Gun Control & RKBA
Related: About this forumEmily Got Her Gun
Recently we saw a post here titled "Emily FINALLY Gets Her Gun". It was posted by a pro-gunner and it received 137 replies (at this writing), most of them by pro-gunners.
Emily is Emily Miller, the chief investigative correspondent at WTTG (Fox5) in Washington, DC. She is also a pro-gun activist. WTTG recently admitted this. The Coalition to Stop Gun Violence (CSGV) has pointed out that Emily Miller's pro-gun activism violates the Society of Professional Journalists Code of Ethics which states that journalists should “act independently” by avoiding “conflicts of interest, real or perceived” and “political…activities that may compromise integrity or impartiality.” (http://www.spj.org/ethicscode.asp) So they have posted a petition for people to sign demanding that Miller be fired as WTTG's chief investigative correspondent, which I signed.
One should know that Emily is a NRA hero, and a hero to at least a few pro-gunners here. I came to the discussion late, post #46, and was surprised to find that the pro-gunners were clueless as to why CSGV wants her fired. Even though they linked to CSGV's petition, evidently they didn't read it. They claimed CSGV wanted to silence Miller, taking away her First Amendment rights. Instead CSGV was pointing out that by acting as a political activist, Emily Miller was violating professional journalist's code of ethics.
Imagine my delight last night to find that Washington Post's Media blogger, Eric Wemple, had just published a blog post about this very subject. (http://wapo.st/1BmuAaV). [He wrote about her activism on February 10 as well (http://wapo.st/1wqZ6dY)]
Yesterday he wrote,
"In an instance of stunning journalistic transparency, WTTG-TV (Fox5) this week disclosed that chief investigative correspondent Emily Miller is a “proponent” for Second Amendment rights. An activist, in other words.
It’s a strange role for any investigative reporter, and its perils surface in a number of statements that Miller has made in recent years."
Wemple then examined the many claims Miller has made to various media outlets about the incident that she says spurred her desire to buy a gun for protection, and compared them to the original police report, and it's pretty obvious that much of what she has told the press doesn't square with the facts, nor does the NRA's video recreation of the crime. This may be par for the course for people who are activists, but it is not the behavior we expect from journalists. CSGV is right, she should be fired. If you agree, consider signing their petition (http://csgv.org/action/tell-wttg-general-manager-patrick-paolini-fire-emily-miller/).
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Travis_0004
(5,417 posts)Im going to write an article called travis gets a gun.
I go to a dealer, pay him, fill out a form and wait about 10 minutes. Somehow I dont see any major newspapers picking my story up.
Neon Gods
(222 posts)...not as a journalist (hopefully).
randys1
(16,286 posts)Is this the forum where the people who think America acts like children when it comes to guns can talk?
sarisataka
(18,654 posts)where any can speak.
Where you looking for the forum "concerned" about victims of gun violence?
Replies:
Lurks Often
(5,455 posts)Last edited Sat Feb 28, 2015, 03:56 PM - Edit history (1)
Here we don't resort to petty name calling, rants devoid of any actual facts, make references to the genitals of people we don't agree with or immediately block anybody who doesn't agree with us 100%.
Duckhunter935
(16,974 posts)Is very true an points out the differences of the groups.
upaloopa
(11,417 posts)for gun rights because she is a reporter?
I am no gun owner (use to be until last December) but I don't see any conflict of interest between her job and advocacy for gun rights.
I think we still have the right to speak and assemble.
discntnt_irny_srcsm
(18,479 posts)I guess some on the pro-control side question her's.
upaloopa
(11,417 posts)at the door when we accept a job we are all pretty screwed.
I guess they are saying she can't honestly report on gun violence. That would be a prejudgment. Has she ever compromised a story because she is a gun owner?
If you read Wemple's article, she distorted her own experience with the burglary that made her want to buy a gun. Sounds like compromised reporting to me.
discntnt_irny_srcsm
(18,479 posts)I try not to trust too much what is said in the news. I think Buddhism, among other philosophies, teaches that to learn, go to the source. It takes a bit longer but I often read laws, regulations and codes published in addition to stories from the news.
oneshooter
(8,614 posts)That is when he went against the gun controllers and SOLD his gun, making money from it, instead of having it destroyed. He advocates "fewer firearms owners" yet adds one to the pile.
