Virginia teachers got the shaft again
Jaquen | Wikimedia Commons | Text by Dan
Wednesday Column Reprise
Note from Dan: While I’m on vacation, I’m treating you to some oldie-but-goodie columns from the past. This one ran April 22, and after it I was deluged with letters from teachers around Virginia.
MEMO
To: Public schoolteachers
From: The commonwealth of Virginia
Dear teachers,
Thank you for your service. You do an amazing job. Every school day, you expand the minds of children who want to be taught, and gracefully handle the young hellions who don’t.
You’re working many nights, too, coaching school athletics, grading papers or writing lesson plans, while the rest of us watch “Dancing With the Stars” or “American Idol” or shows about commercial fishermen in Alaska.
You take pride in understanding that education is about the future. Quite literally, you’re preparing the minds of the people who will be leading this commonwealth in the decades to come.
For all of the above, the taxpayers of Virginia owe you a big, fat “thanks.” So give yourselves 150 pats on the back as we segue into the not-so-pleasant subject of your pensions.
Everybody knows that when you signed up for this educating gig, it wasn’t for money or glory. There’s precious little of either in being a public schoolteacher. It was much more about your noble desire to shape young minds.
But you took a bit of comfort in the knowledge that after 30 or 40 years of teaching, you could retire on a half-decent pension that was provided for you. You would never live like a Mega Millions winner on that, but at least you wouldn’t starve. Every so often, you could afford to buy a used car, or go out to dinner at Pizza Hut.
Sorry, but we’ve horribly screwed up on our end of the pension bargain.
READ THE REST OF THIS COLUMN HERE.
December 26, 2012 - 6:00 AM
What’s the drop-out rate in Roanoke again?
Yes..its comforting to know that our `teachers` are condoning and sharing such eveil, satanic garbage as `Perks of being a wallflower` with the children they are supposed to be protecting. Not painting all teachers with a broad brush, but YOU know who YOU are.
Satanic? Really? What is this, 1986?
My guess is someone has the “good parts” in that book dog-earred. YOU know who YOU are.
Well Scott…do you agree with the teachings/reading material inside the aforementioned book ? If so, post your last name as well. We`re waiting.
frankly, i think that ol’ dan raises a very important issue. i further suggest that dan do a little review of the growth in government school systems “central office” staff, driven by the immense bureaucracy foisted on government schools by ever-growing regulation…both federal and state…by both parties. in my opinion, government schools have become much more than educational institutions…they are also being deployed as social safety nets.
i think that schools should be fully funded to educate our children, and our educators should be paid appropriately for the results achieved.
Jeff
Have you actually read “Perks” or are you just repeating what you have heard about the book?
Mr. Doto, if you’re upset with rape in literature, I’ll expect to see you at the next Bible burning OK?
ScottM, and incest. LOTS of incest.
Only Jeff Doto and Frank could turn a thread about the rape of the teacher’ retirement fund by the state governmejnt into a vehicle for censorship and book banning.I realioze Jeff has problems with reading and comprehension but I would suggest he try to read the said book in its entirety instead of just the underlined parts before making a judgment on its value. Kids at that age post and read worse stuff on the social media every day.
Why, it’s improved a great deal in recent years, Henry, but with the high poverty rate, one-parent families, and immigrant families who don’t speak English when they arrive, it’s going to stay higher than the areas around it. Thanks for asking.
Teachers make a difference in our children especially in a world that places blame elsewhere for the failing of our own children. Teachers are expected to teach when they do not receive proper pay or support from parents. Yes all teachers are not perfect but then again there has only been one perfect person and we killed him
It’s great how nobody has to violate Dan’s rules and insult Doto. He simply shows himself every time he posts.
Friends, had a thought concerning teachers and gun violence since it’s been in the news.
It seems the State has done about everything it can to make public school teachers bitter and angry. From denial of pay raises, to making employment dependent on how well your students do on tests, to decreased retirements accounts, to more out of pocket payments for health care, to vilifying them as if they’re living high on the hog because they may have jobs paying slightly better than average, to denying them the ability to join a union, teachers have faced an overwhelming amount of resistance and humiliation from the State.
And now besides wanting them to educate our children, be smart, serve our political interests, etc. we now want them to learn how to use guns to defend our children if the need should arrive.
Let’s see if I understand this: We piss the teachers off as much as possible and now want them to have guns. Is that right?
Is it just me or is that a little off base?
This actually makes me think of a way we can have a serious discussion about firearms in this country that will do more to eliminate military style assault weapons from our streets than anything else I can think of. Here’s what we do.
Next labor day when the union members are marching through the streets for the parade, give them each an AK-47 or AR-15 to carry along with their union signs and watch the conservatives change position on gun control so fast they’ll get whiplash.
I have seen average teacher salary in VA numbers from 52 to 60k/ year. Let’s use 55k “average” as an example.
A typical school district has 183 instructional days and 10 non-instructional days. Let’s (wrongly assume) a teacher uses no vacation days and no sick days during the year – 193 working days. This amounts to $285/day; not a bad deal to start, but there is much more…
After 30 years they are able to retire with 75% of their highest 3 years. Obviously this number will be much higher than the average but to be conservative and say after 30 years they have no increase their salary above the current average; they would get about 41k per year in pension.
Assume they retire after 30 years (average age of 55) and live to 80. Thru these years they receive another 1 million dollars.
These numbers don’t include other benefits received during their career.
In the private sector, most people don’t make these salaries and are not guaranteed anything after 30 years. Is asking someone to invest a small portion towards their own future truly a bad thing?
hey wayne goodman,
you, sir, in your way-off-point post above at #10, have NO idea what you are posting about.
I posted that I disagree with, in my opinion, the way that government in general, and both political parties in particular, have hijacked and are steering government schools away from educating our kids, into an inadequately funded social safey net.
And here YOU are, through your clearly fogged up mental acuity, somehow seeing something in my post which……. just……. isn’t……. there.
Only one day after Christmas, and you’re roaming about just lookin’ to start a fight, ain’t cha?
Sheesh.
“In the private sector, most people don’t make these salaries and are not guaranteed anything after 30 years. Is asking someone to invest a small portion towards their own future truly a bad thing?”
–Comment by mikeO
mikeO, to render such a judgment, you must know what the private sector pays someone who’s been in the same career for 30 years. So why don’t you give us that figure? And just to ensure we’re talking apples to apples, let’s make sure it for professionals who hold a bachelor’s degree.
How much less than $62k, is private industry paying such a worker after 30 years?
Eagerly awaiting your answer!
@15 mike o, most people in the private sector aren’t vilified and then asked to be proficient with a fire arm. A LOT of those teachers have M.S. degrees. They work extra hours during the year, etc. For me personally, if we expect that much from them, the salaries and perks you describe are a good down payment.
It seems as if you’re trying to defend low salaries in the US and encourage it in our teacher. Surely you don’t think teachers should be paid minimum wage which is the logical conclusion of your argument.
I was also pleased to see you write, “Is asking someone to invest a small portion towards their own future truly a bad thing?” It seems you think those who benefit the most should pay the most, yes?! If that’s the way you feel then I’m with you brother, “raise taxes on the rich!”
Mile O, you want children to be educated, but you don’t want the educators to be paid decent wages. Education is the key to escaping poverty, yet you think teachers should receive low salaries?
I have family members who are teachers they are nowhere close to being wealthy, they are middle class, and I’m pretty darn sure that they will never be worth a million or even close as this ridiculous assertion states. “Assume they retire after 30 years (average age of 55) and live to 80. Thru these years they receive another 1 million dollars.”
You appear not to put much value on education.
Excuse the typo. That should of course be, Mike O.
Dan,
Re” eagerly awaiting…”
Apparently, “comprehension” takes a vacation when you do (btw.. good that you can get your “family time” during the holidays while the “little people” work to stock the shelves for your holiday purchases and grocery needs)
It is simple to find the equivalent to “private industry” pay (in total), I suggest you might find it beneficial to educate yourself. (I could give you a fish, but if you learn to fish you might eat forever).
Maybe I don’t run in the same “rich” circles that you do, but 62k is fairly good money for most of my friends; and they don’t have the “guarantee” of “money forever from the taxpayer” when they retire.
You also suggest that a “bachelor’s degree” is something special? I thought a college degree was now “expected” because every kid should have a college degree and the “government” will pay for it” (which makes that somewhat better than a GED).
Congratulations that you make over 250k per year and are one of the 1% (or is it one of the .05%?).
Everyone is not at your stature, and therefore cannot afford to pay the salaries of others, as they are trying to make a living themselves.
I wonder if, sometime in your life, you might remember how it was to “not” be a part of the “elite class” and just being a working man, trying to make a living for his family (or maybe you never experienced that).
Debbie,
I never said I think teachers should receive low salaries.
Admittedly, you say your family members (who are teachers) are “middle class”, is that a bad thing? Many people work most of their lives to try to make it to “middle class”.
I place a great value on “education” depending on the sort.
I will admit I place a low value on “herd” education and gifting diplomas to undeserved to get them thru the “system”.
It is not a new thing, I have friends who “graduated” high school in my class who cannot even read the newspaper, and that was 30 years ago (do you think things have gotten better?).
They have not.
The standards have declined to the point where “educators” want to make “acceptable” a lower rate of education for my black friends than those of my white friends.
It is not that I put a low value on education; it is that I put a low value on the educational system.
As a side note; please investigate the amount of money that goes to teachers compared to administration…. I think you might be surprised/disappointed.
I place a high value on teachers (they “are” the first line), I only wish the administration would do the same.
Whether it’s the public or private sector, if after a few years you do not like your job,go find another career or position where you may feel the compensatory package suits your work ethic and skill sets.If you find it, that’s change for the better in lieu of just expecting more!
62k dollars is about twice the average salary in Roanoke. It is just under the average HOUSEHOLD income in the most affluent area which typically includes a two income household. Where is the beef here? It is true that most folks make more than that after 30 years in a field but it isn’t much more. Those professionals also have to invest a good percent of income to reach a nest egg of 1 million dollars. Taechers are a vital profession but I think the biggest issue with people being against paying more is comparing it to other jobs. All other jobs are paid based on performance and that performance is expected to be accomplished regardless of the team you are given. In the private sector if you have a group of people who do not want to work you are still expected to get the results asked for. If you can’t figure out a way to get it done you get fired.
“Dan,
Re” eagerly awaiting…”
Apparently, “comprehension” takes a vacation when you do (btw.. good that you can get your “family time” during the holidays while the “little people” work to stock the shelves for your holiday purchases and grocery needs)
It is simple to find the equivalent to “private industry” pay (in total), I suggest you might find it beneficial to educate yourself. (I could give you a fish, but if you learn to fish you might eat forever).”
–Comment by mikeO
Translation: I cannot answer the question without looking like a fool. Therefore I will dodge it.
“Debbie,
I never said I think teachers should receive low salaries.
Admittedly, you say your family members (who are teachers) are “middle class”, is that a bad thing? Many people work most of their lives to try to make it to “middle class”.
–Comment by mikeO
So, mikeO, tell, us what you believe a teacher is worth.
What should his or her fresh-out-of-college salary be?
Should it be more or less or equal to a rookie cop? More or less than a newbie worker at Walmart?
Should it be against the law for a teacher to move to another jurisdiction where the pay is better?
Finally, what should that teacher’s salary be after 30 years?
Because without any specifics, you’re merely engaging in sick RWer platitudes, like many other idiots who have little idea what they’re talking about.
The silence is deafening from education expert mikeO tonight. We know that mikeO believes that:
On average, teachers are paid much better than private-sector workers. He cannot demonstrate this, however, an ANY sort of apples-to-apples basis. Why? Because it’s untrue. Sure, they get paid more than a greeter at Walmart, or the average counter help at Burger King. But so what?
How about some facts:
“The average primary-school teacher in the United States earns about 67 percent of the salary of a average college-educated worker in the United States. The comparable figure is 82 percent across the overall O.E.C.D. For teachers in lower secondary school (roughly the years Americans would call middle school), the ratio in the United States is 69 percent, compared to 85 percent across the O.E.C.D. The average upper secondary teacher earns 72 percent of the salary for the average college-educated worker in the United States, compared to 90 percent for the overall O.E.C.D.
American teachers, by the way, spend a lot more time teaching than do their counterparts in most other developed countries.”
http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/09/11/does-it-pay-to-become-a-teacher/
“U.S. census data shows that annual pay for teachers has fallen drastically over the past 60 years when compared to the annual pay of other workers with college degrees. According to a recent study by the National Association of Colleges and Employers, the average national starting salary for a teacher is around $30,377. But the study showed that other college graduates entering professions that require similar training and responsibilities start at much higher salaries. For example, public accountants start at $44,668; computer programmers start at an average of $43,635; and registered nurses start at about $45,570. The average earnings of workers with at least four years of college are now more than 50% higher than the average earnings of a teacher. And in addition to starting salaries being lower, inflation has grown faster than the increases in teachers’ salaries each year. Over the past year, inflation increased 3.1%, while teachers’ salaries increased by only 2.3%.
http://www.buzzle.com/articles/analyzing-the-myths-about-teacher-salaries.html
By the way, there is some BLS data out there that shows teachers compare favorably to other college-degreed workers such as accountants. But that data has been pretty thoroughly debunked as flawed.
mike0@4:56 pm
\
The average teacher salary in Va. for fiscal year 2012 was 52003. In Roanoke County, which is the highest in this region, it was 47647 which is a declione of ogver 2% from the previous year. A teacher who retires at 30 years service does not receive 75% of their high three years average, they receive 45% of their high three years average. Until relatively recent years most teachers worked until age 63 or age 65 to
retire in order to boost that retirement income ( an additional 1.5% for each extra year of service ) Teachers now typically retire at 30 years of service or at near the age of 55 becasuse they are encouraged tro by local governments. If they take early retirement, the local government pays them an extra month of slalry for the first five years of their retirement. In return the teacher agrees to work for 20 days during the school year as a substituite ort in some other capacity assigned by the school systew. After five years, that pay is cut off. They do that because it saves the school system money. Instead of paying a teacher the salary they would receive at 30 years service, they are able to hire a new teacher at the low end of the salary scale and save thousands of dollars for that position. The payment of the teachers’ retirement contribution was started back in the 1980′s. The state promised to pay that contribution in lieu of a salary increase for teachers because that also saved the state money. On average at that time, a salary increase to kep up with national trends would have cost the state seven percent plus the cost of the matching share for social security and medicare. Thus the five percent contribution saved the state money while working out to be about the same for teachers as a salary increaqse would have been. Without that agreement, teacher salaries today in Va. would be about seven per cent higher than they are. To stop payin g that contribution now is reneging on a promise from years ago and is in effect a salary decrease for Va”s teachers. The average teacher salary now in Va. is 10000 lower than in DC, 11000 lower thasn in Maryuland, and 5000 lower than in Delaware. And the Va. numbers are skewed by the higher salaries paid in Fairfax, Arlington, Alexandria, and Loudon Counties. So your numbers are meaningless for the average teacher in thge western and southern regions of the state. All of that data is easily found in this report.
http://www.doe.virginia.gov/teaching/workforce_data/salaries/2011-2012_salary_report.pdf
So my off-topic paragraphs about Perks of Being a Wallflower didn’t go through. Fair enough. But I started that post by saying this: the VRS changes affect all government employees in Virginia, not just teachers. However, the plight of teachers elicits more sympathy than, say, garbage collectors and tax assessors in the same boat.
I disagree with Nu Scott’s assessment that teachers must work with the students they have and still end up with success. Jobs fire underperformers. Whoever heard of firing students?
So, if the average teacher retires earning $52,000, and they get 45 percent of that, they will retire with a pension of 23,500/year. Yipee!
mikeO suggested the number was more like $39,000. So, he was only OFF by $16k or so — or 68 percent.
Not bad for a conservative!
It really is sick, though, the way you guys just make stuff up — and take pride in doing that.
I’ve mentioned before that my wife has been a public school teacher since 1969. She has 2 Masters degrees & has more than 30 additional credits. She serves special needs students at elementary level. She does it because that is her calling. She arrives at work no later than 7:15 and gets home after 6:30 each night. She sets aside 3 to 4 hours each weekend day to develop plans for serving her students. This calendar year she has spent more than $2000 buying supplies & materials for her students. She has informed the school system that she is retiring at the end of the school year. The system finance director is very excited because he can hire her replacement & save $30K+ in salary next year. What he doesn’t know is he’s also losing 35+ years of experience & passion for serving special needs kids.
