20 Jul

Morons.org Using Colorado Shooting to Spread Agenda

                                       

There’s an old adage that states “keep your friends close and your enemies closer.” I am a “member” of Moveon.org because I like to see what kind of rank insanity comes from their absent minds.

Today, I received an email that frankly I expected to receive – just not as soon.

We all woke up to the tragic news of the killing of at least 12 people and the wounding of many more at a late-night screening of the new Batman movie in Colorado.

Reports indicate that the disturbed individual who committed this horrifying act had a bulletproof vest, used some kind of gas canister, and had multiple guns when he opened fire in the crowded theater. A three-month-old is among the injured.

We are immeasurably sad for those who lost their lives, those wounded, and their families—and for all those who experienced the horror of those terrible moments. Let our thoughts and prayers go out to them today.

We’re also so angry. From children’s lives lost in school shootings, to Trayvon Martin, the Representative Gabrielle Giffords attack, and this latest slaughter of innocents, we are not safe from gun violence.

Mayors Against Illegal Guns has been campaigning to put a stop to senseless gun violence like this with commonsense measures, like fixing gun checks to keep guns out of the hands of dangerous people.

Sadly, it often takes moments like these to bring politicians to their senses about guns. And while signing a petition seems so inadequate in the face of what happened last night, it’s important to do what we can. Today that means taking a small step toward preventing this kind of tragedy from happening again.

The people who died at the Colorado theater last night are only 12 of the 34 people statistics tell us will die from gun violence today—and among 19,000 murdered with guns since the attack on Representative Giffords in Tuscon.

And yet today isn’t about statistics. It’s about the pain of human loss—the loss suffered by the community of Aurora, Colorado. And the losses to gun violence suffered today and every day by other communities, whose tragic stories won’t be covered on the news.

It’s in the power of Congress to greatly reduce these senseless shootings and make tragedies like today’s far less possible. They can start by enacting commonsense measures, like fixing giant loopholes in gun checks, that are supported by the vast majority of Americans—including gun owners.

It’s difficult to decide where to start on this nonsense, but I’ll give it the old online college try.

We’re also so angry. From children’s lives lost in school shootings, to Trayvon Martin, the Representative Gabrielle Giffords attack, and this latest slaughter of innocents, we are not safe from gun violence.

We’re all angry. We should be angry every time someone breaks the law and illegally discharges a firearm at an innocent person. However, there is no surefire way to prevent gun violence. Before guns, there were swords, axes, spears, and arrows. Before those, there were clubs and rocks.

Mayors Against Illegal Guns has been campaigning to put a stop to senseless gun violence like this with commonsense measures, like fixing gun checks to keep guns out of the hands of dangerous people.

You can create all the “commonsense measures” you can think up and it won’t stop dangerous people from being violent. Sure, if some psycho goes to the local Cabela’s to purchase a gun legally the mental state of an applicant MIGHT be discovered IF that person had previous diagnosis. As much as Morons.org would like to think to live in a Minority Report nation, it simply isn’t possible to see into the future what every single gunowner will do. What we do know from past data is that the overwhelming majority of gun owners do NOT commit crimes.

The people who died at the Colorado theater last night are only 12 of the 34 people statistics tell us will die from gun violence today—and among 19,000 murdered with guns since the attack on Representative Giffords in Tuscon.

What Morons.org won’t tell you is that the particular theater where this tragic shooting took place already bans firearms from entering its theaters. That didn’t seem to do anything but make victims out of the 12 unarmed deaths and 71 unarmed injuries. The city of Aurora doesn’t allow its citizens to carry weapons without jumping through a million and one loopholes and paying an exorbitant fee first. Then, they must wait long months for their license if it’s even approved. So, gun control only served to make matters worse in this case. Those 19,000 murders weren’t all committed with legally purchased firearms as Morons.org would have you believe, but I’ll save these comments for the next quote.

And yet today isn’t about statistics. It’s about the pain of human loss—the loss suffered by the community of Aurora, Colorado. And the losses to gun violence suffered today and every day by other communities, whose tragic stories won’t be covered on the news.

Of course it isn’t about statistics. If Morons.org followed statistics, they wouldn’t have a good, coherent argument. So, I’ll tell you what Morons.org won’t. It is estimated that nearly 50% of household possess some sort of firearm (between 250 – 280 million firearms in the US). That number has grown exponentially since 2008. Yet, according to the CDC, violent crimes committed with firearms has dropped.


Provided by CDC. Latest information available.

One effort to quantify the benefit of firearm ownership estimates that guns are used for self-defense in the United States as many as 2.5 million times each year. (Kleck G, Bates D. Chapter 7. In: Armed: New Perspectives on Gun Control. Amherst, NY: Prometheus Books, 2001.) Washington D.C. enacted a virtual ban on handguns in 1976. Between 1976 and 1991, Washington D.C.’s homicide rate rose 200%, while the U.S. rate rose 12%. How does that happen where guns are banned. Thankfully, the Supreme Court fixed that issue with the Heller decision. D.C. citizens are safer today than ever before now that they are able to legally purchase and possess firearms for self defense.

