, They found that armed civilians were very effective in protecting themselves and that many more crimes were prevented with firearms than committed.

            Further, keep in mind that in the 20th Century 200 million people were murdered by their own legal governments in countries where people do not have 2nd Amendment rights.

            On every level, on the net, guns save lives.

            What we should be doing is to keep arms out of the hands of the 1% of the population that is dangerous and be sure that as many of the 99% who are not a threat are trained at some level and well armed if they choose to be.

            Like

          2. My second point is not a postulate. It is a fact.

            However, many lives might be saved by some gun-toting hero, they would be minuscule compared to the lives that would be spared if we removed handguns and semi-automatic long guns from our society.

            You often accuse those wanting guns far better controlled to be lacking in reason, but there YOU go again with utter nonsense about slavery. I have spend a great deal of time in countries where guns are very strictly controlled and not a slave in sight. Invoke such nonsense is the height of unreason.

            As is the utterly absurd statement that . . .

            “On every level, on the net, guns save lives.”

            Uh, no they don’t. You are confusing your ability to imagine situations where a good guy with a gun might save a life from a bad gun WITH A GUN with the actual statistical facts. On every level from the home, to the city, to the state to the nation fewer guns results in fewer deaths.

            Liked by 1 person

          3. Nope, that privately held firearms prevent more crimes than they are used it is a fact confirmed by the CDC and the FBI, among others. In most cases with the firearm not even being discharged.

            And that doesn’t even count the deterrent effect of unseen firearms that MIGHT be there.

            Like

          4. @Tabor

            Re : “Nope . . .”

            You seem unable to imagine a society in which very few people are armed and the impact that would have on the death toll. The reality is that almost 40,000 people in our country died this past year from gunfire. Hundreds of thousands more wounded or maimed. If we had had a regime of gun control similar to that of Great Britain that number of dead would realistically have been somewhere south of 5,000 and that takes into account crimes, accidents and suicides.

            I know you think of yourself as one of the “good guys.” But, frankly, that is what they all think before someone goes off the rails and kills a spouse, or a child finds a gun or depression sets in and a gun is handy.

            Like

          5. I don’t have to imagine what a society where few people are armed would be like. All we need is the history of any large city in the early 1800’s. Women, the elderly and the weak or small dared not venture out after dark or out of sight of the authorities lest they be the prey of someone bigger with a club.

            An advertisement from the 1880’s for Colt pocket pistols read “God created all men, Col. Colt made them equal.”

            Of your almost 40,000 deaths by firearms, 60% or more are suicides.

            Of the remaining murders, 80% are gang related. Murders of all kinds are DOWN by 50% compared to 1974

            If you are not involved in gang violence, your chances of being killed with a firearm are just about 1 in 100,000, comparable to Australia.

            https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2019/08/16/what-the-data-says-about-gun-deaths-in-the-u-s/

            Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s