While I understand some of the reasons, what our society has lost is an understanding that teaching & learning isn’t totally about dollars & cents.
While I understand some of the reasons, what our society has lost is an understanding that teaching & learning isn’t totally about dollars & cents.
Comment by ron may — December 27, 2012 @ 7:24 am
You are so right. It’s about motivating and instilling a love of learning. It’s about letting the students know that they are important and they matter. It’s about getting them to strive to do their best. That is what good teachers do.
Ron,
According to mikeO, your wife’s pension is too much, and she makes much more than anyone in private industry who has two master’s degrees, and they worker more and harder than she does.
Also, I’m a little hesitant to post that photo you sent in of your snow-covered vehicle in Lake George, lest it elicit a stream of posts from mikeO that no public schoolteacher should drive something of that quality level.
What’s the drop-out rate in Roanoke again?
Henry,
We have been told the RCPS graduation rate has skyrocketed in the past two years. This is after they cut dozens of positions and cut salaries. So I guess the conclusion is too many highly-compensated teachers hurt student performance.
We need to cut more.
Boy, that mike O guy is turning out to be a real expert.
Actually Dan, because my wife has stayed married to me and moved every time I changed jobs, she has taught in 5 States and has small pensions from 3 States when she retires next summer. Total monthly pension will be less than $1100 per month.
As I said, I understand the concern citizens have over the cost of education & wanting to get value for money spent. What most citizens have lost is an understanding of the transformational power education has in the lives of those receive it.
I was just a poor farm kid from southern Indiana. Access to a free K-12 public education and parents who pushed me & sacrificed so I could get a bachelors degree changed my life & the opportunities I’ve had since. The teachers who also sacrificed, challenged, and encouraged me played a huge role in my success as well.
That States have chosen to underfund public education is among the most serious policy mistakes to be made.
“So I guess the conclusion is too many highly-compensated teachers hurt student performance.”
Note that suzie had to change lies about this topic. In the past, she claimed that the only way Roanoke City got its graduation rate up was by changing the rules just for the city for who counts as a graduate. After we completely embarrassed her by pointing out that the parameters changed for everybody in the state — including schools like Hidden Valley — and that they now more accurately reflect graduation, and after we pointed out that Roanoke further boosted its rate by working hard to keep at-risk kids in school, she had to back off that one. This new trolling effort is just as stupid as the old one.
An $1,100 a month pension, after working 35 years.
Tell us, mikeO, how much less one of your employee’s pensions would be after working 35 years.
(I’m sensing that mikeO is going to come back here with a big fat apology for all the inaccurate stuff he’s written about teachers salaries and pensions).
Actually Dan the vehicle in the photo is relatively inexpensive compared to some I’ve seen public school parents and their kids drive into public school parking lots.
The problem, Ron, is schools have had too many bloated layers and unnecessary positions. Then when responsible governments try to pare those down, they get accused of “gutting education”. We need to allow politicians to be able to look at actual performance and actual results without branding them as ‘anti-education’.
In other words we need to get the partisan leftist crap out of the way and focus on the genuine welfare of kids.
My sister works in a public school system in Ohio as a teacher. She has a master’s degree. She’s been working in her career field since 1981. I hold bachelor’s degree, and I work in private industry, and I’ve been working in this field since 1984. And I earn more than she does.
Comment, mikeO?
@40 Miss Suzie, I think we can all agree we should do what is in the best interests of the children, both the left and the right.
So let’s let the partisan crap, both left and right, out of the picture. Of course, that means we have to leave it in the hands of the professional education bureaucrats (which I’m all for).
But if we leave out the partisan crap, what will we argue about?
Suzie: The problem, Ron, is schools have had too many bloated layers and unnecessary positions.
Now I’m curious. Name some. I’m hard-pressed to think of any public school in the valley suffering under the burden of too many staffpeople.
When you look at the pay for teachers and police officers alone, we see clearly that some people take “public servants” literally. We demand they act, teach, produce and respond as professionals but get paid as anything but.
“We need to allow politicians to be able to look at actual performance and actual results…”
Yeah, that’ll work.
The problem is simply that we have too many people, including politicians, who think there is only one problem that exists. The problem is you have 100 politicians who claim 100 different reasons, and only want to work on the problem they have brought to the drawing board.
What does this mean? The Adults (Leaders) are not playing in the sandbox like good little boys and girls, and the only ones that are suffering are our children. The one thing that we are taught as children is the first thing thrown out the window as soon as you think you have a solution. Working together, and problem solving as a mature group. We have lost the know how on how to be adults. This isn’t just a government problem, this is everyone’s problem. We all own it.
It sure will, Gdad. It’ll work about as well as a toothpick replacing a crutch.
“We need to allow politicians to be able to look at actual performance and actual results…”
What if we applied the same theory of “performance” and “results” to the politicians? Those who can’t get a bill passed to protect the middle class tax cuts or a bill to avoid the so-called “fiscal cliff”- they are still paid a minimum of $172,000 plus benefits – passing a few bills in 2012 to name post offices should not count as being legislators.
If their performance and results were the basis for their salaries, none should be receiving a paycheck for the entirety of the 112th Congress.
Well said Justin and also right on the money. Making education or any other department or government service a political football is never helpful.
@40 “The problem, Ron, is schools have had too many bloated layers and unnecessary positions.”
I loves me some ignorant generalizations. That is an excellent example.
What in the world is a bloated layer? If my school division has one, it would be news to the people who are in it. That would have been just as true five years ago before the economy tanked. In recent years,staffing at all levels is very lean.
In light of the “fiscal cliff” we’re about to fall off -thanks to our very own elected representatives! – I have to lmao at the idea of them rating anyone’s performance, far less results.
Just one more small fact for the mike o’s and those like him. In Roanoke County, a teacher without an advanced degree doesn’t reach that “average payt until their nineteenth year in the system. The masximum for a teacher without an advanced degree is 62300+ and is not reached until year 30.
A few comparisons in Va,
average pay for:
journeyman electrician 49000
plumber 45000
reswpirqtory therapist 63000
carpenter 37000
physical therapist 41000
police officer 34000
What positions are unnecessary? Whose job should be done away with?
wayne goodman,
I don’t think we’ll hear from mikeO on this subject. I think he’s tucked his tail between his (factless) legs and has slinked off to another thread.
Dan,
Re: 10:16
First, is “idiots” excluded from the new “civility” policy, or does the policy only apply to those with whom you disagree?
Next; I believe total wages and benefits should be closely aligned with private sector jobs in the specific area, I also believe they should be able to move for better pay and finally I think that their increases should be based on merit and measureable goals.
Finally if a teacher is still earning the “average” after 30 years the “teacher” has a problem. (Surely you understand that “average” includes highs and lows and the highs usually come at the end)
Wayne, even using your 45% retirement number (which I have read differently) a teacher will still get about 33k/yr if the starting salary is 55k and a modest increase of 1%/year. Still not bad at 55 when you can go out and get a private sector job for another decade to add to your wealth.
Compare that to the private sector where one might start out at 35k and end at 70k and still have to provide his own retirement plan or put 10-15%/yr. in a retirement portfolio.
I have never said that teacher “suck the life” out of taxpayers, I agree with Kristen that “politicians do”..lol . What I have said is that they don’t have a bad deal.
Finally, if (as some have suggested) they don’t do it for the money, why complain about money?
If one feels their skills are marketable enter the marketplace and see how far that road might take you…
Not to break new ground and send Dan over the “eggnog” cliff; but I would also note that I believe the system would be much better served if it were run more like a business and parents could make decisions on where to send their kids…. But that is another story.
What positions are unnecessary? Whose job should be done away with?
Which jobs did RCPS do away with the last couple of years? Whichever they were, they were apparently unnecessary, even detrimental, given scores went up after their departure.
Wow Dan, Re: 5:40
Apparently you were “wrong” again.
You really seem to be extra “angry”, and I am not sure why you resort to the “schoolboy-style” debate.
Maybe rereading your “civility” thread might help.
I understand that you’re a bit peeved that your sister doesn’t make as much as you do, but hey… you really didn’t make it all on your own, you were one of the lucky ones, you should “share the wealth” with your sister and everyone else.
I suggest that whatever you make, over the average teacher salary, you should give to your sister or churches or “the man on the street”. It might make your conscience better, and you may feel a bit less angry.
“Next; I believe total wages and benefits should be closely aligned with private sector jobs in the specific area”
–Comment by mikeO
mikeO, does this mean that you believe public school systems should pay teachers’ salaries that are commensurate with private school teachers in the area in which they teach?
“I also believe they [teachers] should be able to move for better pay.”
–Comment by mikeO
mikeO, if there’s a free market for teacher’s salaries, then how are you going to keep the salaries down/fixed at the level you personally consider reasonable?
“Wayne, even using your 45% retirement number (which I have read differently) a teacher will still get about 33k/yr if the starting salary is 55k and a modest increase of 1%/year.”
–Comment by mikeO
mikeO, name a locality in the Roanoke region where the starting teacher salary is $55k.
“Finally, if (as some have suggested) they don’t do it for the money, why complain about money?”
mikeO, let me ask you an equally ridiculous question: If they don’t do it for money, why pay them at all?
The sensible answer is that they DO do it for money. Because just like YOUR employees, teachers have to eat; teacher have to pay rent or mortgages.
Now answer the questions: Should a beginning teacher make more, or less or the same as a beginning cop in the same jurisdiction.
And how could it be that my master’s degree-holding sister, who started her public school teaching career in Ohio has been 3 years before I started my private-industry career (with a bachelor’s degree) is earning LESS than me.
From you were saying before, she should be earning A LOT MORE because she leeches off taxpayers and I don’t.
“Which jobs did RCPS do away with the last couple of years?”
Uh, they closed 4 schools. Don’t you read?
When and if hubby shuts down his hotdog stand, he won’t need workers to cook dogs and warm buns, either. Duh.
mikeo
” I also believe they should be able to move for better pay and finally I think that their increases should be based on merit and measureable goals.”
There’s nothing wrong with those general statements, and, in fact, they are already true. Teacher evaluations are supposed to be based on observable and measurable data. I’d wager that if you saw the evaluation models for any area school system, you’d see that “on paper” they reflect your preference. This should become even more the case in the near future as Va. tries to tie student performance to teacher evaluations through statistical models.
As for moving for better pay, that already happens all the time and it’s about to become a major issue in the Roanoke Valley. Since the economy tanked, yearly step increases have been non existent. There are teachers who entered service five years ago who haven’t had a raise since they started. The only way to get a raise is to leave your current division and go somewhere else where they will hire on a step that reflects experience. The school division that will reward service can recruit the best teachers in the area right now.
mikeo,
Do you have any idea how hard it is for experienced teachers with Masters degrees to move? When my family moved to the Eastern Shore of Virginia in 1999 and again when we moved back to Indiana in 2006, no school system wanted to hire my wife who had 20+ years of experience & two Masters degrees plus. She was at the top end of the scale in both places. They did so only after they couldn’t find a more qualified “brand new” teacher. They hired her because school principals in both systems said, “You have to hire this person. She’s the best one for our kids.”
School system administrators are forced into not hiring experienced teachers like my wife because of budgetary constraints. I benefitted from that way of thinking at the beginning of my career. I was “brand new,” and cheap. To be perfectly frank, I was hired to teach in an elementary school in Arlington, Virginia in 1969 because I was a male. I was the only male teacher, out of about 30, in the school. There was a major effort to get men teaching in elementary schools in those days. I was also at the bottom end of the pay scale.
My point in this is that because of underfunding of public schools, administrators make decisions based more on finance than what is in the best interest of students.
Additionally, public school systems are an investment in our future. If you don’t make the investment you don’t get the return. My home state of Indiana is reaping the harvest of a failure to adequately fund public schools for a generation. As a result, the state doesn’t have the workforce it needs to compete for 21st century companies providing 21st century jobs. It will take my state a generation, or maybe two, to overcome the hole such state policies have dug for them.
Ron,
I believe mikeO is one of those people intent on breaking up public school systems and replacing them with home-schooling or institutions modeled after Prince Edward Academy and whatnot. At least, the “facts” mikeO says he believes, and the arguments he’s making, are characteristic of the idiots who wish there were no public schools. Many tea partiers are in this boat. Some of them even believe public schools are unconstitutional and anti-freedom.
So you think mikeo wants to go back to the days of the “Great Resistance.” That would be a truly sad day for Virginia.
For mikeo, Frank, and Suzie, they are all for merit based pay based on some system odf measurable outcomes for students and they think that system can be accomplished while reducing administrative staff and non classroom support personnel. Two problems here. One is that the “measurable outcomes” usually means how high the students score on the SOL tests. That measure would fail to take into account that teachers are arbitrairly assigneds students of different backgrounds, different skills, and different levels of intelligence and then are expected to be judged based on their test scores as compared to other students. That’s
not a level playing field.
The second problem relates to the administrative/supervisory personnel. What you show here is your complete lack of understanding of sound management principles and lack of knowledge of years of research that has been conducted on outcomes in both schools and in business. There is a concept called span of control which has been researched and stiudied over and over again., It applies to all organizations and businesses, both public and private and it essentially says that for purposes of evaluating personnel and improving perfoprmance, one person can only be effective supervising a finite number of people. That number may vary accordiong to the type mof business and the set of skills required for effective performance . Numerous studies have been done over the years qabout span of control in public schools. Virtually all have reached the same conclusion. That is that the smaller the ratoiop is of the number of teachers per administrator/supervisor, the more succesful the outcomes for the students. Those who advocate weeding out poor teachers and improving instructional techniques and providing help for teachers to be at their effective best when working for their students think that is going to magically happen if you just put that teacher in the cdlassroom, give them a few basic tools to work with, and turn them looswe. The purpose of central office peresonnel for the most part is supposed to be to work in a staff relationship with teachers and their building administrators to develop curriculum, inservice training that is helpful, and to actively evaluate through classroom visitations the work that teachers do. Roanoke County has five high schools and five middle schools withI don’t know how many total teachers in each field. They generally have one central office staff pereson for each subject area. That violates all research that has been done on effective span of control (i.e. the number of teachers one person can actively wortk with, supervise and evaluate) Administrators at the building level are tasked with so many other reponsibilities includiong budgeting, working with parent groups, disciplinary acxtions, and tracking absenteeism and attendance and overseeing the physical needs of ther building, that the amoun t of time they are able to spend in clasrooms working with teachers and evaluating instruction is limited. Virtually every study that has been undertaken has shown that the smaller the number of teachers for which each administrator is assigned to actively ev aluate, the greatyer thye improvement in classroom performance and outcomes for students.
So if you are really intereted in morer effective schools and improvement in student performasnce, the two things you can pay for that will have the greatest effect is lowering the student to teabher ratio and providing adequate supervisory and staff support to work with and evaluate the work that is being done. That’s not cheap. What we get from the people who are ill informed and have no knowledge of what research actually shows is lip service about how they think the schools can do a better job. They don’t know what they are talking about. I will link just one recent study that was done at Florida State University on span of control. There are dozens of examples in the research literature both in education and in private businesws.
http://diginole.lib.fsu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=4073&context=etd&sei-redir=1&referer=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.google.com%2Furl%3Fsa%3Dt%26rct%3Dj%26q%3Dspan%2520of%2520control%2520in%2520public%2520schools%26source%3Dweb%26cd%3D4%26sqi%3D2%26ved%3D0CEwQFjAD%26url%3Dhttp%253A%252F%252Fdiginole.lib.fsu.edu%252Fcgi%252Fviewcontent.cgi%253Farticle%253D4073%2526context%253Detd%26ei%3DdtDcUNmHC-Pg2gXdsIDICg%26usg%3DAFQjCNERPPX-ugBrDFSRiiybGMqelX1sUw%26bvm%3Dbv.1355534169%2Cd.b2U#search=%22span%20control%20public%20schools%22
wayne@7:43
One is that the “measurable outcomes” usually means how high the students score on the SOL tests
Absolutely. It’s supposed to be 40 percent of the teachers evaluation as determined by some algorithm the State has come up with. I haven’t seen said algorithm yet, but it’s troublesome to me. If you can’t compute the value on your own, how in the world would you know if you’ve been treated fairly?
As you point out, it’s also largely a function of what classroom hand you are dealt every year. Make no mistake about it, groups of children are highly variable. Some years you get great groups, some years, not so much.