HYPOCRISY in action.
Brickbat
(19,339 posts)"No REALLY, it's about ethics in journalism!"
Nuclear Unicorn
(19,497 posts)So much for the myth of the law-abiding gun grabber.
Neon Gods
(222 posts)Last I heard, District mayor Vincent Gray signed a new concealed carry law in early October. Has that been declared unconstitutional?
Nuclear Unicorn
(19,497 posts)That's the weasel technique grabbers use and that's why they aren't trusted. Grabbers like to harass people with onerous rules that people can't abide by then say, "Well, that's the law. If you don't like spend 12 years of your life and 30 years of your income fighting it up to the USSC."
Corrupt authoritarians suck.
Any day now, the judge will rule on whether the city is in contempt of court for writing a new law that is still unconstitutional.
I applied for a permit as soon as the law went into effect. At the end of October, I went to the firearms registration office at police headquarters.
Milton Agurs, who works in the office, explained to me that few people will pass muster to get a permit.
"Your life is in danger, your family or your property, or you have the type of business you carry large sums of money, jewelry. Under those circumstances, that's why you get conceal carry in the District of Columbia," he said.
Neon Gods
(222 posts)" Grabbers like to harass people with onerous rules that people can't abide by then say, "Well, that's the law. If you don't like spend 12 years of your life and 30 years of your income fighting it up to the USSC"... Any day now, the judge will rule on whether the city is in contempt of court for writing a new law that is still unconstitutional. "
Okay, well I see the problem here. It's called democracy. The citizens of Washington, DC, are wise enough to read the entire Second Amendment, you know, the amendment that includes the words "well regulated"? Evidently when pro-gunners don't get their way they whine that people are harassing them as though the only people who matter are gun owners. People like me have enough to worry about in life without having to worry about the stranger next to me with a loaded firearm and just how stable he/she is.
You even admit that a judge has not yet ruled whether the new law is constitutional or not, but the language you us What if it is ruled constitutional? What if the strict requirements for issuing permits is found to be acceptable to the court? Will you then admit that DC residents were within their rights to do what they did?
You call us "Grabbers," I call us smart.
Nuclear Unicorn
(19,497 posts)We're still waiting for the grabbers to accept Heller and McDonald.
virginia mountainman
(5,046 posts)
Seeing how he, can knowingly break DC law on TV, why no calls for him to get fired?? Or at least arrested??
Neon Gods
(222 posts)Really, do what CSGV did and start a petition to have him fired. It's better than just trotting this tired graphic out every time pro-gunners are found to be less than honest.
discntnt_irny_srcsm
(18,479 posts)Nuclear Unicorn
(19,497 posts)That's where your awesome laws say he has to go.
beevul
(12,194 posts)Neon Gods
(222 posts)Yes, I know you're pissed that Gregory hasn't been jailed, if you have a couple of hours I'll tell you about the States Attorneys of 21 states that are suing the State of Maryland to overturn our tough new gun control law. Life sucks sometimes.
benEzra
(12,148 posts)In the other thread you had this to say about "assault weapon" bans:
"People new to gun control often start out thinking a) we should ban all guns, and b) we should at least ban assault weapons. When they study the reasons why this would be either impossible or undesirable, most change their focus to what can be more reasonably be done to reduce gun violence."
Duckhunter935
(16,974 posts)Neon Gods
(222 posts)I didn't know that every fricking question asked by a pro-gunner in this group MUST be answered.
Duckhunter935
(16,974 posts)It does seem to be an issue with the pro-controller side
Neon Gods
(222 posts)In fact I can see why few ever come here to engage you (as in the royal you). This is not a "group" for discussion, it is a feeding frenzy by a pack of hyenas that swamp pro-controllers who post here with minutia and lickspittal. This is NOT a "Gun Control & RKBA Group," it is a RKBA Group, period, and in my many years as a liberal, I've never met another liberal that even comes close to the views expressed here.
Almost every post or reply I've made here is answered by at least two, often more, and often those replies are many paragraphs long, containing links to cherry-picked statistics/articles that often prove little. But in order to reply we must read your links, then research the context and then form a reply. I reply when I can, and believe me, it is hard to choose which points to refute because there are soooo many.
