Friday, August 10, 2012

Gunligion--Cannon Law

A poll ,conducted in the wake of the two mass shootings--one in Aurora, CO; the other in WI--was used in a post, here (, to illustrate a point that mikeb302000 has made many times. That point is that the gunzloonz assertion that murKKKa is SAFER place wit teh gunz and that MOST people agree with them is just that, an assertion. It is NOT backed up by the numbers.

Of course the first comment in the thread (and the only one, so far) is this:

"Cherry pick much?

"Regardless of changes in the law, voters in the three states don’t think future mass shootings can be stopped by laws. Two-thirds of likely voters in Colorado, 60 percent in the Old Dominion and 57 percent in Wisconsin don’t think stricter laws can stop future attacks.""

by commenter FatWhiteMan.

And y'know what? his comment is TRUE, on its face. The devil, of course is in the details.

What FatWhiteMan and other red-blooded murKKKan marKKKsman fail to consider is that the reason that people, in general, don't think gunzlawz will prevent gunzviolence is that they have been misinformed or, in many cases, simply lied to by the shills for the gunzindustry and their PAID misinformation officers.

The primary reason that gunzlaws DON'T work is because there are few that are national in scope and those few are generally unenforced in many jurisdictions due to budgetary restraints or a lack of political will to enforce them. States like NY, where I now live, have serious penalties for violating their relatively strict firearms laws*.  What they don't have is any way cost effective way/neans of policing their borders to insure that illegally obtained firearms stay out of the hands of criminals**.

For so long as the states which have "restrictive" firearms laws are surrounded by states with less strict laws, illegal or illegally obtained firearms will flow in to that state with the stricter laws. It's economics, stupid. And, for so long as that situation obtains, the NRA, the gunzmakerz and their useful idiots will conspire to ratchet up the fears of a burgeoning police state and simultaneous breakdown of law'n'order which situation requires that all merKKKins be armed, all of the time.

*       I say "relatively strict" because compared to a number of states they are draconian, to hear teh gunzloonz wail about them.
**     And, yes, you ARE a criminal if you traffic in illegal weapons or traffic illegally in any weapons.


dog gone said...

The gun loons are terrified of the truth. They are terrified of the whole world, for that matter.

That's why they hang onto their guns so tightly, so very very tightly.

democommie said...

dog gone:

You know that, I know that; they know it too, they just won't admit it.

Now that Mittunswillard has picked his running mate they can get down to the serious business of pandering to teh gunzloonz, the GODbots and the fiscal troglodytes.

mikeb302000 said...

Thanks for the support. I think eventually it'll turn around.

Bukko Canukko said...

There was an editorial cartoon in the local free paper up here that likened the rush to buy guns after each mass shooting in the U.S. to a person who had been struck by lightning going out and buying a larger umbrella with a metal shaft before the next time he went out in a rainstorm. The mass psychosis about guns in Amerikkka would be funny if there weren't so many people dying. I wouldn't mind of the gunnutz shot each other, as they tend to do up here. There's been some brazen shootings in a long-running gang war between bikers and immigrants who seek to control the drug trade. I find it amusing. But in the U.S., it's kids in movie theatres and federal judges at Congrifters' parking lot appearances and lots of abused ex-wives who get drilled instead. A real shame, that.

democommie said...

Comrade Bukko Canukko:

I have, in just the last three days, heard at least half a dozen people say that they don't want THEIR constitution to be changed to keep them from having all of teh gunz they kin haz. When people are so fucking stupid that they don't understand the difference between amending and interpreting the document--well, wtf?