“Which jobs did RCPS do away with the last couple of years?”
I don’t know, suzie, why don’t you tell us?
“Whichever they were, they were apparently unnecessary, even detrimental, given scores went up after their departure.”
This is even weaker and loopier than your claim that Roanoke City alone changed the dropout criteria.
hey wayne goodman,
yeah, yeah, yeah, just keep throwing money at the kiddies…and not look anywhere but the fewer and fewer taxpayers who have to pay for you libs’ un-thinking, wasteful, non-academic, regulatory largess.
well, here’s hoping we go over that ol’ cliff that ol’ harry and barack seem to be so…ahem!…ah, “worried” about….yeah, right, they’re real “worried”. then, we’ll ALL get to support you libs in your un-thinking, wasteful, non-academic, regulatory largess.
after “not-a-long” while, i’d bet we’ll hear some interesting noises from the rest of us who will be forced to pay taxes…
hey dan,
i think the short answer to your question is, …there’s plenty of money allocated to educating the kiddies. yeah, i think folks like your sister deserve much more salary, same as cops. so, why hasn’t barack implemented any economy growing measures since, like, when?
by the way, didja see the “well in excess of $100,000,000″ cost for one high school in LA? I bet that school even wipes the little kiddies butts for’em, and there’s no money left over to fund an armed guard or two…or eleven, like at barack’s kiddies’ private school in wash., dc.
in my opinion, our educational system, including local, state, and federal funding, is far from being under-funded in the aggregate. instead of teachers, we spend all those bucks on, like, …everything BUT teachers. go figure…
If nothing else, hey frank, your posts illustrate how vital it is for us to properly fund education. The alternative is unsettling.
Frank
I didn’t expect you to understand the complicated concept of span of control. As usual you confirmed my expectations.
hey mike scott,
i agree with you whole-heartedly. smart, well-run school systems will be able to pay teachers more, for experience…which will get us to a more market-oriented pay system for teachers, other than the gov’mint controlled one we have right now, and have had for years.
gee, if we let vouchers follow the kids, then pay teachers for experience…oh, heck, the libs will never let THAT happen…. ’cause they won’t cut anything else…. ’cause we have NO more inefficiencies in our gov’mint schools.
i say we have too much governmnet in our schools.
hey wayne goodman,
i think that the good professor from fsu should wrap her span of control study around the “brilliant flash in a pan” educational idea proposed by that lib-town, aka Oakland, CA, called “ebonics”.
and, i whole-heardedly agree with you that our gov’mint funded schools require WAY more time from available teachers and administrators be applied to “non-educating” activities….than is helpful in effectively teaching the kiddies.
hey kristen,
schools were a sight much better in my day, …your’s too, I’d bet. hey, what the heck happened?
A couple of thoughts about public education. First and foremost, we live in the freest, most innovative country in the world largely because we have endeavored to educate our citizenry. Moreover, we have been pretty damn successful at it! In round numbers, we graduate about 80% of public high school kids. Many folks think this is inadequate. I disagree. We are dealing with adolescents who mature at different rates. It is entirely understandable that some 18 year olds are just not ready or interested in a high school diploma.
Second, our unhealthy obsession with “measuring” progress misses the point miserably. We are not making widgets, folks, we are providing a solid for a lifetime of learning. The Standards of Learning tests are the vehicles through which we now measure student performance/progress and educator performance/progress. Consequently, educators tailor there lesson planning to these tests. The focus on SOLs is so intense, creating a level of stress in educator and student that probably inhibits peak performance. The goal has become to teach our children the requisite number of facts necessary for them to simply pass the SOL test. We are not measuring progress for either student or educator; we are measuring minimum proficiency. The SOL in and of itself is not bad. The results tell us where we can target instruction for groups of students. Keep the SOLs if you like, but stop using them as an accreditation bludgeon. The goal of 100% pass rate is unrealistic if not impossible.
Much is said on this blog about the need for role models for our children. What message do we send to our children when we denigrate the jobs of teachers and administrators? What message do we send to our kids when we undermine the sincere efforts of a classroom teacher by allowing our children to be habitually tardy or when we condone the breaking of school policies for dress or cell phone use? What message do we send to our kids when we don’t support public education? There are many excellent role models right there in your child’s school. Just ask your son or daughter. They will tell you, then get involved and show your child that you value that education as much as they do.
I see Frank has gone back to speaking pammalese.
Well said, Jason Perdue.
Jason Perdue — December 28, 2012 @ 1:00 am – Outstanding! Thanks so much for putting it so well. Overall, educators are some of the best role models the youth of our nation ever encounter. Many will gladly say so.
hey jason perdue,
you want role models? RGIII is “not black enough”…to be “down with the cause”…he can’t be a role model for heaven’s sake. Tim Tebow is public with his Christianity, and hence is cast as a villain by the lib media, sooo, he’s out as a role model. Celebrity Hollywood, led by libs, combined with lib media, will only promote crotch-grabbers as “role” models for the little kiddies.
I think the best part of your post is where you point the finger right at us…the parants and involved families. However, in these “interesting” times, I think our society has lost a large sence of personal value and personal responsibility…and if that’s the case, then we’re also likely to be thinking… “our kids are stupid because we don’t spend enough money educating them”. ergo, it’s not MY fault… it’s the rich folks fault.
“hey kristen,
schools were a sight much better in my day, …your’s too, I’d bet. hey, what the heck happened?”
They started teaching kids to use “hey” too much?
gee poor poor teachers, paid for 2 full months off work in the summer, yeah real pity, get over it, you have way more than a lot of workers..pay more attention to your studies and children you try to teach ..isn’t that WHY you became a teacher?
Jason Perdue @ 1:00 am
Jason, you absolutely nailed it with that post. SOL’s are being used as a bludgeon for both accreditation and funding purposes and IMO are making schools less successful at accomplishing what we need to accomplish byu this miouse and teaching to the test. And teachers and administrators are being vilified and constantly working under the threat of being sued by greedy parents who see the chance for a fast buck or who want to blame the schools for their own inadequacy in raising and supporting their children.
Well said, JasonP…the SOLs are a ridiculous time and effort suck.
Thank you Debbie, Sandi, and wayne. Our public educators need our help, not our scorn. Despite the naysayers and their naysaying, public education is well worth our time and money. Keep the faith!
“..you have way more than a lot of workers”
I’m sure they have it a lot better than YOUR employees, pammala. If you really have employees, that is.
Anyway, if Frank and pammala are examples of the way our schools USED to teach, give me today’s schools. pammala can’t make sense through even one whole post.
Frank, I favor a focus on the local neighborhood/community for role models. No doubt some pro athletes and celebrities capture our imaginations, but their are many good folks (conservative, moderate, and liberal) right here in the valley who I would be thrilled for my children to look up to. They come from all walks of life, and they contribute in small but significant ways. Most of us will never make a difference on the national stage, but we all can locally.
pammela, maybe get some facts before putting your fingers on the keyboard. Teachers do not get paid for the summer when schools not in session. Why do you think there are so many teachers that waitress, bag groceries, tudor, and work child care positions in the summer, to get extra pay? No, they are trying to pay their bills. They are paid if they teach summer school or if the school system where they work allows them to defer their annual salary (based on the school year) over 12 months.
When and if hubby shuts down his hotdog stand, he won’t need workers to cook dogs and warm buns, either. Duh.
Leftwingers seems terribly upset that firing scores of union teachers have helped their graduation rate. But is that any reason to personally attack Suzie?
you are entirely correct, Jason P.
my kids have benefitted from some of their rec league coaches…and the one which stands out in their minds, and mine, the most is Gene Derryberry from the Cave Spring area. Gene was not an official “coach” per say, but for years he was always the most helpful and instructive adult working with the kids…all the while silently fighting cancer for years until it took him several years ago.
It was a shock to many when he lost his battle, but his memory lives on in the “life’s perspectives” he was able to impart to many, many kids and teenagers while he was with us, and driven home to us when he was gone.
Jason Perdue #86, +1
Dan,
I see you asked a bunch of questions but did not answer the “civility” question. I am shocked…
Ok I’ll make you feel better for the weekend…
I believe teachers should make a starting salary of at least 100k per year, with automatic increases of 10%/year. They should not have to put any money into their own retirement and be able to retire at the age of 45 with 100% of their pay. They should have free healthcare for themselves and their families and their extended families, for life. They should get a “government” purchased car and free gas. They should get free “government” housing and free food.
And, because States must balance their budgets, I suggest that they all become federal workers because we all know the feds can just print as much money necessary to obtain these goals.
Feel better???
It’s 100 percent untrue to claim there are any union teachers in Virginia.
“But is that any reason to personally attack Suzie?”
One needs a reason?
Suzie: “But is that any reason to personally attack Suzie?”
Art Hill: “One needs a reason?”
There was no personal attack, expect perhaps in her own mind.
There was no personal attack, expect perhaps in her own mind.
Yeah, you’re trying to demean my husband’s business when the discussion has nothing to do with that. Isn’t that exactly the kind of personal stuff you said you wanted to stop?
Teachers are union hacks. Liberals don’t give a crap about education; they just want the reliable support of union thugs. That’s their sole interest in maintaining or increasing the number of teachers.
America desperately needs to rid iteself of the sordid pipeline of vast sums of cash shuttled from the unions to the Democrat Party and back. No reasonable person denies that every state should be a ‘right to work’ state.
So, suzie, it’s a personal insult to suggest somebody owns a hot dog stand?
America needs to rid itself of the sordid pipeline of vast sums of cash shuttled from the “Citizens United” Super Pacs to the Republican Party. It also needs to rid itself of the idea that corporations are people. Maybe then we could get back a government of the people, by the people and for the people.
@95″Teachers are union hacks. ”
Errr… what in the world are you babbling about? Virginia is a right to work state. No union participation is required. If an individual wants to join the NEA, they choose to. I would recommend joining though. Membership provides liability insurance from crazy parents with access to lawyers. There’s lots of them, both crazy parents and lawyers and they will sue you for just about any reason they can.
The NEA is also the only the organization that’s politically involved in education issues in Richmond.
Frank, what’s with the “hey” thing? You draw great similarities to the “Annoying Orange”
Very nice. suzie has declared all teachers union hacks. I’m declaring suzie a corporate hack. Ron has already given the rational response to the whole pipeline thing.
America needs to rid itself of the sordid pipeline of vast sums of cash shuttled from the “Citizens United” Super Pacs to the Republican Party
Ron.
Do you think it’s right that workers are forced to pay union dues against their will as they are in many states? Citizens United doesn’t do that.
Mike Scott, a question: Can a teacher have his/her NEA dues automatically deducted from their pay and forwarded to the NEA? If that’s the case now in Virginia, I predict a lawmaker will sponsor a bill to outlaw that.
For the many who think arming teachers is a solution to school violence like the Sandy Hook massacre – you might want to revise your opinion.
When arming a teacher, it is important to consider student violence perpetrated on teachers. One or more high school athletes can easily overpower a teacher when caught unaware – especially a female teacher. Once overpowered, the student[s] can gain access to the weapon. Now I wonder what happens to when the gun is taken off the teacher…
If you think this cannot happen, think again – there were 127,120 assaults on teachers nationally [2008], which could translate into the same number of times a gun could be taken from the educator.
This does not appear to be a rational solution to prevent gun violence in schools.
“Statistics don’t lie: According the U.S. Department of Education, 127,120 (4 percent) public school teachers (K-12) were physically attacked at school—hit, kicked, bitten, slapped, stabbed or shot—during the 2007-08 school year. Another 222,460 teachers (7 percent) were threatened by students with acts of violence.
This tragic crisis is not going away anytime soon. Part of the problem lies with school officials, many of whom lack the backbone to expel chronic offenders, or at least transfer them to more secure schools.”
http://www.nea.org/home/42238.htm
Hillary, nice try, but I’m sure there are gun advocates out there who will argue back that 127,000 assaults on teachers is precisely WHY teachers should be armed.
If they are armed, some of them may use their guns on the kids during some of those assaults.
If they use the guns, some kids will wind up dead.
If students wind up dead, it’ll scare the parents of every non juvenile delinquent student at the schools.
Some, then perhaps more, parents will pull their kids from public schools.
The demand for taxpayer-underwritten private-school vouchers will soar.
And THEN will begin the undoing of the public school system as we know it.
Which for some folks, is exactly the point.
@102…Nope..the NEA is totally voluntary. Virginia is a right to work state. Nobody can compel you to join a professional organization, but it is worth it for the liability insurance. Parents and some of their children can be cray cray…
Mike Scott,
Are you saying that Va. schoolteachers don’t have the OPTION of payroll deductions for NEA membership?
If that’s the case, then I predict some state lawmaker will ban NEA membership by Virginia teachers (which would run afoul of NAACP v. Alabama, but perhaps the RWers can get that case overturned before the next conservative justice leaves the court).
Speaking of Violence, you antigun folks should move to England where guns are illegal..
but you might want to read this first!!!
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1196941/The-violent-country-Europe-Britain-worse-South-Africa-U-S.html
As a teacher, the NEA is the LAST organization I would join. Plenty other organizations out there to help out teachers who don’t support the LW agenda
http://www.ceai.org
http://www.virginiaeducators.org
PP, do you believe teachers should have the freedom of joining the NEA if they want to? Or would you enforce your beliefs on all teachers, if you had that option?
PP, the Daily Mail story was about all types of crime statistics involving violence, even including fisticuffs. The crisis in the U.S. is about gun massacres. Thus the story you linked as no relevance to our debate.
Limiting the carnage in massacres is why it makes good sense to:
1) limit the number of rounds in clips and magazines private individuals can own
2) tightly control access to semi-automatic anti-personnel guns
3) significantly bolster gun registration and tracking procedures
4) close the private and internet gun sales loopholes
5) greatly toughen concealed carry permit requirements and qualifying
6) to allow free release of government gun violence data to the public
along with a host of non-gun issues to be addressed, such as mental health and media cultural issues.
And, yes, in the interest of mssacre control, a steep user tax on massacre weapons, for those who still insist on keeping those types of guns, would be both justified and constitutional. We should support a Gun Violence Cost Recovery Act.
Dan, it should be exactly the way it is…there should be choice on whether you want to even join any organization (although i suggest all teachers get liability coverage from someone.) I will say this about those sneaky NEA mobsters….i mean members. For the first 5 years i was a member of the VEA, it was because they flat out lied to all of us and said ”we” are the only org that will cover you if you are sued. After some disgust at our dues being thrown at politcal candidates and statutes being passed about what they support, some colleagues and I did research and joined other groups that didnt support candidates financially.
We also made sure that others didnt fall for the lies anymore and that they had options. They catch our new teachers during orientation and feed them this bull, then we send out a nice email to let them know they have more options and its NOT mandatory.
pistol pete, there is no end, no happy compromise for the anti-gun crowd. Now that the first hundred plus years of gun control (better known as people control) has failed, they just want more…. and more and more and more. Don’t be fooled by any implication that they want any kind of compromise. They want confiscation.
“There is no end, no happy compromise for the anti-gun crowd. Now that the first hundred plus years of gun control (better known as people control) has failed, they just want more…. and more and more and more. Don’t be fooled by any implication that they want any kind of compromise. They want confiscation.”
–Comment by JW
“There is no end, no happy compromise for the pro-gun crowd. Now that we’ve had massacres in both pro-gun (Virginia, Arizona, Texas, Colorado) and (relatively) anti-gun states (Connecticut) the recent gunner memes that “all we need are more guns” have been exposed as a lie and a canard. More guns does not equal less crime, and if guns DON’T kill, they CANNOT save lives. Don’t be fooled by any implication that they want any kind of compromise. The only “compromise” they’re willing to make us guns for (nearly) all, all the time.”
There, JW, fixed it for you.
BTW, our forefathers — yes, the authors of the Second Amendment — were the first gun-controllers. Which proves that they did not intend for the amendment to be interpreted certain gunner have suggested.
The Founders were much less than enamored of the people and it is hard to imagine that bunch not supporting all sorts of people control.
http://www.amazon.com/A-Renegade-History-United-States/dp/B004VD3YZA
He also wrote this thought provoking piece for HuffPo:
http://www.ems.ucsb.edu/people/rightmire/ling3c/Russel2_F2010.pdf
“During the War of Independence a culture of pleasure and freedom blossomed in American cities… …Rarely have Americans had more fun. And never have America’s leaders been less pleased by it.