Electric Monk
(13,869 posts)So, you're not alone there with your observation. If you'd like to discuss gun and gun-control related issues without them, that's what the GCRA Group was created for. If you're going to post here in the gungeon, expect a hostile environment.
Duckhunter935
(16,974 posts)Noboby makes you come here. At least we allow discussion. I Know you do not like that. Another cartoon, how quaint.
friendly_iconoclast
(15,333 posts)For all their overweening sense of self-importance and loudly trumpeted proclamations of
moral superiority, GCRA's regulars are a blip on the radar of most DUers- if that.
Monty Python had their number years ago:
NaturalHigh
(12,778 posts)unlike the "ban those scary guns" cheerleader group.
Neon Gods
(222 posts)Those "scary guns" kill a lot of innocent people every day. Don't belittle the deaths of those innocents, many who die because the gun industry, of which you (royal you) are the cheerleaders. You have a right to your opinions, but don't for a second denigrate those in the other group, and those who lead gun control groups, who brave the scorn and threats heaped upon them, for trying to save lives!
Neon Gods
(222 posts)---
sarisataka
(18,654 posts)Had to say about murder victims
More than once their "concern" has chaged to joviality when the dead innocent also happened to be a gun owner.
Never have any from that group repudiated calls for summary execution of gun owners- not even when the proposals have been less than facetious.
Give up that "concern for the victims" meme. That mask has always been very selective and has slipped long ago.
NaturalHigh
(12,778 posts)I read stuff like that every day, though, so it's not exactly new to me. You're right about one thing though; we have a right to our opinions, and we have a right to express them.
Thanks kindly.
Duckhunter935
(16,974 posts)http://www.democraticunderground.com/12628365
Do you approve of this post and if not will you ask the poster to ease up the insults a bit?
This part seems to be aimed at us in this group, do you agree with this statement? YES or NO?
Lets see you actually moderate your group, Skinner stated you have control to do it and that type of bullshit just should not be allowed.
So which group is posting is the "hostile environment"?
Electric Monk
(13,869 posts)I take it, from your even asking the question, that you don't?
Duckhunter935
(16,974 posts)another time you are agreeing with a direct insult to DU members
Just admit it that post is just sick and has no place on this board and you and your group seem to condone that crap. You really should rebuke crap posts like that one.
Be honest in your selections and post the whole fucking thing please.
Electric Monk
(13,869 posts)Duckhunter935
(16,974 posts)Yes, I can alert but I rarely do, but as the host, you can respond to a post and say that is not helpful or just uncalled for. You can also PM the person as the host of this group has done to me in the past. Guess what, I self deleted that post after being called out on it by our fine host here. I bet you have never done that either, have you? You actually condone and agree with it to the point of selective editing to make it not look quite as bad as it actually is. You are the one that posts you are happy to allow those types of posts. Truly a sad situation if you ask me.
Electric Monk
(13,869 posts)Duckhunter935
(16,974 posts)http://www.democraticunderground.com/1172132061
I know the difference.
Maybe some of your posters might do the same thing if you asked them
Good job on the alert.
Have a great day
GGJohn
(9,951 posts)As the host, you have the power to block those that are OTT in their insults, or you can PM them and tell them to knock it off, but you won't.
Electric Monk
(13,869 posts)Star Member Skinner (60,103 posts)
Hosts are the masters of their own groups.
They decide who and how and why they block from their groups. It's entirely up to them.
GGJohn
(9,951 posts)Not at all, just full of contempt for your lack of honest hosting in your group.
Duckhunter935
(16,974 posts)GGJohn
(9,951 posts)He really thinks I'm pissed off about what's said on an anonymous chat board?
I spent over 40 years in the US Army, after all those years, very, very few things piss me off.
Duckhunter935
(16,974 posts)I just did my 20 and out, but am civil service now supervising school instructors for ADA
Welcome home, sir
GGJohn
(9,951 posts)Duckhunter935
(16,974 posts)was stateside training soldiers for OIF and got out in 05. Deployed for DS/DS.
GGJohn
(9,951 posts)Desert Storm, Afghanistan and Iraq as a squadron commander.