It’s in the power of Congress to greatly reduce these senseless shootings and make tragedies like today’s far less possible. They can start by enacting commonsense measures, like fixing giant loopholes in gun checks, that are supported by the vast majority of Americans—including gun owners.

Another bold-faced lie. The Huffington Post poll that Morons.org used rates over 60% of respondents as favoring current laws or less restrictive laws. Keep in mind that of the slightly less than 1500 people polled, over 1000 of them did NOT own firearms. Only 30% of gunowners faulted “lax gun laws” as the culprit of the Gabrielle Giffords shooting. The poll also noted that 79% of all respondents (and 90% of gunowners) indicated that the 2nd amendment applies to ALL Americans, not just state militias. Yeah, statistics are a dangerous sport when trying to encourage more gun control.

Morons.org wastes millions of its contributors’ money on such senselessness. They are finding it harder and harder to raise funds to cover their operations and are scaling back as a result. However, they are still trying to convince their followers with false and faulty information and continue to use every tragedy as a platform to spread their gun grabbing agenda.

I just thought I’d put out some facts before the idiots take control of the airwaves using James Holmes and the Batman shooting as a springboard for more gun control.

This entry was posted in 2nd Amendment. Bookmark the permalink. Friday, July 20th, 2012 at 8:00 pm
| 880 views

69 Responses to Morons.org Using Colorado Shooting to Spread Agenda

  1. Mike O'Malley says: 51

    @Aye:

    Once the firearms are gone, then you have to outlaw knives. Once the knives are gone, then you have to outlaw icepicks and screwdrivers. Once those things are gone then you have to outlaw pieces of pipe.

    And so on and so on…

    Moreover, there were and there are groups such as the Weather Men, Al Queda, the Sicilian Mafia, the Shinning Path, the IRA or Eric Holder’s Fast and Furious operation, in general a lot of determined organized bad guys who can distribute outlawed weaponry if they are necessarily inclined to do so.

    For that matter we should expect that characters such as Major Nidal Malik Hasan will have LEGAL access to arsenals of weaponry on occasion.

    Let us not forget that Lt. General Nathan Bedford Forrest used government authorized small arms to massacre hundreds of black Union Army POWs.

    ReplyReply
  2. Tom says: 52

    @Aye:

    It’s not realistic to attempt to outlaw or restrict access to anything and everything that could ever conceivably be used as a weapon.

    I cannot argue with that logic and I think that’s a fair comment. There will always be loopholes, always be ways around laws. But if a law failing were reason enough to remove it, why do we have drug laws, the ultimate poster-children for legal futility? People say, well drugs are self-inflicting weapons, so we have to stop people from hurting themselves by stopping access to drugs. Yet the laws are little deterrent to a determined user, so why do we try? The fact of the matter is that almost no one feels that, across there board, everyone should have access to anything they want when they want it, although we disagree violently on the particulars. Everyone but a full blown anarchist has what they consider to be a reasonable role for government in our lives, and reasonable laws for the common good. So while I might be for the legalization of marijuana, I might not extend that feeling to other more destructive narcotics. I am not basing this distinction on efficacy of the laws’ enforcement, nor on any consistency of principal. I am basing it on a tricky moral calculus that appeals to my own sense of the benefits of the laws, how many people they conceivably help, versus the costs of the laws in tax payer money, the misery of those caught up in the legal system, and the intrusion into our lives. To me, the gun situation is equally as tricky, equally vague. Everyone agrees there is a line where it makes no sense for a weapon to be legal, say a nuclear warhead. That line differs from person to person. And on a more modest scale, I can support the right to purchase and own firearms without supporting the right of anyone to carry them into a movie theater, even in self-defense, because I feel it creates a dangerous atmosphere in and of itself. It’s just not worth it to me, I’ll stay home if it comes to that.

    ReplyReply
  3. Mike O'Malley says: 53

    @Tom:

    Yet the laws are little deterrent to a determined user, so why do we try?

    However in the far more numerous cases of the not-so determined potential drug users drug the current laws do have a positive effect as do statures and enforcement of laws against drinking while driving. Perhaps we should change our mental health commitment laws to deal with determined drug users but the current anti-drug enforcement efforts are not without major salutary effect on the less than determined potential drug users.

    ReplyReply
  4. Tom says: 54

    @Mike O’Malley:

    Good point, Mike. I’m glad to see you recognize that complexity resides within most issues of this nature, more so than simple sloganeering can contain.