…“Indeed, there is one enemy, who is more formidable than famine, pestilence and the sword,” John Adams wrote. “I mean the corruption which is prevalent in so many American hearts, a depravity that is more inconsistent with our republican governments than light is with darkness.”
…The Founding Fathers hoped that self-rule would cure Americans of their love of frivolities. A government of the people, John Adams argued, would make the people disciplined, stern, hard-working, and joyless—the qualities he most admired. It would “produce Strength, Hardiness Activity, Courage, Fortitude and Enterprise; the manly noble and Sublime Qualities in human Nature, in Abundance.” Adams understood that democracy forced the people to shed their pleasures and surrender their personal freedom, because they alone would shoulder the responsibility of managing society.
“Under a well regulated Commonwealth, the People must be wise, virtuous and cannot be otherwise. Under a Monarchy they may be as vicious and foolish as they please, nay, they cannot but be vicious and foolish. … Virtue and Simplicity of Manners are indispensably necessary in a Republic among all orders and Degrees of Men. But there is so much Rascallity, so much Venality and Corruption, so much Avarice and Ambition such a Rage for Profit and Commerce among all Ranks and Degrees of Men even in America, that I sometimes doubt whether there is public Virtue enough to Support a Republic.”
Methinks some folks have forgotten where we actually did come from. Or what real “Authoritarians” those Founders were. And that far from never sacrificing our personal freedom, our Republic would require it evermore.
Dan, every gun control benchmark has failed. How have the NFA of 1934, the Gun Control Act of 1968, or the assault weapon ban made us safer? Every restoration of freedom has been uneventful. The gun free zones are total, proven failres. You were dead wrong on your prediction of mass chaos over the repeal of the restaurant ban 2 1/2 years ago.
Gun control has been tried and has failed dozens of times, but the antis wail over the notion of arming teachers. Time for a real defense.
JW,
“The gun lobby likes to tell its loyal customer base that simply by owning guns, they are ready to live Hollywood fantasies where their unerring aim and the angels at their back would mean the swift putdown of a criminal who shows up ready to kill people. The reality is that it leads to shootouts that may or may not lead to the bad guy getting killed before the good guy does. The NRA’s notion that the best way to end violence is to escalate it owes way more to Westerns than reality. Gunfire exchange can and often does eventually lead to an end of a shooter going on a rampage. But it would be better if there wasn’t anything for the shooter to rampage with in the first place.”
http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2012/12/21/more-guns-theory-disproved-during-presser/
Dan:
“The gun lobby likes to tell its loyal customer base that simply by owning guns, they are ready to live Hollywood fantasies…”
Like this one…
http://gunssavelives.net/self-defense/video/ca-homeowner-shoots-and-kills-armed-home-invader-wounds-2-others-as-children-have-sleepover/
Note that saving a bunch of kids isn’t newsworthy around here. That guy’s home was not going to be the next Sandy Hook. Had his home been a gun free zone and the kids been slaughtered, this would have been all over the news.
Hey JohnWilburn, would you like me to start unearthing all the tales of family members being shot “by accident” in their own homes by their own guns?
@108
Well, the first professional organization you list seems to be some kind of cult organization that focuses primarily on the worship of resurrected mythical beings.
The second one seems to be less partisan all the way around.
I don’t always agree with NEA,s positions, but they do have resources in place that can and will help you out if you run into trouble. Not that I’ve been in that much trouble in my career, but when I did need to consult with them, they were just a phone call away and their advice and service was excellent.
There current system of optional membership works as it should. For new teachers, it’s a tough call, because those monthly dues are hard to swallow. As for lying to me, I have no clue what you are talking about except that such allegations seem to fit into your general conspiratorial outlook on life.
Kristen:
“Hey JohnWilburn, would you like me to start unearthing all the tales of family members being shot “by accident” in their own homes by their own guns?”
Oh…… so now Kristen wants to say that this tragedy being prevented was not worth the cumulative accidents, but ignores the hundreds of children that died in unrelated matters on the same day as the Sandy Hook shooting who were not shot with an AR-15.
No, Kristen; no need to pull that weak argument out….. again.
The current debate is about massacre control, not gun control.
No 2A protections for hunting, target sports, vintage gun collecting or individual personal safety are threatened by the sort of massacre control measures under discussion, and nothing willl remove 300 million guns in the US in the foreseeable future.
Since it’s the specifics of massacre control that the US is now deciding on, to keep using such a broad term as “gun control” in this debate is becoming as unproductive as vaguely talking about “drugs” when that debate has already moved on to specifics like cannabis prohibition, prescription narcotic abuse, rural Afghani poppy and South American coca economies, and so on.
Given those facts, one who refuses to move the debate beyond uselessly vague terms like “gun control”, and uses counterproductive perjoratives like “antis”, marks themselves as dogmatic about gun issues. And there’s plenty of irony in one who rants against religious dogma instead having his own dogmatic worship of firearms.
From pistol pete’s link:
“In the decade following the party’s election in 1997, the number of recorded violent attacks soared by 77 per cent to 1.158million – or more than two every minute.”
There is a typo in this. It should read: “In the decade following national gun confiscation in 1997, the number of recorded violent attacks soared by 77 per cent to 1.158million – or more than two every minute.”
Not sure how they missed that.
@Kristen 4:12pm,
Only if it’s okay to unearth tales of people killed in accidents by their own cars.
If it’s about preventing accidental deaths, you’ll be okay with this. If it’s just about a hatred of guns, I’m sure the comparison will be irrelevant to you.
If you haven’t seen the Slate Gun-Death-Interactive-Chart it is pretty impressive. It began on December 14th.
“How Many People Have Been Killed by Guns Since Newtown?”
http://tinyurl.com/dxx9724
“The current debate is about massacre control, not gun control. . .”
–Comment by Warren
Given Warren’s interesting and perhaps apt reframing of the question, perhaps we should move away from the term “gun rights” and switch to “massacre rights.”
Who supports them?
Dan:
“Given Warren’s interesting and perhaps apt reframing of the question, perhaps we should move away from the term “gun rights” and switch to “massacre rights.”
Given that the overwhelming majority of Warren’s plan is just the same old gun control, I don’t believe his premise in the first place.
“There is a typo in this. It should read: “In the decade following national gun confiscation in 1997, the number of recorded violent attacks soared by 77 per cent to 1.158million – or more than two every minute.”
–Comment by John Wilburn
as JW knows, the homicide rate in Britain is about 1.49 per 100,000 residents (this was AFTER the alleged increase). The homicide rate in the gun-happy United States? It’s 4.8 per 100,000. And the gun-homicide rate is 3.1 per 100,000 residents — in other words more than twice Britain’s overall rate.
Yet JW continues to tow the line that “Guns Saves Lives.”
Dan:
“Yet JW continues to tow the line that “Guns Saves Lives.””
And yet Dan is okay with a rape or two here or there. Hey, they srvived didn’t they? That’s just collateral damage for the disarmed, right?
Tell us, Jack, how often are cars purposely used to kill? (HINT: A lot less often than guns)
“JW continues to tow the line that ‘Guns Saves Lives’”
Apart from other issues pertaining to massacre weapons like magazine capacity, ask John Wilburn (or Phil van Cleave, or any other gun apologist who’s as strident in defense of the right to have massacre weapons as those two) for advice on what type of hidden handgun most effectively protects one from a sniper, since they’ve recently insisted guns save lives and that the Bushmaster XM-15 .223 rifle, .50 caliber anti-personnel guns, and other massacre weapons are nothing but simply “fun”.
A few examples for consideration:
In 2012, two responding firemen were killed by a sniper in New York.
In 2005 and 2006, eight people were killed and at least 29 others shot by drive-by snipers in the Phoenix area.
In 2003, four people were killed by a sniper in West Virginia.
Also in 2003, one person was killed and 29 others shot at by a sniper in Ohio.
In 2002, thirteen people were killed and six critically wounded by a sniper spree from Louisiana to Maryland.
Between 1989 and 1992, five people were killed by a sniper in Ohio.
The NRA, and since 1994, the VCDL (and its’ predecessor the NVCDL) have insisted that more guns in more places are the way to prevent gun violence, using the misleading slogan “guns save lives”. But they are as silent as a gun without ammo when asked how guns could have protected one against those snipers, especially those armed with civilian models of military guns.
While Van Cleave praised the child slaughter gun as “fun” only days after the Newtown massacre, John Wilburn made the ludicrous claim that skateboards are more lethally dangerous than the guns whose power he worships.
A concealed handgun is as effective for safety from a hidden sniper as a glass of water. Yet the NRA and VCDL work as hard to protect access to sniper rifles as they do all other massacre enabling firearms, making no more differentiation among guns than they apply to their slogans about lifesaving.
So when you encounter the slogan “guns save lives”, substitute this: “sniper rifles save lives”; and realize that in their lobbying actions, slogan and agenda, the NRA and VCDL have done nothing to suggest that they believe otherwise.
Dan: “There was no personal attack, expect perhaps in her own mind.”
Suzie: “Yeah, you’re trying to demean my husband’s business when the discussion has nothing to do with that. Isn’t that exactly the kind of personal stuff you said you wanted to stop?”
How could I have demeaned your husband’s business? First, I don’t know if you’re a woman. Second (if you are) I don’t know that you have a husband. Third, If you are a married woman, I don’t know that your husband owns any business. Fourth, if he indeed owns a business, I have no idea what that is. Fifth, there was no specific business cited. Sixth, a business is a THING. It is not a person. If I demeaned a thing (which I did not do, because I don’t even know what it is I allegedly demeaned) it’s not a personal attack.
Hint: with regard to the term “personal attack,” the adjective “personal” refers to “a person.” Not a business, owned by the likely phantom husband of a phantom blogger who may or may not be a woman, and who may or may not be married, etc.
Now, have you managed to grok yet that when a school system closes four schools, it results in layoffs? This is not rocket science.
Warren is now fascinated with snipers as his last campaign decrying various QCB weaponry has fallen apart. OMG. Let’s see…. Snipers use ONE shot and lower-capacity magazines. Snipers use hunting calibers. Snipers use bolt-action rifles more commonly than semi-autos. Snipers cannot conceal their weapons.
Sounds like now that Warren has expressed his contempt for the ownership of guns that he claims have no sporting purpose, he is now speaking against guns that have a sporting purpose by making them “the choice of snipers”.
My pistol can shoot 100 yards. What about it? What about bows and arrows? What about scoped shotguns shooting slugs?
I’m convinced Warren wants complete confiscation, ultimately.
Warren, do yo have a gun at home? Being an anonymous blog warrior, full of keyboard courage (among other things), it wouldn’t surprise me if you did.
FWIW, long-range rifles DO save lives.
Jack’, if you’d like to drag cars into the discussion, I’m more than happy to recount every life that was saved by a car. Cars would beat guns in number of lives saved by a comfortable margin. Every time someone gets in an ambulance and goes to the hospital, their lives were “saved” by a car. I doubt you really want to go down that road.
For people like JohnW to get all giggly and giddy over the “fun” of playing with semi-automatic weapons like the one that killed all those children is – at best – in horrible taste. At worst, sociopathic. It’s almost as amusing as the NRA whining that Biden didn’t invite them to participate in the upcoming gun control talks. As if anyone has any doubt about what the NRA Has to offer, which is nothing but shilling for the arms industry.
Given Warren’s interesting and perhaps apt reframing of the question, perhaps we should move away from the term “gun rights” and switch to “massacre rights.”
Now we are getting somewhere. Thanks for coming aboard and admitting guns have had nothing to do with some of the worst massacres in American history.
@Warren: “No 2A protections for hunting, target sports, vintage gun collecting or individual personal safety are threatened by the sort of massacre control measures under discussion, and nothing willl remove 300 million guns in the US in the foreseeable future.”
The second Amendment is not about hunting, not about target sports, not about gun collecting or even individual personal safety.
@gdad:
Please review Kristen’s comment. She wants to talk about accidental deaths, not intentional.
People go on and on about accidental deaths with firearms, but then when I suggest a way to prevent accidental deaths, everyone chooses to ignore it because cars aren’t used as much to kill people intentionally.
If you don’t want to talk about preventing accidental deaths, please stop talking about it and stick to hatred of guns.
@Warren: “… .50 caliber anti-personnel guns, and other massacre weapons…”
I have a great idea. We should all get together, someone can bring a .50 Caliber rifle, and Warren can demonstrate for us how one would run from room to room with it killing people.
That would be really interesting to watch. I’ve not met Warren, but I’d feel safe betting money that he couldn’t even bring the rifle into a position to shoulder fire it…. let alone do it multiple times while running around.
The .50 cal rifle is great for stopping planes from taking off, or stopping trucks from driving, but a massacre weapon? Nah.. far from it. It does sound scary, though, I’ll give you that.
But, Dan, how coiuld you have missed the fact that USSC declared that businesses (corporations) are indeed people? So maybe demeaning a business is “personal”?
What I don’t get, though, is why suzie — if “she” is indeed a woman and indeed has a husband who indeed has a business (that at last report he was going to abandon because he was so scared about Obama) — who constantly praises entrepreneurs, would find it “demeaning” to run a hot dog joint. I mean, look at how the owners of places like the Roanoke Wiener Stand, Steve’s, and the TT have done.
“The second Amendment is not about hunting, not about target sports, not about gun collecting or even individual personal safety.”
–Comment by Jack
Then why don’t you tell us what is IS about, Jack — but keep in mind the first gun-controllers were the dudes who wrote it.
Jack, the car/gun analogy does not work, ever, under any conditions or parameters. You can keep nattering on about “accidental” deaths in car accidents, but they do not in any way reserve what’s considered a gun death “acciident”. Keep in mind that I do not believe in “accidental” gun deaths. Each and every one can be directly linked to negligence – at best -on the part of the gun owner. If you’d like to compare leaving a loaded weapon laying around to be found by a toddler to hitting a patch of ice on the road, go ahead. Just don’t expect to be taken seriously.
Of course the second amendment isn’t about hunting or self defense. It establishes a local militia, which today is the National Guard.
Suzie quoting Dan:
“Given Warren’s interesting and perhaps apt reframing of the question, perhaps we should move away from the term “gun rights” and switch to “massacre rights.””
So his weak argument limps away from any cover and toward .50 caliber bolt-action, long, heavy, difficult to shoulder fire rifles that would be an awfl choice for the kind of “massacre” he’s been delighting in all week.
Kristen:
“For people like JohnW to get all giggly and giddy over the “fun” of playing with semi-automatic weapons like the one that killed all those children is – at best – in horrible taste.”
Kristen shows incredible insensitivity in driving her lethal Jeep Liberty just days after Jeep Liberties have claimed lives. In a display of horrible taste, I bet she will drive it today.
http://www.katu.com/news/local/Man-21-dies-in-head-on-crash-near-Woodburn-184562931.html
http://www.wmur.com/news/nh-news/Rider-dies-in-motorcycle-crash/-/9857858/17360328/-/3u9k0x/-/index.html
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-505164_162-57450518-10391734/jeep-liberty-recall-reaches-nearly-347000-vehicles/
people so upset about guns and shooting deaths of children ..why the hypocrisy, you don’t complain about the millions of children intentionally butchered in abortion for convenience sake…why?
http://www.americanthinker.com/2012/12/the_real_second_amendment.html
A guy dies on his motorcycle and it’s supposed to be somehow related to a gun death? JohnW, you’re not even trying. See my comment about the car/gun analogy. You didn’t succeed any better than Jack did.
Show us, John W, where folks took a Jeep Liberty and purposely used it to slaughter dozens of people.
That’s what I thought.
Thank goodness this guy had guns to enforce his demand that his tenants not park in his driveway. If he hadn’t had a gun, these two teens might still be alive to willfully ignore his orders.
http://tinyurl.com/a9e8gfr
@Kristen: “Of course the second amendment isn’t about hunting or self defense. It establishes a local militia, which today is the National Guard.”
Supreme Court disagrees.
@pammala: “you don’t complain about the millions of children intentionally butchered in abortion for convenience sake…why?”
Because they support abortion and hate guns. It’s not a matter of people dying, it’s a matter of just hating guns.
So Jack and pammala think that everybody who hates the ignorant proliferation of guns loves abortions?
Silliness.
pammala:
Everyone, including those who support the right to choice for pregnant women, should want to give people a better quality of life after birth. And rational anti-massacre measures are about creating a better quality of life for all. The two positions, pro-choice and support for massacre control measures, share an identical perspective on the realities of making life more humane.