Flew Hueys, Cobras, Blackhawks and Apaches.
I do miss the Army but now am enjoying retirement with the wife.
Duckhunter935
(16,974 posts)ended up doing the opposite. In Desert Storm we protected the CH-47 base next to our position.
Started out HAWK, then Patriot now THAAD. Did a small stint as a contractor on threat systems, SA6, SA8, SA11, SA15.
GGJohn
(9,951 posts)they have no idea what Duckhunter means pertaining to the Army.
Duckhunter935
(16,974 posts)But some of the ones I have told several times annoy me a bit
Duckhunter935
(16,974 posts)
GGJohn
(9,951 posts)
Neon Gods
(222 posts)...I don't like giving in to bullies.
I see what they are doing, a group of like-minded zealots piling on with 20,000 NRA-provided "facts" combining lots of statistics, some distorted, some taken out of context, and the rest of little importance to the main concerns I have:
1) the United States has over 10 firearm related deaths per year, per 100,000, compared to 3 in France, 1.5 in Sweden, 1.25 in Germany, and 0.06 in Japan, etc., etc. And yet in this group the main concern is always people need more freedom to buy whatever firearms they want, and they resent any attempt by non-gun-worshipers to reign in the growing arsenal of firearms.
2) firearms are not "equalizers," they do not make society "politer," in fact they give gun owners an incredible amount of power over those of us who want to live without having armed strangers around us everywhere we go in public, in our schools, bars, churches, parks, playgrounds - some with no safety training, and none of them required to have liability insurance.
Has DU ever considered defining the progressive view on the limits of the Second Amendment, and apply it to this group because I've never met a liberal that doesn't put public safety over the desires of those who want few restrictions on purchasing and carrying firearms in public. You might say progressives believe "well-regulated" trumps "shall not be infringed" (otherwise, why include it?)
Nuclear Unicorn
(19,497 posts)Define "public safety."
Interestingly, Sweden has 1/3 the number of guns as the US but 1/7 the gun deaths. Why is that?
Of the 20,000 gun deaths in the US, more than half are suicides. Japan has no real private ownership. Yet, it's suicide rate alone -- not counting violent crime, is nearly double the US rate.
The presence or absence of guns are NOT the deciding variable.
Is it really about "public safety"?
This is a nonsensical statement. You're just making assumptions that 80+ million gun owners are pre-criminals.
Again, more than half od firearms deaths are suicide. Banning guns won't stop that because someone who puts a gun in their mouth and pulls the trigger is under no illusions about the result. They aren't taking pills and hoping the EMTs arrive, they are determined to die. They need health care, not a ban on guns.
For those who do use guns for crimes, ~70% have prior criminal records are excluded by law -- and without complaint fro RKBA advocates -- from owning guns. As has been stated elsewhere: If you can by illegal drugs odds are you can buy illegal guns and seeing as the War on Drugs has not offered any relief to drug issues there is no reason to expect a War on Guns would fare any better.
Negligent discharges are covered by law when injury and property damage do occur and civil restitution is provided. So far the demand for insurance is a solution looking for a problem and just one more way for the 1% to force laws that only they can afford to obey so as to make the rest of us criminals at their leisure.
That doesn't strike me as being very liberal.
Moreover, it's interesting that you say, "firearms are not "equalizers," they do not make society "politer," in fact they give gun owners an incredible amount of power over {others}..."
Then why would I want to live my life disarmed while the 1%, their bought-and-paid-for politicians and the criminals they are too unwilling/incompetent to interdict get to own all the guns THEY want? Here you are saying it distorts the balance of power but your only solution is to imprison anyone wanting to rebalance the power.
That doesn't strike me as being very liberal, either.
Neon Gods
(222 posts)I posted the standardized number of firearm related deaths in the U.S. and compare them to the figures for other developed countries. The differences are quite remarkable...and you come back with gun ownership in Sweden, then suicides are more than half of those - as though their deaths don't matter - oh and by the way Japan's suicide rate is higher than ours. Squirrel!!