    ReplyReply
  5. Mike O'Malley says: 55

    @Tom:

    Thank you Tom, but to which post do you refer? ;-)

    Entering this thread I questioned the practical usefulness of Conceal and Carry (CAC) in this instance. In my prior post above I question the Libertarian mainstay regarding the “Failure” of the War on Drugs (don’t get me going on Ron Paul on this one).

    Tom in my spare time I’ll move from one topic of interest to another. When I do so I study and drill down into that topic to a level to detail at which one transcends CW (conventional wisdom).

    I referred you to Dr. Charles Murray, a sociologist, above but I’ve also read and attended small group lectures by Dr. John J. Dilulio Jr. on these topics. Prof. Dilulio is a political scientist and the nations top criminologist. He currently serves as the Frederic Fox Leadership Professor of Politics, Religion, and Civil Society and Professor of Political Science at the University of Pennsylvania.

    .

    John Dilulio “is also credited with coining, or at least popularizing, the term (and concept of) “superpredators” in reference to juvenile violent crime in the early 1990s”.

    ReplyReply
  6. Liberal1 (objectivity) says: 56

    I’m afraid pejorative rhetoric like “Morons.org” does not solve the problem of needless gun homicides in this country—assuming you believe it’s a problem. Neither do more restrictive gun laws. Can anyone on this site think of a legitimate solution—assuming the situation warrants a solution?

    ReplyReply
  7. Mr. Irons says: 57

    Remember those words then liberal1 next time you try to act on logic in an epic display of failure. Did it dawn in you that the majority of gun violence happens in areas that have some the most rigid gun restrictions in existence in law bidding citizens? Or did the horror of Norway failed to get your attention? A criminal with intent to kill is going to ignore all laws in the books and acquire/build weapons so go ahead and argue to keep on piling the laws up and chaining down the law bidding citizens so the can not defend themselves from such killers…

    ReplyReply
  8. C Andrew Scott says: 58

    The city of Aurora doesn’t allow its citizens to carry weapons without jumping through a million and one loopholes and paying an exorbitant fee first. Then, they must wait long months for their license if it’s even approved. So, gun control only served to make matters worse in this case. Those 19,000 murders weren’t all committed with legally purchased firearms as Morons.org would have you believe, but I’ll save these comments for the next quote.

    Jame Holmes lived in Aurora.

    he acquired 2 handguns, 1 shotgun, and 1 AR-15 assault rifle within a 2 month period.
    http://www.abc15.com/dpp/news/national/authorities-colorado-suspect-james-holmes-bought-guns-in-last-2-months

    Aurora, CO already has a conceal-carry law in place. THE THEATRE has a “no gun law” in effect. how is THAT the fault of ANY political party, when a CORPORATION makes that decision.

    i just thought i’d put out some FACTS before the someones take control of the airwaves using James Holmes and the Batman shooting as a springboard for their own gun agenda.

    ReplyReply
  9. CJ says: 59

    @C Andrew Scott: “he acquired 2 handguns, 1 shotgun, and 1 AR-15 assault rifle within a 2 month period.”

    WHOA!! STOP THE PRESSES! I think I may be a criminal too! In a ONE MONTH period, I bought: an SKS, an AK-47, an AR10, a shotgun, and an MPA 380 pistol. I better report myself to Attack Watch immediately!! And I’m also a racist for purchasing those weapons within a month of Barack Obama being elected president. It’s been three and a half years and I’ve purchased many more weapons and literally THOUSANDS OF ROUNDS of ammunition in that time and yet I haven’t shot up one movie theater, robbed one convenience store, shot one hooded black boy, or raped any women.

    How is that even possible?! What could I possibly need with so many weapons and so much ammunition?! NONE OF YOUR BUSINESS.

    He bought three weapons in a two-month timeframe. YAWN!!

    ReplyReply
  10. Mike O'Malley says: 60

    @C Andrew Scott:

    how is THAT the fault of ANY political party, when a CORPORATION makes that decision(?)

    Without doubt that is management’s considered business decision. It’s not unlikely, if it is a large corporation, that the decision was made or guided by that the corporation’s risk management officer and insurance carrier vetted (if not proposed) the policy as a means of reducing costly litigation risk. That would be for them an appropriate and reasonable private business decision. If potential customers don’t like that corporate policy they can take their business elsewhere

    That’s not to say the Conceal and Carry in this theater might not have save lives: maybe yes, maybe no. But the restriction in question likely reflects a business decision.

    ReplyReply
  11. C Andrew Scott says: 61

    @CJ:
    my point is that CJ once again skews his views is falsehoods (such as Aurora’s gun laws).

    you paint the picture that is oh so difficult to get a gun in Aurora…and blame it on the “Libs”…and i give you a perfect example of how someone obtained them “legally” in a TWO MONTH WINDOW.

    get your facts straight before you post lies and try to spin things for your own agenda.

    go back and read the quote i provided (by you) and then read my comment again. yawn.