Feel free to try and make the case that giving massacres an easier path to occur yields a better quality of life for either the born or the unborn.
@gdad,
I will stand beside you if you want to support legislation that would make it illegal to shoot people for trying to take your parking space. That law would make a lot of sense.
#150 is the 100% truth of the matter. All of this bantering is just for fun. They choose to be defenseless and resent us for choosing not to be. Truthfully, they are afraid of guns and think everyday people are incapable of responsibly owning them because they are afraid that they themselves are not so capable. This attitude is eroding our liberties. I’ve put up with it for years. When I talk to these people, I just think how far behind they are in understanding their own rights and anything about firearms.
They may get raped, robbed, or murdered for what they believe in, but I find it ridiculous that they think I should risk suffering that fate for what they believe in. Not me, not mine, not today.
Nonsense, gdad. That intrepid gun-owning hero was saving his driveway from invasion. Yet another crime prevented…thanks to guns.
Yes pammala and Jack, we do “complain” about abortion. In fact, we are the ones who are always looking for ways to make them the last choice a person makes, not the first. We support comprehensive sex education, reproductive services, financial support to mothers who choose to have their child and support services for young mothers and children. What, besides complain and denigrate women, do you do to stop it? Oh yes, outlaw abortion from gun advocates is a huge hypocrisy even pammala and Jack should be able to see.
The Supreme Court “disagreed” by one vote. Cling if you must, but know there is no massive support for military style assault guns with 30 round magazines in the more educated and honest Constitutional scholars.
56
Sandi,
Where is the morality component of your “efforts” to stop abortion? The fact is, you people are the ones who have made abortion on demand possible. If you thought it was so wrong, you’d work to outlaw it.
Jack, such a law would be an unsupportable erosion of our liberties. He was standing his ground and had every right to defend his property by gunning down two kids in cold blood. A great day for freedom!
Excellent Letter to the Editor today from RUDY J. VIETMEIER, who makes this excellent point:
“I once overheard a dialogue between a National Rifle Association member and a gun control enthusiast in which the NRA person retorted, “Do you have a problem with freedom?”
Historian Will Durant has this to say about freedom: “The first condition of freedom is its limitation; make it absolute and it dies in chaos.”
http://blogs.roanoke.com/roundtable/
There are also two EXCELLENT Commentaries today:
http://www.roanoke.com/editorials/commentary/wb/318375
“Mental Health: what we choose to do”
By Alan Forrest
http://www.roanoke.com/editorials/commentary/wb/318374
“Looking for evil in the wrong places”
By Clyde Evely
This argument is passing you by John Wilburn and Jack and other gun advocates. The massacre of children is not going to leave you unscathed in your “freedom” to have military style assault weapons with huge magazines.
Sandi,
Are you suggesting that Supreme Court decisions that win by one vote should actually lose because they only won by a single vote? When a Supreme Court is divided 5-4 the 4′s should have it because five isn’t enough?
Also, please don’t use the term “military style.” It was only made up last week and it sounds really stupid when people use it.
Guns used by the military generally have a trigger. Therefore, guns with triggers are “military style.” The military uses predominantly black guns. Therefore, black guns are “military style.” Military snipers use bolt-action rifles with five round magazines. Therefore, bolt-action rifles with magazines that hold as few as five rounds are “military style.”
Did anyone notice that Feinstein’s Constitutional-squashing bill would ban handguns, too?
(well, banned for all but the extremely wealthy)
I was sad to read of Betty Price’s passing….I always enjoyed her letters.
I did enjoy Christina Nuckold’s piece. She might be the only human in history to put Brad Pitt and Daniel L. Crandall in the same paragraph.
I’m mot missing your argument, Sandi. I just profoundly disagree with it. The “NRA member” missed the distinction between freedom and liberty. Freedom is not bound by laws, where liberty is. Murder is already illegal, the acts one can legally commit with a firearm are very limited. Discharge of firearms for recreation and hunting is limited by most counties. There are lots of limitations on the liberty we have with firearms as to respect the liberty of others. HOWEVER, this does not include legislating your fears away or taking from the lawful because you don’t trust them.
Restoring our liberty is not creating chaos and the last 17 years have proven that.
“Snipers cannot conceal their weapons”
Ignorant and wrong comment by John Wilburn
Right there, John Wilburn’s elected to show just how much he willfully ignored the details of the Malvo sniping spree, which was done by concealing the same type of Bushmaster rifle used in the Ct. school massacre and the Colorado theater massacre. Yet John Wilburn insists without any stated exception that such weapons do save lives.
JW also mentions bows and arrows, scoped shotguns, and his pistol, which he boasts can shoot 300 feet. But a Barrett .50 caliber sniper rifle, still available on the U.S. civilian market, can shoot over a mile and pierce the armor of armored personnel carriers.
“John C. Killorin, a former special agent in charge of the Atlanta field division of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF), called Barrett’s (.50 caliber sniper rifle) “a devastatingly powerful weapon against which most troops, most law enforcement, no civilians, have any means of defense.”
John’s fellow gun apologist Jack wrote:
“The .50 cal rifle is great for stopping planes from taking off, or stopping trucks from driving, but a massacre weapon? Nah.. far from it”
And right there, Jack’s elected to say he wouldn’t consider the downing of an airliner a massacre. He’d like these weapons to remain available to any ostensibly legal buyer. Some humanitarian, that Jack.
Quoting Va. Congressman Jim Moran’s proposal to restrict these weapons from being available to anyone who wants one:
“…the intended use of these long-range firearms…is the taking of human life and the destruction of materiel, including armored vehicles and such components of the national critical infrastructure as radars and microwave transmission devices, in addition .50 caliber sniper weapons pose a significant threat to civil aviation in that they are capable of destroying or disabling jet aircraft … The virtually unrestricted availability of these firearms and ammunition, given the uses intended in their design and manufacture, present a serious and substantial threat to the national security.”
While not abandoning discussion of small weapons or ammunition, I intentionally raised the issue of sniper rifles because it illustrates just how extremely radical and unyielding some NRA/VCDL members like John Wilburn are. It also is virtually indefensible by gun apologists; notice how neither JW or Jack have offered any details on how a hidden handgun could protect unsuspecting people against a Malvo type sniping. That’s because they can’t, period.
John Wilburn likes to drop jargon like CQB (close quarters battle) to give his opinions an “expert” veneer, and seems to enjoy thinking of himself as an expert the equal or greater to anyone, but the truth is that like many others, he’s simply a semi-amateur gun user, too young to remember the pre-radical NRA, and his work as a paid CCP instructor has occured during a time of relaxing CCP standards. Whether his manifest sense of paranoia and Rambo fantasies are truly all of his own reckoning or an unexamined inculcation is not clear, but in any case, his dogmatic attitude on guns is highly reminiscent of religious fundamentalists.
Jack is a poster who uses the same level of blog disclosure that John Wilburn bitterly critizes in other gun owners who support reasonable massacre control measures. Even as Jack admits that high powered sniper rifles aren’t useful for personal defense, he says he wouldn’t consider shooting down an airliner to be a massacre. And despite making false comparisons between cars and guns, Jack hasn’t said if he supports making registration and qualifying to hide and use guns at least as involved as the driving exam.
The issue of weapons like the .50 caliber sniper rifle and the mass murders’ preferred gun the Bushmaster XM-15 is one in which it becomes totally clear how, despite the NRA and gun lobby’s efforts at preventing informed debate, the first amendment can mortally wound radical 2A extremism, leaving massacre weapon apologists as impotent as a distant CCP carrier sighted in Malvo’s hidden scope.
“they are afraid of guns and think everyday people are incapable of responsibly owning them”
Unprovable rationalization by thirty-something man John Wilburn, who claims to fear being raped.
Speak for yourself, John.
I’m an everyday person, I’m not afraid of guns, I keep a gun in my home, and I’m capable of responsibly handling them without fetishizing them.
So I know that John Wilburn is wrong. Again.
In the DC v Heller case heard by the US Supreme Court, the finding was there was a right to “a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home.”
HOWEVER you must read further in the Scalia opinion:
Scalia also argued the protection has some limits.
Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited.
It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose
Scalia also wrote that the opinion was not in conflict with bans on gun ownership for convicted felons or the mentally ill. He also did not argue against restrictions on gun-carrying in places like schools and government buildings.
Scalia’s opinion also includes language that may help those who want restrictions on assault rifles and magazines that can hold large numbers of bullets.
There is plenty of wiggle room to begin restricting and regulating the high capacity magazines that have been responsible for killing so many in a short space of time. Maybe that is a good starting point, no?
http://market-ticker.org/post=215441
We have more guns per capita than any other country by FAR. I guess this makes us the most “free” and you’d think we were the “safest” too. We’re neither.
Because they support abortion and hate guns. It’s not a matter of people dying, it’s a matter of just hating guns.
Beautifully said, Jack. You nailed it. The far left doesn’t care a whit about children dying.
Jack, don’t forget that walnut stocks, wooden handgrips, and a blues finish were all “military style” at one time. Why on earth should civilians be punished for enjoying the same innovations in cosmetic durability that the military guns have like composite stocks and parkerized finishes? “Military style” is indeed one of the dumbest terms the media has people buying into. Another is “high capacity magazines” when referring to regular magazines. It’s a reduced capacity magazine they are wanting. Just another way to incorrectly frame the argument to scare the uninformed public.
“the term “military style”…was only made up last week ”
Jack’s revisionist history
That’s total BS, Jack.
164.“the term “military style”…was only made up last week”
Showing just how absurd Jack’s ignorant claim is:
Researchers at N.C. State were using the phrase “military style weapons” in 2004:
“The politicized movements of the 1980′s left over many unused military-style weapons”
http://wikis.lib.ncsu.edu/index.php/US_Military_Assistance_Policies_on_Arms_Sales_and_Gifts
Here’s an old example cached from a gun discussion site:
“the .45 ACP version still had the standard military style ejection port).”
http://www.imfdb.org/wiki/Talk:M1911_pistol_series
Even ebay has been allowing ads selling paintball guns as “military style” for a long time:
http://compare.ebay.com/like/160646042202?var=lv<yp=AllFixedPriceItemTypes&var=sbar
Those first examples took me about ten seconds to find.
Jack’s wrong as wrong can be in saying that “military style” was coined last week, but he probably really believes it.
Reality, Jack.
Jack, I am “suggesting” that the Supreme Court may well have this issue come before it again if the gun advocates will not accept a ban on military style assault rifles and 30 round magazines and that the 5-4 Heller decision will not mean the safety net some gun advocates claim.
It is not just about “decisions that win by one vote” but those that keep coming back.
Of course I do not think that a 5-4 vote “should actually lose because they only won by a single vote” and that is not what I said.
You may claim that “military style” is “made up” just as you have for “assault rifle” but they are here to stay and they fit. That military application is very much part of their allure. Who are you trying to kid?
What “sounds stupid” is to claim it is “made up”.
Spin till you are dizzy and fall down, it changes nothing. Your efforts to discredit the truth prove it all the more.
John Wilburn, that you “profoundly disagree” troubles me not at all. I do not consider you to be rational on the subject.
If one exists, “the distinction between freedom and liberty” is still irrelevant to the point. Freedom and liberty cannot work in a large society without limits. Those limits are the laws we are all bound by. Because someone disobeys or breaks the law is no reason to rescind the law.
No argument that “the acts one can legally commit with a firearm are very limited” (though I might quibble over “very”) but the goal is to keep that from being murder, especially mass murder, if possible. Eliminating the machismo and glorification of these mass shooting guns is a good first step IMO.
“There are lots of limitations on the liberty” of individuals in several realms, not only the use of deadly guns. Once the “respect the liberty of others” is breached, repeatedly, by either, something has to give. Your freedom and liberty cannot continue to be at the expense of mass shootings and terror in public.
Whine that is “legislating your fears away or taking from the lawful” as you like.
Liberty has a price, not all gun owners/operators are willing to pay. Too bad for you. Try blaming them, not me.
Sandi, Gunners don’t like for us to use the term “Military Style” because it might “scare” people. You know, like calling Obama’s plan to save the middle class a “socialist, communist plot to overthrow the American way of life…”
I agree Kristen. Betty Price was one of a kind and truly a class act from head to toe. She had a gift and a way to impart learning that made people want to please her and win her praise. I loved having her in our “Voices of the Valleys” group and I feel very privileged to have know such a fine lady in every sense of the word. The world has suffered a loss. She made a difference.
Sandi Sanders:
“It is not just about “decisions that win by one vote” but those that keep coming back.”
Sandi is referring to legislating from the bench. Something she obviously supports.
“I do not consider you to be rational on the subject.”
…followed by….
“If one exists, “the distinction between freedom and liberty” is still irrelevant to the point.”
And she claims I miss HER point?!?!?!
“Because someone disobeys or breaks the law is no reason to rescind the law.”
Because someone breaks one law is no reason to create another in search of its own justification either.
“because they are afraid that they themselves are not so capable.”
More silly conjecture from John W.
“That law would make a lot of sense.”
Does the two dead teens a lot of good doesn’t it, Jack?
Warren:
“he’s simply a semi-amateur gun user”
A laughable, toothless credibility attack from an anonymous keyboard-weilding hypocritical gun owner who goes by Warren, at least on this blog anyway.
I did figure you kept a gun in your home.
Cold n P:
“Sandi, Gunners don’t like for us to use the term “Military Style” because it might “scare” people”
How should we refer to your SKS Cold n P? Considering that it is actually a military surplus rifle, shold you be allowed to keep it? By the way bloggers, the SKS shoots a more powerful round than the recently demonized Bushmaster (7.62×39 vs. 5.56×45), has a bayonet, is designed for a rifle grenade launcher, and can accept the AK-47′s 100 round beta mags.
gdad:
“177.“That law would make a lot of sense.”
Does the two dead teens a lot of good doesn’t it, Jack?”
Decide people…. do yo want more ineffective laws or not. Geez.
By the way “Warren”, military style could be used to refer to something military, but is far more often used to refer to anything scary-looking with black furniture or a parkerized finished. Your second incorrect example with the 1911 suggests that you really don’t know this, which makes me feel better that you weren’t simply reaching to insult Jack.
“Military style” is the buzz-word du jour of the media and, in this new context, has a different meaning altogether.
Considering over 200 years of jurisprudence, including the Supreme Court’s did not give the distinction to the Second Amendment that Heller did, I do not think you have grounds to complain about “legislating from the bench” which is precisely what they did! Do you seriously not get that, or just hope we won’t?
So Sandi, what will you call it if Obama goes around congress and “reclassifies” a lot of rifles, hanguns, and shotguns to wrongly put them under Title II of the NFA and screw gun owners over the sneaky way? “Exective workaround”, perhaps?
I approve of the SMS, provided it’s outfitted with the grenade launcher. You never know when you’re gonna need one of those — for self-defense.
Dan:
“I approve of the SMS, provided it’s outfitted with the grenade launcher.”
Dan, the day our Short Message Service a.k.a. text messages are outfitted with grenade launchers, it’s on like Donkey Kong! LOL!
.
JW, the difference between you and me is that if my gun is banned, I will follow the law and turn it in. What will you do?
It’s so fricking hilariously you guys really think Americans are going to buy the argument we need MORE GUNS to fix the massive violence problem we have in america. OR wait, no, BAN PS3 and games.
When those arguments get thoroughly debunked, then bring out the hypocrite card. Now that’s rich.
I really want you to answer my question JW, will you follow the law if the AR15 or some other weapon of mass destruction you own gets banned and must be turned in?
Uh, SKS. Damn smartphone
How bout them Skins, eh?
Lol Dan. I did wonder how text messages were going to defend us.
Yeah, I like the iPhone’s autocorrect, but there are a lot of gun terms and creative adjectives it doesn’t like. Pretty good with acronyms, though.
As much as “Warren” liked CQB, he would really have liked last week’s three letter acronym for him that didn’t get approved. Who would have thought “Good For You” would have been shot down?
Cold n P:
First of all, I didn’t call for the ban of any games. I think they are protected under the First Amendment and require personal responsibility. Second, you didn’t answer my question. I asked if you think you should be allowed to keep your SKS. Not what you’ll do once threatened with a ten year felony like the new bill proposes.