If the unreasonably high rate of firearm deaths in the U.S. compared to other developed countries doesn't bother you, admit it. It bothers me a lot because IMO it represents a lot of unnecessary suffering, and again, IMO, the high number of firearms that Americans own is not correlation, it is causation to a significant extent. I think the American public is beginning to understand. Yes, it is about public safety, and I find your insinuation that it may not be, insulting. What else would it be?
"Of the 20,000 gun deaths in the US, more than half are suicides...The presence or absence of guns are NOT the deciding variable."
See Suicide, Guns, and Public Policy
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3518361/
Abstract: "Suicide is a serious public health concern that is responsible for almost 1 million deaths each year worldwide. It is commonly an impulsive act by a vulnerable individual. The impulsivity of suicide provides opportunities to reduce the risk of suicide by restricting access to lethal means.
In the United States, firearms, particularly handguns, are the most common means of suicide. Despite strong empirical evidence that restriction of access to firearms reduces suicides, access to firearms in the United States is generally subject to few restrictions."
Further,
Moreover, it's interesting that you say, "firearms are not "equalizers," they do not make society "politer," in fact they give gun owners an incredible amount of power over {others}..."
Then why would I want to live my life disarmed while the 1%, their bought-and-paid-for politicians and the criminals they are too unwilling/incompetent to interdict get to own all the guns THEY want? Here you are saying it distorts the balance of power but your only solution is to imprison anyone wanting to rebalance the power.
I can't speak for you. Evidently your gun agenda is driven by anger that the rich get to do what they want and never get punished for it like we peons, more than I realized. Yup, that pretty much describes America in the 21st century (and the 20th century, and the 19th century, and the 18th century, and no doubt in Rome in 200 AD, and Sumer in 3500 BCE. Damn frustrating, I admit, but nothing you've written convinces me you have the magic answer. (I'm more upset by their hoards of money while people in the hollows of Kentucky have no jobs, than their guns). I'm puzzled by your last comment about imprison anyone rebalancing the power. Are you really worried that we tiny little gnats who work for gun-control will actually take away everyone's guns (except for the 1% of course) someday? You've already got the 1% out-gunned by about 5000 to 1, don't you think?
Nuclear Unicorn
(19,497 posts)guns owned. I demonstrated this is not the case using 2 of the nations you cited.
Straw Man
(6,624 posts)More freedom? No, unless by "more" you mean "more than zero." It only takes one gun to commit suicide, and single-shot firearms are more than adequate to the task. Furthermore, there are already mechanisms in place to keep guns out of the hands of the severely mentally ill. Given all that, it's hard to see what additional restrictions, aside from outright bans, would have the desired effect on suicide rates.
That's some tortured logic you've got going on there. Guns give people power over those who don't want people to have guns? So the invisible guns of concealed carriers are somehow a deterrent to a public cry of outrage over the presence of those invisible guns in public? Is that what you're trying to claim?
Duckhunter935
(16,974 posts)It would be a non issue.
I know it must be hard to be challenged with facts that do not fit the controller narrative. We do that here unlike that other group that does not allow discussion. You might be better of in the other group that EM is host to that censors viewpoints and allows insults to be posted.
benEzra
(12,148 posts)You emphatically stated that gun owners' perception that AR-15's and >10-round magazines are under attack is the result of paranoia and of "demonizing lies" on the part of the NRA, and that the only gun control activists who still advocate for AWB's are newbies who quickly learn better.
Then you turn right around and praise your new-for-2013 ban on "assault weapons" and over-10-round magazines in Maryland and bemoan the fact that some people are fighting the ban. So forgive me for thinking that you're trying to play us.
FWIW, Maryland had only 5 rifle murders in 2012, the last year before your new laws were rammed through, out of 365 murders in total. That's 1.36% of Maryland murders, for all types of rifles combined. Your 5 rifle murders compare to 45 with knives and other edged weapons, 28 with blunt objects/rope/etc., and 15 with shoes and bare hands. Your precious AR-15 ban wasn't aimed at saving lives, or targeting criminals; it was aimed squarely at Maryland's peaceable gun enthusiasts.
Neon Gods
(222 posts)What I said was that most of the gun control orgs are engaged in other efforts, efforts that have a chance of making a difference. Anyone who is serious about gun control realizes Assault Weapons can't be banned because they cannot be properly defined and any definition can usually be overcome with minor design changes.