    ReplyReply
  12. C Andrew Scott says: 62

    unless your absolutely illiterate…you might re-read what i posted and see that i never accused anyone of being a “criminal” because they had a gun. again…YOU are trying to sensationalize things. i’m simply trying to point out the error in your facts.

    it is NOT so difficult to acquire a gun legally in the state of Colorado. you do NOT have to jump ” through a million and one loopholes”, pay “an exorbitant fee”, or “wait long months for their license”.

    http://www.colorado.gov/cs/Satellite/StatePatrol-Main/CBON/1251594549010
    http://www.rmgo.org/gun-law-faqs/
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_laws_in_Colorado

    in fact…the only people in this state who have trouble getting their hands on a gun are the “potheads”
    http://www.denverpost.com/news/marijuana/ci_19026921
    when even a felon can legally, through the proper process.

    and despite a Republican agreeing with Obama about tighter regulations on guns…
    http://thehill.com/homenews/house/239897-boehner-agrees-with-obama-on-gun-laws

    …you win! gun sales are up 40% since the Aurora tragedy.
    http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way/2012/07/24/157281714/gun-sales-are-up-sharply-in-colorado-since-theater-shootings?ps=cprs

    my comment had nothing to do with my stance on gun control, my thoughts on James Holmes…it was clearly regarding the error in your facts.

    ReplyReply
  13. Mike O'Malley says: 63

    @C Andrew Scott:

    You do understand Andrew that I was providing support for your argument in this instance?

    .

    Conceal and Carry in this theater might have save lives: maybe yes, maybe no. But the restriction in question likely reflects a business decision.

    ReplyReply
  14. C Andrew Scott says: 64

    @Mike O’Malley: yes, Mike. my comment was directed more towards CJ…who provided incorrect facts…and then tried to put words in my mouth.

    thank you.

    ReplyReply
  15. Mike O'Malley says: 65

    @C Andrew Scott:

    Cool ;-)

    Effective democratic discourse requires participants who are informed and who can think clearly and who can express their ideas clearly. CaC may or may not have saved lives in this instance. One should argue for CaC so that we can test it as public policy. But democratic discourse needs for us to argue well.

    ReplyReply
  16. C Andrew Scott says: 66

    @Mike O’Malley: i agree. it’s hard to say what “might” have happened had there been another firearm in the hands of a stable individual. under the circumstances (dark, crowded theatre, smoke bombs, etc), it’s difficult to predict with concrete certainty. this tragedy was indeed a unique and uncommon case.

    and my comment was not intended to be a stab at CJ’s intelligence. i understand he is a passionate conservative. people on both sides of the fence sometimes get their facts mixed up.

    ReplyReply
  17. Tom says: 67

    @C Andrew Scott:

    He will never confront your very valid points head-on. To do so would be to admit his entire post was logically flawed and just a trashy, cheap hit piece. Great posts, by the way.

    ReplyReply
  18. Mike O'Malley says: 68

    @C Andrew Scott:

    This particular situation is a tough one because the accused so very smart, thoughtful, imaginative and careful. It may be a poor choice from which to set public policy (as I think it is) however it is complex enough for us to test our ideas using hypothetical scenarios. I encourage all to do so but to do so “well”.

    ReplyReply
  19. Mike O'Malley says: 69

    Police and FBI agents were called to the University of Colorado Anschutz medical campus in Aurora on Monday morning after the psychiatrist, who is also a professor at the school, reported receiving a package believed to be from the suspect. Although that package turned out to be from someone else and harmless, a search of the Campus Services’ mailroom turned up another package sent to the psychiatrist with Holmes’ name in the return address, the source told FoxNews.com.

    A second law enforcement source said authorities got a warrant from a county judge and took the package away Monday night. When it was opened, its chilling contents were revealed.

    “Inside the package was a notebook full of details about how he was going to kill people,” the source told FoxNews.com. “There were drawings of what he was going to do in it — drawings and illustrations of the massacre.”

    Among the images shown in the spiral-bound notebook’s pages were gun-wielding stick figures blowing away other stick figures.

    The source said the package had been in the mailroom since July 12, though another source who confirmed the discovery to FoxNews.com could not say if the package arrived prior to Friday’s massacre. It was not clear why it had not been delivered to the psychiatrist. The notebook is now in possession of the FBI, sources told FoxNews.com.

    Both sources said the intended recipient of Holmes’ notebook was a professor who also treated patients at the psychiatry outpatient facility, located in Building 500, where the first suspicious package was delivered.

    Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/us/2012/07/25/exclusive-movie-massacre-suspect-laid-out-plans-in-package-mailed-to/#ixzz21emmZNIJ

    ReplyReply

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>