Do you think you should be allowed to keep your SKS? You don’t have to answer, but I want the other bloggers to know you enjoy your liberty whether you are willing to protect it or not.
@Warren: “But a Barrett .50 caliber sniper rifle, still available on the U.S. civilian market, can shoot over a mile and pierce the armor of armored personnel carriers.”
My friend bought one last week. $13,000. “Cheap” ammo for it is $7.50/round.
I think Jack’s friend needs to be taxed more.
Shhhhhh, Jack. Don’t let it get out that gun bans and regulations are really only price increasers and that the criminals and elitists will be the beneficiaries.
If President Obama has the legal authority to classify rifles, handguns, or shotguns under Title II of the NFA I will say I am happy not to have to wait on this dysfunctional Congress for anything. If he does not have that legal authority, then his effort would be unconstitutional.
Is it true that Tony Romo is a gun owner?
Sandi Sanders:
“If President Obama has the legal authority to classify rifles, handguns, or shotguns under Title II of the NFA I will say I am happy not to have to wait on this dysfunctional Congress for anything.”
I’m as shocked by this attitude as I am by what time my clock will display in 5 minutes.
.
Dan, wouldn’t most NFL players own guns?
Feinstein’s bill is not retroactive, nobody is turning in their guns.
“Why on earth should civilians be punished for enjoying the same innovations in cosmetic durability that the military guns have”
Everyone’s welcome to any innovations in the cosmetic durability of their guns. It’s the overall lethal capabilities that military guns have that aren’t justifiable for everyone, and that no SCOTUS, including the Heller court, has ever given absolute rights to possess.
And it’s sadly necessary to point out that the verb “enjoy” can apply to the cosmetic and engineering innovations of guns, but should never apply when their lethal capacities are used, be they military or civilian.
Don’t you like how way back at comment 108, pistol pete made a comment about England’s gun ban and between that and an anti’s response, it totally derailed this thread about teachers?
Like gun threads or not, they get “ratings” around here.
A weird article for John Wilburn (no guns).
“…military style could be used to refer to something military, but is far more often used to refer to anything scary-looking with black furniture or a parkerized finished”
comment by JW
And the marketing usage that JW cites is itself far more recent and voguish than the very longstanding and widepread usage that the phrase plainly means: having military characteristics, patterned after or reminiscent of military models.
Which makes me feel no less certain that JW was just flailing to defuse the impact of a clear and longstanding description.
Art Hill:
“Feinstein’s bill is not retroactive, nobody is turning in their guns.”
Fienstein’s bill does demand registration with photo and figerprints and involvement of yor local PD if you don’t turn your guns in. Many people will choose to turn their guns in before getting on that list.
John W, it’s juts that there’s so much silly juvenile crap coming from gun nuts these days.
#199, it’s the cosmetic that most members of the media are referring to when they say “military style”. Guns with a black finish are almost always said to be “militray style”. I swear I could paint a 100 year old muzzle-loading groundhog rifle black and someone from the media would incorrectly identify it as “military style”.
Dan, that is very true. I had an atheist client who would not look at properties in “Christiansburg”. I once had another client who was big-time into numerology. They bought a particular condo because it was unit 303 in building 3201. Out of 18 choices, the condo with number 303 added up to 6 and building 3201, which also added up to 6, was the clear choice. I’m completely serious. Both were good clients by the way.
By the way, I was almost afraid to tell a very over the top evangelical client that the property he wanted to buy on Mudpike Road in Christiansburg was on Route 666. I told him, but was relieved to find out that particular superstition doesn’t bother him.
Warren:
“Which makes me feel no less certain that JW was just flailing to defuse the impact of a clear and longstanding description.”
I don’t care how you feel. I’m just trying to get people to not be duped by the media into thinking any gun is more deadly or somehow more potent because of the way it looks.
180: “A…credibility attack from an anonymous keyboard-weilding hypocritical gun owner who goes by Warren”
comment by JW
JW, I wasn’t attacking your credibilty, I was guarding against the risk of its’ inflation. “Semi-amateur” is a description that many would consider a compliment, since most gun users are fully amateur. And it’s simply stating facts to say that you’re too young to remember the pre-radical NRA, and that your work as a paid CCP instructor has occured during a time of relaxing CCP standards.
And what’s up with criticizing my level of blog disclosure but not Jack’s basically identical level, John? Surely not hypocrisy, eh? I even described myself on here last weekend; did you miss it? (BTW, tell us about your Roanoke Tea Party/VCDL pal; do you know if his arsenal against UN tyranny includes a musket and a tri-cornered hat?)
“John W, it’s juts that there’s so much silly juvenile crap coming from gun nuts these days.”
Says the person who shows no reaction to such phrases as “gun worshipper”, “gun apologists”, or “praisers of child slaughter weapons”.
Don’t tell me the pro-rights side has the edge on juvenile.
Re: (#201) Dan’s interesting Denver Post link about problematic home addresses:
Something I’ve wondered about, and which perhaps Blacksburg real estate broker John Wilburn has heard and can share with us, is the location of the Blacksburg cabin where Henry Lee Lucas spent his childhood.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henry_Lee_Lucas
200: “…back at comment 108, pistol pete made a comment about England’s gun ban and…it totally derailed this thread about teachers? Like gun threads or not, they get “ratings” around here”
comment by JW
JW seems to miss his own prolific role in making that so, exactly like he seems to miss the role of guns used in public massacres.
205: “it’s the cosmetic that most members of the media are referring to when they say “military style”
Actually, John, you should give yourself and those who share your attitudes on guns more credit. You’ve all very effectively made the case that the 1994 Brady bill relied too much on extraneous factors like the cosmetics of guns for making categorical definitions. Thus, you’ll deserve credit for the better drawn definitions in the future regulatory environment.
Well done, sir!
John W.
Link?
200: “…back at comment 108, pistol pete made a comment about England’s gun ban and…it totally derailed this thread”
comment by John Wilburn
That’s the very same John Wilburn who made exactly a quarter (23) of all the gun comments made between the post he cited (#108) and the post in which made his comment (#200).
Keyboards don’t post excuses for massacre weapons, people do.
John W.
Never mind, I found it. The bill won’t pass in it’s original form. Ironic that Feinstein’s husband is a big arms dealer, I doubt seriously she’d bite the hand that feeds them.
Oops, my mistake, but hey, it’s late. There were ten non-gun posts between #108 and #200. So JW actually made MORE than 1/4, or 23 of 82, of the posts before he mentioned the thread’s direction. No wonder he also doesn’t seem to recognize the effect his advocacy of radical gun positions is having.
Art Hill:
“Feinstein’s bill is not retroactive, nobody is turning in their guns.”
Fienstein’s bill does demand registration with photo and figerprints and involvement of yor local PD if you don’t turn your guns in. Many people will choose to turn their guns in before getting on that list.
Comment by John Wilburn — December 31, 2012 @ 12:13 am
And a tax stamp for each.
Dan, Romo would shot himself in the foot or one of his own players based on his performance last night. Wow, you guys were still debating gun stuff at 1:30 am?
Yesterday, 4 of my hunting friends and I got together to talk about our hunting lease in Bedford County. The conversation drifted to gun control after we finished business. 4 of the 5 agreed that ALL gun sales should go through a dealer and be subject to an extensive background check including references. All could live with a 5 round maximum magazine size. It was a very interesting conversation. Oh, two of the five are NRA members but only because they can buy liability insurance for their property where hunting is allowed. All think the NRA has gone bonkers.
Nice, Warren, I didn’t go back to count John W’s contribution to the derailing.
Warren, I doubt it will matter to you, but I have been an NRA member since the 80s. Also, as soon as I saw pistol pete’s post and your willingness to change the direction, I knew very well that it was too late for this thread. At that point, I participated. I did not take the bait on yor VCDL criticism on yet another unrelated thread.
I think I know who you are referring to and have seen that guy that was working the booth around, but I don’t know much about him. He is a just a volunteer.
As for Jack, he has come to two blogger get togethers, has had his picture posted on this blog, and was at the VCDL picnic with his family and met Dan and Zach. Dave Hicks started posting his last name here a while back and said he didn’t have any reason not to. Perhaps Jack is simply defaulting to a first name basis and hasn’t given it that much thought, I don’t know. Dave Hicks hadn’t. although after watching yor ugly personal attacks on me, I wouldn’t blame him for not asking to be looked up and harshly criticized by “Warren”.
“That’s the very same John Wilburn who made exactly a quarter (23) of all the gun comments made between the post he cited (#108) and the post in which made his comment (#200).”
This is the same “Warren” who has made 7 posts since #200. He stays up until nearly 2:00am posting about me and even trying to somehow tie me to a serial killer. Creepy.
JW, I don’t think Warren was “tying” you to a serial killer, so much as he was wondering if by virtue of your employment you know the location of the cabin in question. I’d guess it’s down in the McCoy area? Or west on 460 in a place that still has a Blacksburg address? I’m kind of curious, too, since Warren brought it up.
Dan, I don’t know where that cabin would be, but there were a lot more places it could have been in 1936. Today, a cabin like that would likely only be found in the McCoy, Norris Run, Wake Forest, or possibly Merrimac or Ellett Valley areas.
…know the location of the cabin in question. I’d guess it’s down in the McCoy area? Or west on 460 in a place that still has a Blacksburg address? I’m kind of curious, too, since Warren brought it up.
Comment by Dan Casey — December 31, 2012 @ 10:16 am
I, too, am curious. After finding nothing helpful on da Interwebz, I made a few phone calls. I’ve gotten four possible areas: Merrimac, Mt. Zion, the hollow at the base of Brush Mtn. (I assume the Preston Forest/ Mt. Tabor side) and Yellow Sulphur. No one thinks the cabin is still standing. I’m waiting on a callback from a gentleman at VT who may be able to narrow it down for us.
Henry Lee Lucas always fascinated me because my older sister was studying psychology and serial killers in particular. I remember reading her books about him when I was a tween.
#191 To each his own, Jack, but I think your friend has more money than brains, not to mention that no one other than law enforcement should even have such a weapon. Is your friend stocking up to defend himself in case the tyrannical gov’t comes after his guns?
Fienstein’s bill does demand registration with photo and figerprints and involvement of yor local PD if you don’t turn your guns in. Many people will choose to turn their guns in before getting on that list.
Comment by John Wilburn — December 31, 2012 @ 12:13 am
If they’re law abiding citizens, then why should they worry? It’s okay to demand photo ID for voting, but not owning a gun?
Debbie:
“#191 To each his own, Jack, but I think your friend has more money than brains”
He’s smarter than you realize Debbie. Guns are a great investment and have increased in value significantly over the years.
Debbie, first of all, I’m not the one who was complaining abot photo ID to vote. Second, there is a big problem with a registration scheme. It is nothing but a step toward confiscation.
JW your powers of reasoning are fading. READ THE WHOLE POST. Here is the pertinent answer: “If my gun is banned, I will follow the law and turn it in. What will you do?”
I consider that an answer to your impertinent question. Should I be more clear and say my gun is not against the law to own so I will continue to own it. I have no mental illness, I am proficient in it’s upkeep and I operate it safely. I lock it up separate from my ammunition source making it difficult for someone to come into my house and come out with the weapon and ammunition. I would not support a ban on this weapon as it makes an excellent hunting gun, not however, not a good in close killing machine unlike the AR15 with it’s compact design which IS made for up close killing. I own no high capacity magazines, however I do own the presentation bayonet it came with which is rather useless as an effective defense tool. The only way I load the weapon is with the stock stripper clips which hold 10 rounds. I would support a ban on High Cap Mags which you seem enamored of.
btw I’m not calling for a ban either, but the more you talk the deeper you are digging the hole for banners to call for an out and out ban.
Now, if any of your guns are banned, what will you do JW, follow the law or become an outlaw?
Any more dodges? Just answer the question please.
Cold n P:
“Now, if any of your guns are banned, what will you do JW, follow the law or become an outlaw?”
There’s obviosly no good answer to this, but I’m glad our forefathers chose the latter.
Yesterday, 4 of my hunting friends and I got together to talk about our hunting lease in Bedford County. The conversation drifted to gun control after we finished business. 4 of the 5 agreed that ALL gun sales should go through a dealer and be subject to an extensive background check including references. All could live with a 5 round maximum magazine size. It was a very interesting conversation. Oh, two of the five are NRA members but only because they can buy liability insurance for their property where hunting is allowed. All think the NRA has gone bonkers.
Comment by Bill Perdue — December 31, 2012 @ 9:10 am
Bill,
First, let me say that I am looking forward to possibly meeting you on Saturday.
Second, allow me to comment on the above post. Certainly for hunting purposes, I figure five rounds per magazine would be sufficient. I have never heard of any hunted game returning fire. However, if you or your friends have been in some gun fights before and can provide insight as to why five rounds would be the most you would need, I am interested in hearing it.
Character references I will never support. Your character has nothing to do with whether or not you should be able to exercise your basic human rights.
I will also never support legislation that doesn’t allow for direct sales between individuals. You’d effectively be creating registration, which I also would not support.
A friend of mine and I were talking the other day about getting a little network of folks together to start trading parts around. I trade slides with person A, then barrels with person B. Person A and B will trade frames.
After a while, it would be really funny because the guns would end up with three different serial numbers, and multiple people would have the same gun… it would probably drive the government crazy.. and would be fun at the same time.
I see where two area store clerks followed standard advice by giving robbers what they demanded. Neither pulled a gin and commenced a shootout. Both emerged unscathed.
I bring it up only because the last time a clerk was injured while complying, the gun worshippers felt the need to point it out as evidence that all clerks should be armed. Since then, there have been numerous cases of complying clerks surviving without a scratch. Now, can any of the gun folks show me proof of what would have happened if either of these clerks had instead pulled a gun?
I didn’t think so.
I also have a friend who has a Glock 18. He just turned down an offer of $220,000 for it. Last year, he turned down an offer of $180,000 for it.
I guess he doesn’t have any brains, either. But you’re welcome to offer alternative investments that pay out like that.
If they’re law abiding citizens, then why should they worry? It’s okay to demand photo ID for voting, but not owning a gun?
Comment by Debbie — December 31, 2012 @ 11:57 am
No, it’s not. Nor do I believe that you should have to have a license to drive a car, but that is an argument for another day.
You forget that it also requires the tax stamp for each item, and to ask kindly for the permission of local law enforcement.
Okay, the only other thing I’ve been able to find out about Henry Lee Lucas is that it was likely the cabin was located near train tracks (Anderson, his father, worked for the railroad and lost his legs in an accident there). That doesn’t really narrow it down much, though. It eliminates Brush Mtn. from the list, but opens up Ellett/North Fork Valleys as a possibility. I’m trying to find an early 40′s railroad map to see which tracks were around during that period (the C&O, now long gone, still ran through New Castle back then).
This has been my first day off in a month and I’ve been bored out of my skull. Thank you, Gonzos, for giving me something upon which to waste my time. I love sleuthing out local history. The history behind H.L.L. is a difficult one to sort out, too. His story has almost become legend and as such, is interwoven with conflicting accounts and exaggeration.
You all need to get a new can. You’ve worn this one out kicking it down the road.
On a side note, has anyone thought of the idea of taxing firearms as personal property? With roughly 270 million guns in the US that might amount to some pretty good revenue.
Unless Blacksburg had a published town directory in 1936, probably shared with Radford and Christiansburg, it’s likely that the Lucas cabin is long gone and untraceable. And it may have been too rural or just plain poor and tumble down to be in a directory. Phone books probably weren’t made then except for in the town of Radford, and the dire circumstances of the Lucas household almost certainly didn’t include a phone. (I always wonder about the lives that occured in an abandoned cabin pretty far from any road that I see hiking to Dragon’s Tooth; it looks like it was more an old time residence than just someone’s part time hunting cabin.)
But like the many houses in Pennsylvania where “Washington slept”, or the NoVa houses with “Civil War” bullet holes sometimes added years after the war, there’s no reason an enetrprising real estate broker couldn’t hype a shack to the morbidity market as “possibly” the Lucas home. You listening, JW?
BTW, Charles Manson, besides drifting through on his way back and forth to the Charleston and southern Ohio areas where he was raised, spent a brief time as a teen in a juvenile facility near Natural Bridge.
“He stays up until nearly 2:00am posting about me and even trying to somehow tie me to a serial killer.’