Yes, I've had experience with Maryland's "peaceable gun-owners." To pick just one instance, a co-worker - a PG County resident - was told by his supervisor that his work was sub-standard and that he was headed for a PIP. Said worker didn't take it well, threatened his supervisor and then went back to his cubicle, called the gun dealer he deals with, and asked about purchasing a specific pistol and ammunition. Fortunately a co-worker overheard him and alerted security. He didn't deny it. They escorted him out of the building and fired him. He's still out there somewhere and I'm sure his supervisor spent a few very nervous months before he felt safe again.
friendly_iconoclast
(15,333 posts)One would hope that some contact was made with law enforcement, detailing what when
on in that rather disturbing encounter.
In the meantime, if you've something to add that would elaborate on benEzra's inconvenient (for you, that is) citation of statistics, we'd all like to hear it...
benEzra
(12,148 posts)"What I said was that most of the gun control orgs are engaged in other efforts, efforts that have a chance of making a difference. Anyone who is serious about gun control realizes Assault Weapons can't be banned because they cannot be properly defined and any definition can usually be overcome with minor design changes.
And yet those gun control orgs rammed through a harshly punitive "assault weapon" ban in 2013 in Maryland, did they not? Putting a protruding handgrip on a new Ruger Mini-14 in your state is now a serious crime. Your new ban not only outlaws the most popular target rifles in America, it even outlaws Olympics-style target pistols (Hammerli, Benelli, etc.) due to the forward mounted magazine.
http://mgaleg.maryland.gov/2013RS/bills/sb/sb0623f.pdf
I have yet to read of a gun control organization saying such bans are wrong or misguided or should be opposed, just sometimes that they're not practical nationwide "yet" so they're not a priority "for now". Bloomberg's Everytown organization, the Brady Campaign, the Coalition to Stop Gun Violence, and the Violence Policy Center have all made it quite clear that such bans are a legislative priority, and they ram them through every chance they get (as in Maryland), even though rifles are consistently the least misused of all weapons nationwide.
You are correct that magazine bans are a separate issue, and one likely to spur even more backlash (since >10-round magazines are used in many, many more firearms than semiauto rifles), but they are often introduced alongside aesthetic/ergonomic feature bans and are equally pointless.
"Yes, I've had experience with Maryland's "peaceable gun-owners." To pick just one instance, a co-worker - a PG County resident - was told by his supervisor that his work was sub-standard and that he was headed for a PIP. Said worker didn't take it well, threatened his supervisor and then went back to his cubicle, called the gun dealer he deals with, and asked about purchasing a specific pistol and ammunition. Fortunately a co-worker overheard him and alerted security. He didn't deny it. They escorted him out of the building and fired him. He's still out there somewhere and I'm sure his supervisor spent a few very nervous months before he felt safe again. "
If he were calling a gun dealer to ostensibly buy a gun in order to commit a crime, doesn't that imply that he didn't already own same?
Even if your perception of him as a gun enthusiast were correct, though, how is stereotyping 80+ million people by the actions of your former coworker any different from stereotyping any other group by the actions of a tiny minority of bad apples? Gun-violence perpetrators skew very heavily (>90%) toward people with long records of participation in violent crime and impulse-control issues. At the other end of the spectrum, concealed carry licenses are a decent statistical proxy for gun enthusiasts, and in most states that track crimes by CCW holders, our per-capita rate of violent crime tends to be far lower than the population at large, and usually even lower than that of LEO's. That's not to excuse any wrongdoing by anyone, but if your aim is to reduce violent crime and save lives, it seems to me that focusing on those who are not the problem isn't going to help one iota, and will actually be counterproductive due to diversion of resources and political capital away from more productive approaches.
Neon Gods
(222 posts)Yes, they did, didn't they. Given the power and reach of the NRA - even in Maryland - and the chance to present testimony to what you claim, the MD lege passed the bill. Maybe there was an overriding reason they felt the need for the law. Texas does their thing, Maryland does our thing. I was not involved.
"I have yet to read of a gun control organization saying such bans are wrong or misguided or should be opposed, just sometimes that they're not practical nationwide "yet" so they're not a priority "for now"."