More paranoid grandiosity from JW
JW, because of the people whose daily lives depend on my close attention, I’m sometimes up till about 2. But you’re sounding more like La Suze everyday in judging the schedules of others. It also sounds as if you’ve never been responsible for the daily lives of anyone but yourself. Not as a broker in business, or anything elective, but in total responsibility for the daily circumstances of living being met for those who can’t do it themselves, such as small children, the elderly and the handicapped. That fact would explain a good bit of your outlook.
JW, seems to me you’re happy to profit off the freedoms this country affords you, but in time of sacrifice, will you answer the call of your country?
I think I know the answer to that.
Throughout the history of the US, those entrusted to carry out government policies many times chose profit over morals. See Indian agents.
Yes I think this horse has been beat to death, this is my last post on this thread, I’d rather go to the dentist than get an honest answer out of JW.
One more point if interest, why did I even purchase an SKS? Paranoia instilled by the NRA way back in the eighties when the enemy was a GOP president by the name of Reagan. My point is the NRA does not have the freedom of the American people on its agenda, that’s just propaganda for their real reason to exist. Profit for the gun industry.
Dealers in death. Playing the heartstrings of the American Patriot like Charlie Daniels playing “the devil went down to Georgia.”
Happy New Year! Or is that “Happy Fiscal Cliff?”
“I don’t care how you feel. I’m just trying to get people to not be duped by the media into thinking any gun is more deadly or somehow more potent because of the way it looks.
Comment by John Wilburn — December 31, 2012 @ 12:32 am
Your comment reeks with arrogance. I don’t think for a moment that people are “duped” by the way a weapon looks – I think weapons, when loaded with a high capacity magazine which can kill 30 people in less than 30 seconds, can certainly be deduced as more deadly than a revolver with 5 or 6 shots. The AR-15 looks completely different than a handgun – an Uzi looks completely different than a Colt .45. We will instinctively, and by prior knowledge, know which is deadlier. I doubt that anyone would confuse the lethality of a Bushmaster .223 with a 100 round drum, with any revolver or standard shotgun used for hunting.
Duped? No, because unfortunately, whether on television or in the movies, or when mass killings take place, we Americans are, sadly, being “schooled” in weapon lethality.
It is time for our community, state, and national leaders to listen to what the majority of the country has been saying for the last few years—and stand up to the NRA, the Rambo types, and others, and begin to work to change some of our regulations on guns.
http://www.everydaynodaysoff.com/2010/03/21/glock-18-yes-its-affordable-no-you-cant-personally-have-one/
Or, Jack, you can get one for $500.
We’ve got to ban the high capacity magazines. I’m convinced of it. If we do it, the shooter will have to reload more often, and it would give a potential victim time to bum rush them and beat them into submission with a stick.
Here are a few videos showing you the approximate amount of time you’ll give yourself by forcing the shooter to reload…
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rGKvpabCCJ4
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WHAPDFxlTvE
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ejB8aJcOnHM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S09rCeFkzu0
These were the first four I found very quickly. I’m sure there are better ones.
Jack, we actually met at the Gonzo get togethers. I have been fortunate not to be involved in any gun fights – at least ones that would require more than 5 rounds at a “clip”.
If references aren’t ok with you, how can we curb mentally unstable people from buying guns? That’s what I think we need to somehow control.
Sorry you wouldn’t support a system where all guns have to be sold through a dealer with a background check required. I believe a majority of gun owners would disagree with you but what do I know? I have a friend that advertised a semi-auto pistol for sell. When a potential buyer contacted him and they talked, he felt uneasy about selling the gun to this guy. My friend did a simple background check (like anyone can do) on the Internet and the guy was a convicted felon. One of his felonies was illegal possession of a fire arm. My friend did not sell the gun to the felon. Maybe he prevented an armed robbery or worse – most would have sold the gun, no questions asked and IMHO, that’s we’re most felons get guns.
Warren, Blacksburg has had a phone directory since 1933. The Newman Library at Viginia Tech has every year in Special Collections. If I remember, I’ll look and see if there is any entry for the Lucases, but very seriously doubt a per-WWII, two room log house would have had a phone then. I know a few people who might have known them or know of them. I’m kind of curious now myself.
Oh, thanks for your incorrect assumptions about me, BTW. It’s become your hallmark; no need to even respond.
Cold n P, there is really no reason to question my patriotism. I do like how you made more of a “hunting rifle” case for your SKS. They can be made just as short and hold just as many rounds as the AR-15. My point is that there’s no reason to defend the qualities one over the other as the gun grabbers don’t care about anything practical in this matter at all. They will delight in taking something from us for the same of taking it. It’s not about saving lives or public safety. It’s all about using thier iron fist of authority.
I will fight aggressively for your right to keep that SKS and whatever mag you choose to put in it.
Also, you can dis the NRA, but they were right. I bet you didn’t pay $70 for that SKS that is worth $300 now because of the AWB they correctly saw coming. You have a good rifle, an great investment, and no reason to complain.
Hillary:
“I don’t think for a moment that people are “duped” by the way a weapon looks”
You’re completely wrong about this. It amazes all the time what people conjecture about gun based solely on how they look.
Kristen,
I can’t. Law enforcement can. You’re right, it is a $500 gun… of which there are only three in circulation in the US that civilians may own.
MP5 is about a $1,200 gun, but if you want one you’ll pay at least $20,000 for it.
By the way, the very few Glock 18s that are owned by civilians are Class 3 firearms and require the ATF paperwork and tax stamp, etc. Like any machine guns, they are more rare every year as they break, etc. and cannot be replaced with new ones.
Another friend, for example, has a fully automatic MP5 with a quick detach suppressor. He is a Class 3 dealer now (including manufacture), but was not at the time he acquired the gun. He simply went through all of the hoops and paid for the two stamps (that gun required everything to be done twice and paid twice) and had a boatload of money to pay for it.
Like I said, it’s about a $1,200 gun, but because of the ban, they are extremely rare.
He does not shoot it. If he wanted to shoot one, he’d just rent one at the range since his is not replaceable.
I had a picture of myself holding it, but I can’t seem to find the picture anywhere.
I found the picture… I love GMail. This MP5 is select fire, single, burst, full auto and the silencer (suppressor) is quick detach.
http://sphotos-a.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-prn1/542998_10152426234075235_1031497439_n.jpg
I always wonder about the lives that occured in an abandoned cabin pretty far from any road that I see hiking to Dragon’s Tooth; it looks like it was more an old time residence than just someone’s part time hunting cabin.
Comment by Warren — December 31, 2012 @ 3:02 pm
I know that cabin. It was indeed a full-time homestead around the turn of the 20th century. The last time I was through there, one lone apple tree was all that’s left of the mini-orchard that once grew behind it. If what my stepfather has told me is true, they were relatives of his. Dessie was the woman’s name and I can’t recall her husband’s name. Twice a year, my step’s family used to travel from Poor Mountain and go there to visit. That’s the story, anyway. Take it with a grain of salt.
As far as Henry Lee Lucas is concerned, I’ve been able to likely eliminate Yellow Sulphur and Merrimac as locations, because in ’36 those areas were considered part of the county seat, C’burg. I’m in contact with a local historian who might be able to shed some more precise light on the story, but it won’t be until after New Year’s. I agree that the cabin is probably long gone. Untraceable? No such thing. Someone, somewhere has a story to tell about this and has the information I seek. I consider this a challenge. I’ll fill in the blanks on an OPEN thread in the future.
Kristen:
“Or, Jack, you can get one [a Glock 18] for $500.”
Not true at all. The Glock 18 is full auto and not available to the general public, even with a tax stamp and registration. There may be a few, extremely rare, versions built prior to the deadline in 1986 that civilians may own. I suspect that is what Jack’s friend has and if so, the price tag makes sense.
Jack:
“No, it’s not. Nor do I believe that you should have to have a license to drive a car, but that is an argument for another day.”
I’ve said this for a long time. I don’t think the driver’s license is making our streets any safer, but it is a very effective method of tracking and registering people and a good way for the government to keep it’s nose under our tents. But, as Jack said, that’s a topic for another day….
John W and Jack, as I said, to each his own. Personally I can think of lots of things I would spend thousands of dollars on, if I had thousands in disposable income, but guns aren’t one of them. It’s just something I find hard to comprehend, unless the guns are antiques.
Jack:
“Here are a few videos showing you the approximate amount of time you’ll give yourself by forcing the shooter to reload…”
Ha. I can swap them in the Glock even quicker with its short magwell and single-hand operation. Long gun or handgun, mag changes are supposed to be quick.
Debbie,
I totally understand. I have friends that spend thousands of dollars on things I wouldn’t spend twenty dollars on, and it goes both ways.
As we move into 2013, make a resolution to support an institution of public education. Volunteer to read a story to a 2nd grade class. Volunteer to chaperone a field trip for your neighborhood middle school. Volunteer to be a part of career day at a local high school. If our children see us commit to being a part of public education, they will commit as well.
And here’s hoping that the highest caliber weapon you wield in 2013 is a Mizuno JPX Pro 825. No need to reload with the Pro 825, as its shots are highly accurate up to 200 yards. Increase distance and accuracy by upgrading the Pro 825 with Rifle 5.5s. The Mizuno JPX Pro 825 is supremely well-balanced and will perform at a high level under presure. Remember, Mizuno JPX Pro 825 irons don’t hit themselves; people hit these irons. Get out to your local PGA pro in 2013 and take a lesson. Live large, play golf!
Happy New Year!
“thanks for your incorrect assumptions about me”
comment by JW
John, If you’re referring to my saying that you’re too young to remember the pre-radical NRA, one’d have to remember it before 1977 to have any idea of the NRA before its’ takeover by a coalition of far right wing poltical operatives and gun industry lobbyists. So your adolescent membership of the 80s isn’t early enough for firsthand memory.
I don’t know what else could be incorrect that I’ve ever posted; it’s mostly all derived from stuff you post about yourself.
I chaperoned a fourth grade field trip to Monticello a few years ago. Also, back in my late teens/early twenties I read to a second grade class almost every week. My wife tells me that is one of the things that made her fall in love with me.
Happy new year to you, too, Jason… and the rest of you.
John Wilburn, I believe there are roughly three Glock 18s that are available that civilians can own (again, with the ATF checks and paperwork and tax stamp). Of course a $200 tax stamp is chump change when you can afford the gun itself.
Then again, none of the machine guns are really all that costly… it’s just an artificial price tag created by the ban.
You’re completely wrong about this. It amazes all the time what people conjecture about gun based solely on how they look.
Comment by John Wilburn — December 31, 2012 @ 4:18 pm
What amazes me John is that you summarily categorize people who disagree with your point of view as being easily “duped”. In person you do not appear to be so arrogant, why on the blog give that impression?
Hillary, I stand by that statement. The majority of the media and public don’t understand what they see. Once it became fashionable to use synthetic stocks instead of classic walnut and parkerized finishes or black paint instead of the classic blued finish and more stainless steel parts came into use, a surprising number of people who didn’t give the classic hunting rifle a second look, now get scared by what they think is some exotic weapon. The media purposely does nothing to help this. Perpetuating irrational fear over a gun’s cosmetics sells their audience.
Check out these rifles:
http://tinyurl.com/ao5f4nz
Which is .22 caliber, semi-automatic, and carbine-length? Both! The rifle on the bottom, a Ruger 10-22 would draw little attention as it is what most people consider a hunting rifle to look like. The rifle on the top, an AR-15, which Virginia says is not powerful enough to hunt deer, would get all kinds of attention.
Can the 10-22 be made to be scary-looking?
http://tinyurl.com/alxd7qm
http://tinyurl.com/ba4kp2r
Of course.
Another scary 10-22!
http://tinyurl.com/aebofxp
It is every bit as much a youth target rifle when it looks like this, but this would horrify some people where the docile stock 10-22 wouldn’t bother some people to see a young sportsman shoot.
You can say that you wouldn’t be fooled, but you would also be in the minority. It used to surprise me, but not anymore.
You all need to get a new can. You’ve worn this one out kicking it down the road.
On a side note, has anyone thought of the idea of taxing firearms as personal property? With roughly 270 million guns in the US that might amount to some pretty good revenue.
Comment by Newman — December 31, 2012 @ 2:33 pm
Great idea. At 1000 per gun annually that would give us 270000000000 a year. Over ten yearts that would be 2.7 trillion dollars. That would accomplish one of two things. It would either solve the fiscal crisis or it would show us just how much the gun enthusiasts really love their guns
because the penalty for non payment of taxes would be confiscation of the property just like a tax lien on real estate or a car. We either solve the finsncial crisis or geg rid of the gun problem. Win! Win!
JohnW, solid gold no ones selling that gun for $200k. You could probably get a nice little nuke for that.
John W – I see your point, but I still believe you underestimate
what the general public knows…if anything, the last presidential election should have taught many of us that Americans aren’t easily “duped”
wayne goodman:
“We either solve the finsncial crisis or geg rid of the gun problem. Win! Win!”
And drive the country into oblivion in the process. The elite would have guns, though. Just the way they want it.
Kristen:
“JohnW, solid gold no ones selling that gun for $200k. You could probably get a nice little nuke for that.”
There are old collectible cars that sell for more than houses too. A rare 1970 Plymouth ‘Cuda convertible sold at auction a few years back for over $2,000,000. A very nice replica could be built for about 40K. I’ve seen cars that look like scrap roll across the auction block and have bidders fight over them like crocodiles fighting over a zebra. Some guns are very collectible and command that kind of money too.
Just curious, John Wilburn, do you have any hobbies or interests besides guns?
Wayne, I agree. A sensible solution to the debt crisis. Soon enough, Jack will come along to make a comparison to the car tax.
John Wilburn, no one here has been duped by the media. I don’t need a news report to know that guns, regardless of what they look like, are dangerous. Your intractability on the issue of restricting certain assault weapons, eliminating high capacity magazines, and having background checks for all gun sales is born of an irrational fear that someone is coming to take all your guns. I don’t share your fear or your view that learning to use a gun builds character.
Comment by wayne goodman — January 1, 2013 @ 12:33 pm
I know your comment was mostly tongue-in-cheek, but:
I’d be all for that but only if anything that causes death to humans is taxed at a similar rate. Considering most guns sell for around $500 dollars and given your $1000 yearly tax, I’m sure no one will have a problem paying $80k/year on their $40k Camaro or $30k/year on their $15k swimming pool. Cigarettes, alcohol, knives, salt, fast food, processed foods, pharmaceuticals, and “extreme” sports equipment all should be taxed at 200% annually, too. Call it a luxury hazard tax.
Not you personally, Mr. Goodman, but I think some people would be happy if society was like the city of San Angeles in the movie “Demolition Man”: “…it has been deemed that anything not good for you is bad; hence, illegal.”
Put corks on all the forks! Build all cars/trucks/trains out of high-density Styrofoam! All angles shall be less than 90 degrees! If it’s sharp, blunt it. If it’s dangerous, tax it. BUBBLE-WRAP THE WORLD!
Debbie:
“Just curious, John Wilburn, do you have any hobbies or interests besides guns?”
Certainly, but this blog is only interested in leftist interests, including hating guns. I really enjoy weightlifting although I haven’t in a while for a number of reasons. I’m really into cars and drag racing and have built several cars including engines, transmissions, and lots of custom fab work. There’s no better “escape from reality” type vacation for me than deep sea fishing. I love history too. Going to a play at the Barter Theater or to hear the symphony ranks right up there too.
Hillary:
“if anything, the last presidential election should have taught many of us that Americans aren’t easily “duped””
Perhaps I’ve given you too much credit.
Jason Perdue:
“Wayne, I agree. A sensible solution to the debt crisis.”
Absurd!
“John Wilburn, no one here has been duped by the media.”
Wrong and you know it.
“I don’t need a news report to know that guns, regardless of what they look like, are dangerous.”
They are supposed to be. So are chainsaws. I bet the media woudn’t notice if chainsaws came in a different color or had different accessories, though.
“I don’t share your fear or your view that learning to use a gun builds character.”
I don’t share a lot of yor views either. So what.
J.M. White:
“I think some people would be happy if society was like the city of San Angeles in the movie “Demolition Man”: “…it has been deemed that anything not good for you is bad; hence, illegal.””
This is Mayor Bloomberg’s world. Except, of course, that HE has an armed security detail (and a CHP, or so I’ve heard). Total hypocrite elistist tyrant.
J.M. White:
“I’d be all for that but only if anything that causes death to humans is taxed at a similar rate.”