I do believe some gun control groups would ban future sales of the stereotypical assault weapons if they were a class of their own and banning them would be effective, and that it wouldn't unduly restrict ownership of rifles used primarily for hunting, but experience shows this is not possible. It's a bit like wanting to test all welfare recipients for drugs, it sounds good to the average person, but experience shows it's a waste of time, if not unconstitutional. I merely said that is not where most of their energy is focused at least on the Facebook postings I see (and I see a lot of them).
"If he [the co-worker] were calling a gun dealer to ostensibly buy a gun in order to commit a crime, doesn't that imply that he didn't already own same? "
The co-worker was a gun enthusiast. He wore a NRA jacket to work (at least it had a big NRA log on the back). Of course he was reported to law-enforcement and he freely admitted what he did. He said he called because he was angry and wanted his supervisor to feel threatened. I don't know what, if any punishment was meted out, but I was told a year later that he still had his firearms in his possession.
Did you know that well in excess of 90% of drunk drivers (almost certainly closer to 99%) make it home just fine each time they drive drunk? You must feel incredulous that society puts so much effort into identifying them on the road and ticketing them, and even taking away their driver's license in some cases. How can society justify picking on a class of people who successfully, albeit with little memory of the fact, make their trip from point A to point B with no injuries to themselves or others? Why would we "stereotype" drunk drivers as dangerous when such a small percentage end up injuring or killing others? If you understand this, then maybe you will understand why we're not stereotyping, we are trying to protect ourselves from the small percentage of people who, in certain circumstances, will kill. I'm sure you are aware that the man who shot the three college students in cold blood in Chapel Hill had a concealed carry permit, and that he had threatened them earlier confronting them and raising his shirt so they could see that he was armed, but because he had the permit, the police could do nothing, and the students ended up shot dead. That's dead as in DEAD. Forever.
"...but if your aim is to reduce violent crime and save lives, it seems to me that focusing on those who are not the problem isn't going to help one iota,..."
Okay, but that assumes you, or someone, knows how to identify those who are the problem from those who are not. Of course, those who exhibit severe mental illness and those with a long history of violent crime are easy to spot, but much of the gun violence I read about are like the Chapel Hill shooter, they snap and shoot and kill. How does one identify the Craig Hicks?
virginia mountainman
(5,046 posts)As for the graphic, If the shoe fits, wear it...
As for getting him fired, I really don't care, he should be arrested... But with our tiered legal system, some 1%'ers are above the law...
Logical
(22,457 posts)
jimmy the one
(2,708 posts)Miller should just switch & work at RW nuthouse called the Washington Times; (neon, I signed the petition, as a former 20748 dweller, where 100 gunshots a week rang out at night, used to wake me up):
Upaloopa, ally I thinks, did you read this? she a redshelled gunnuttess crab:
neon's link: January 19, 2015, Miller spoke at a rally conducted by the Virginia Citizens Defense League (VCDL), a radical pro-gun group that embraces the use of political violence, having stated that “there’s the ‘cold, dead fingers’ option” if their political activism is unsuccessful. At the rally, Miller told attendees that the District of Columbia “is not part of America, because they don’t recognize the Second Amendment.” She further told VCDL members that she is “part of this fight that we’re all in.”
On February 11, 2015, Miller spoke at a rally in Annapolis organized by Maryland Shall Issue (MSI), telling those in attendance, “I live in D.C. now, so our gun laws, your gun laws, I feel your pain … No American should ever have to move to have their constitutional rights recognized … God gave us these rights. These are human rights.”
Miller is the author of “Emily Gets Her Gun…But Obama Wants to Take Yours,” a book in which she rails against D.C.’s democratically-enacted licensing and registration laws, which have been deemed constitutional by a federal court5 (as have Maryland’s gun laws). She has also personally testified before the D.C. Council’s Judiciary Committee in favor of looser gun laws. Finally, some have accused Miller of fabricating stories on WTTG to further her pro-gun agenda.
This is the behavior of an activist and pundit, not a journalist. Given her record, D.C. and Maryland residents can’t trust that Miller will provide objective coverage on matters of concern to their city. If WTTG is at all concerned with journalistic integrity, it is time for them part ways with her.