J.M. White, this is not about any reasonable comparison! This is about hatred of guns and gun rights. Get with it!
.
Oh John, John, John…I’ll ignore your unkind remark as I think you are better than that.
So you don’t believe in the democratic process where the majority of Americans get the president they wish? Do you think 51.06% of the population was “duped” into voting for President Obama?
Too bad you have so little faith in your “fellow Americans”…
I don’t think it is fair to claim that society is wrong in thinking that these mass shootings need to be examined and that the commonality we can see needs to be addressed. Better mental health services and better gun control are the two most obvious answers. I get it that gun advocates and those who believe you only have freedom when that is never being told no, do not see any problem, but many of us are tired of paying for freedom with mass deaths and now even the tiny children in first grade are victims. This is not going away and whining is not becoming.
You can best serve your rights by working for the best gun control law that serves the goal with the least amount of problems for the law abiding, responsible gun owners. Failing that, you will get what you get. Your choice.
He has plenty of faith in gun owners though.
Hillary:
“Do you think 51.06% of the population was “duped” into voting for President Obama?”
No, some were, but I sincerely think our general public is getting dumber. That little experimant Howard Stern did, did not find these way out there statistical outliers. There are a large percentage of voters, a bit more Democrat than Republican, that really are that clueless and have no idea who or what they pull the lever for.
“Too bad you have so little faith in your “fellow Americans”…”
Sorry, but you’re right. I don’t.
#226 John W, it’s nice to know that you do have other interests. As for this statement “Certainly, but this blog is only interested in leftist interests, including hating guns.” I disagree. I think a lot of people on this blog have varied interests.
I am guilty of participating in the current gun threads, but I’m growing very tired of them. It’s a circular argument that goes nowhere.
Sandi: Is even one death by firearm acceptable in your world?
I do have a follow-up question that depends on your answer.
John Wilburn thinks that knowing how to operate a gun builds character, so John Wilburn thinks that murders committed with guns are done by people with good character.
John Wilburn believes there are “leftist” hobbies, and that “hating” guns is one, thus John Wilburn thinks having a love for guns is a right of the right.
John Wilburn thinks the media does nothing to prevent people being duped, so John Wilburn thinks Mother Jones magazine was complicit in hiding Mitt Romney’s 47% remarks from becoming public.
John Wilburn thinks he’s correct, thus John Wilburn thinks he’s right.
I agree Debbie @274 – it does get tiresome and more like a circular firing squad with the gun guys on the perimeter and the rest of us in the middle.
The authoritarian-gun types seem unwilling to accept ANY regulations at all for their deadly obsession. Their first reaction to the mass-shooting-of-the-week is to go into full defensive mode – trying to convince the rest of us that mass killing weapons are necessary for self protection and their old mantra, “guns don’t kill people, people kill people”. More apt is “guns don’t kill people, PEOPLE WITH GUNS KILL PEOPLE.”
Often arrogance, coupled with a bullying “debate style” by the gun “enthusiasts” turns off any constructive dialog on these gun threads – leaving most of us to abandon any hope of having a civil exchange of ideas or opinions…
(Erg. I posted that comment incompletely.)
Also, you and I are in agreement on an overhaul of mental health services. That would go a long way toward ensuring that treatment and, if necessary, adjudication are vastly improved. Keeping people healthy and whole, while also keeping any deadly weapons out of the hands of those who can’t/won’t be treated is vitally important to the morale and security of the citizenry.
I think a lot of people on this blog have varied interests.
Comment by Debbie–January 1, 2013 @ 2:26 pm
I agree Debbie.
Let’s go find us another thread.
“…guns, regardless of what they look like, are dangerous.”
They are supposed to be. So are chainsaws”
comment by JW
Chainsaws, like cars, are designed for a productive purpose, and their danger is a byproduct of their function.
Modern anti-personnel weapons like assault guns are designed for inflicting violence; their intended purpose is to be dangerous. Guns are designed to shoot holes and damage targets, but they are not standard tools in machine shops because they are not useful or productive for that purpose.
The Truth.
Sad to say, I abandoned that hope a long time ago Hillary.
“Guns are designed to shoot holes and damage targets, but they are not standard tools in machine shops because they are not useful or productive for that purpose.”
–Comment by Warren
Oh no. Cue the comments from Jack et al who know of a machine shop somewhere that uses a gun as a tool, somehow. . .
Debbie:
“I am guilty of participating in the current gun threads, but I’m growing very tired of them. It’s a circular argument that goes nowhere.”
Amen Debbie! And all the crap I get from #277 has sucked the fun right out of this blog. To think someone has dedicated nearly ALL of his time on the blog to downing me. Pathetic. I disagree with a number of other bloggers, but they don’t have a vendetta against me. Dan sanctions it. So I guess the civility is selective, much to my disappointment. I would rather he left it alone than this. You may get your wish if I and other people are run off by the trolls, but you’ll get even more tired of the lack of diversity.
Hillary:
“The authoritarian-gun types seem unwilling to accept ANY regulations at all for their deadly obsession.”
You’re misusing the term “authoritarian”. I don’t care how “gun-free” you want to try to make your home or if you want to own a gun or not or if you want to let yor children shoot a gun or not. The authoritarians want to make those decisions for us.”
“Often arrogance, coupled with a bullying “debate style” by the gun “enthusiasts” turns off any constructive dialog on these gun threads – leaving most of us to abandon any hope of having a civil exchange of ideas or opinions…”
When mental health is the true genesis of the problem and yet the focus is shifted virtualy 100% to guns, don’t convince me that we have market cornered on being hard-headed or unwillingness to have a constructive dialogue.
I would prefer it if Warren didn’t single out other posters and use his wicked prose talents to pick on them. It’s unbecoming, and John Wilburn isn’t the only one it’s happened to.
Dan:
“Oh no. Cue the comments from Jack et al who know of a machine shop somewhere that uses a gun as a tool, somehow. . .”
I carried when I worked in a machine shop. In fact, I think I’ll find an old set of grips and put on a lever on the lathe just so it can utilize some gun parts.
Oh no. Cue the comments from Jack et al who know of a machine shop somewhere that uses a gun as a tool, somehow. . .
Comment by Dan Casey — January 1, 2013 @ 3:02 pm
Actually, I use guns in carpentry all the time. They’re called powder actuated tools. My Hilti gun uses .22 caliber shells to drive nails into concrete and it’s most useful at it’s job. It’s not in a machine shop, of course, but it is a useful, non-lethal, non-target use for a gun.
…and it is a gun in every sense of the word.
In all seriousness, I do know a guy who potted the conducter of thermocople into a .22 shell casing to make it more waterproof. I also know a machinist who used specially trimmed shell casings for go/no-go gauges for machined parts. They were handy, free, and he knows the sizes well.
I also know a girl who machines jewelry from shell casings:
http://www.jenuinelyjeni.com/store/pistolpetals.html
http://www.jenuinelyjeni.com/store/primernecklaces.html
http://www.jenuinelyjeni.com/store/bulletjewelry.html
Dan:
“I would prefer it if Warren didn’t single out other posters and use his wicked prose talents to pick on them. It’s unbecoming, and John Wilburn isn’t the only one it’s happened to.”
That’s how he chooses to waste his talents, Dan. That says volumes about him.
J.M. White:
“My Hilti gun uses .22 caliber shells to drive nails into concrete and it’s most useful at it’s job.”
I worked at a shop for several years where we rebuilt those. We were a warranty center for Paslode and Bostitch nailers. They’re semi-auto to boot!
Good point, J.M.
I was only thinking about machine shops, where guns have never found a widespread use, but high velocity and pneumatic tools are common there. So next we ought to consider how many people in a public crowd could be massacred with a concrete nail gun or a two ton pneumatic stamper. Does that happen?
So you don’t believe in the democratic process where the majority of Americans get the president they wish?
Comment by Hillary — January 1, 2013 @ 1:59 pm
Oh Hillary, I know you and I know you’re smarter than that. America is not a democracy, the President is not elected in democratic fashion. The United States is a Constitutional Republic in which the rights of all are protected from the demands of the majority.
The contractor that remodeled our kitchen and basement uses .22 caliber shells to drive nails. I’d go downstairs during the remodel and it’d look like there’d been a little shootout down there… hundreds of .22 casings laying everywhere.
I’d never seen anything like that before, but it was pretty cool.
John W posted “When mental health is the true genesis of the problem and yet the focus is shifted virtualy 100% to guns,”
When reading comments by gun “enthusiasts” I find this new meme – that it is all about the mentally ill, not the lethality of weapons – so far off the mark that it is despicable – second only to comments like – more guns and Rambo-like behavior would have saved the child-victims in the recent school shooting. Both these newly minted and repeated remarks have been promoted by the NRA.
BTW, a main component of the authoritarian personality is a
fairly rigid set of opinions and beliefs. Sound familiar? Could anyone ever present enough information or factual research on the need to regulate guns to satisfy you? Don’t think so….
Another personality component with authoritarian personalities is they are likely to categorize people into “us” and “them” groups, seeing their own group as superior. Remember my perception of your rather arrogant response to anyone challenging you? or that your opinions are superior to anyone with a different gun perspective?
No, I am not mistaken about the authoritarian personalities of gun guys. Not a criticism, just an observation.
J.M. White, I spoke with my friend who has lived in Ellett Valley since 1938. He knew of the Lucases and said he thought they lived on Brush Mountain, but wasn’t sure. Take that lead for whatever it is or isn’t worth.
Hillary:
“more guns and Rambo-like behavior would have saved the child-victims in the recent school shooting.”
In contrast to Hillary’s disparaging remarks, I salute any teacher who would bravely defend his or her classroom.
“BTW, a main component of the authoritarian personality is a
fairly rigid set of opinions and beliefs.”
And a main component of people, oceans, and your car’s cooling system is water. Sharing a common characteristic with anyone or anything is not indicitive of the product. Can’t anti-authoritarianism be a ridgid principle itself?
Hillary:
“more guns and Rambo-like behavior would have saved the child-victims in the recent school shooting.”
In contrast to Hillary’s disparaging remarks, I salute any teacher who would bravely defend his or her classroom.
“BTW, a main component of the authoritarian personality is a
fairly rigid set of opinions and beliefs.”
And a main component of people, oceans, and your car’s cooling system is water. Sharing a common characteristic with anyone or anything is not indicitive of the product. Can’t anti-authoritarianism be a ridgid principle itself?
Warren:
“So next we ought to consider how many people in a public crowd could be massacred with a concrete nail gun or a two ton pneumatic stamper.”
He’s already thinking of the next round of bans to propose…. Are the pro-gun people really to trust any compromise with people who have complete or nearly complete confiscation as an end goal?
“So next we ought to consider how many people in a public crowd could be massacred with a concrete nail gun or a two ton pneumatic stamper. Does that happen?”
Solutions in search of problems
Comment by Jack — January 1, 2013 @ 4:22 pm
Split hairs much, Jack?
I guess you forgot about the popular vote [63,823,729 votes] that reflected the will of the majority of Americans that just put Obama back in office? Remember, majority rules concept?
We actually have a democratic republic…
What is a democratic-republic?
A democratic republic by definition is a form of government in which the people elect representatives to govern them and where there is no single ruler over the republic. The United States is a democratic republic.
JohnW, there were teachers in Newtown who acted with great courage. Have some integrity and “salute” them even if they weren’t carrying guns.
Kristen, THIS is what I said:
“In contrast to Hillary’s disparaging remarks, I salute any teacher who would bravely defend his or her classroom.”
Don’t spin it or imply a lack of integrity.
“In contrast to Hillary’s disparaging remarks, I salute any teacher who would bravely defend his or her classroom.”
Comment by John Wilburn — January 1, 2013 @ 5:53 pm
Twisting words or concepts to fit your perception or make an invalid point does nothing to further any discussion. The “Rambo behavior” remark was not disparaging teachers but was in reply to the NRA’s unintelligent suggestion that everyone needs a gun, everywhere and all the time…thus, Rambo behavior.
“So next we ought to consider how many people in a public crowd could be massacred with a concrete nail gun or a two ton pneumatic stamper. Does that happen?”
John W’s evasive only reply:
“He’s already thinking of the next round of bans to propose”
Why flog an unfounded allegation, instead of directly answering the question? Is it an answer you wish to avoid?
Anyone can see that was a direct question.
But okay, John. In deference to your own frequent reliance on scenarios, suppose that just like in a guncentric action movie, you’re on a two acre island, locked in a to-the-death faceoff with a single other combatant. He has an assault weapon firing a 100 round drum of a particularly nasty ammo, he’s got flash suppressor, great scope, all the trimmings he wants, and you’ve got a carpenter’s .22 nail gun with 100 cartidges and nails. To be fair, we’ll also let you have a two ton pneumatic metal stamper. In fact, let’s even allow you all the empty shell casings from the re-use examples you bizarrely posted to suggest that shooting a gun at something is a standard method on most shop floors.
Would you prefer your odds or your opponent’s?
There, John. Is that framing of essentially the same question as above one that you can better relate to? Or is it one that you can immediately tell still contains an answer you’ll need to avoid?
Claiming that there’s subtext without ever addressing the actual text was your previous response. But it fails you, John; it can’t reduce the debate over massacre control to hypothetical extremes that no one else but you has introduced.
Re: My last post at 8:36pm:
I can foresee John ignoring his prior leap to an unfounded hypothetical extreme, to try to say that my recasting the question using a vivid scenario is the same. That may be the only way John can avoid the question again.
It isn’t. It’s just recasting a question using an example.
So just as the scenario’s question was a recasting of the earlier one, here’s a third version of the same one.
In this recasting, it’s a math equation:
Add the number of victims from these six massacres:
Va. Tech, Columbine, Newtown, Aurora, Malvo and Giffords.
Then subtract by the number of victims in any six nail gun massacres you choose.
The sum difference hints at the intellectual dishonesty of equating weapons whose designed function is violence itself to products whose dangerousness is only a byproduct of their main function.
Facilitating violence isn’t a primary factor in the design of cars, dinner forks, baseball bats or nail guns.
Facilitating violence is a primary factor in designing America’s favorite massacre weapons.
And no studies have ever linked exposure to gun fumes to increased intellectual honesty.
Warren:
“Why flog an unfounded allegation, instead of directly answering the question? Is it an answer you wish to avoid?
Anyone can see that was a direct question.”
You mean that was a SERIOUS question!?!?!? OMG, you are actually wanting regulation of framing nailers that use a .22 cartidge for propulsion?
Warren:
“And no studies have ever linked exposure to gun fumes to increased intellectual honesty.”
And no studies have ever linked exposure to “gun fumes” to decresed intellectual honesty either, but that didn’t stop you from trotting that out to take shots at Dave Hicks.
Warren:
“Add the number of victims from these six massacres:
Va. Tech, Columbine, Newtown, Aurora, Malvo and Giffords.
Then subtract by the number of victims in any six nail gun massacres you choose.”
I would be willing to bet that more people died from auto accidents on EACH of those infamous dates, but deaths aren’t just deaths and overall safety isn’t just safety when it’s a hatred for gun rights you’re driving at. What will you say when someone runs over 20 kids on a playground and kills them? What about when the playgrond puts up a fence and then someone crashes the fence and runs kids down with a heavy SUV? Will yo call for regulation of those killing machines and say no one can own an SUV?
Crazy extreme for crazy extreme… But mine is within the realm of reason unlike a nailgun weilding madman.
Wow, you don’t get it at all, do you JW?
And you’re gonna refuse to acknowledge the obvious answers to protect your gun extremism. Again.
It’s a serious question: can you cite one massacre done by nail guns?
My point remains the same, and it isn’t regulations on nail guns, it’s the mean dishonesty of those like you who’ll do anything to deny the reality of the function inherent in the designs of America’s favorite massacre weapons with an absurd false equivalency to other objects.
Facilitating violence isn’t a primary factor in the design of cars, dinner forks, baseball bats or nail guns.
Facilitating violence IS a function that guides the design of America’s favorite massacre weapons, in fact, it’s their whole raison d’etre.
John Wilburn can only convince himself otherwise, and no one else.
John, you’re mistaken about me taking shots at Dave Hicks. I showed by examples where I think he’s had blind spots and suspended his own logical reasoning, and I trust him to speak for himself if he feels unable to address such examples.
But when I mentioned that there’s been speculation about the effects of extensive long term gun fume exposure, I explicitly did so in the context of Rick Mast and Phil van Cleave, not Dave Hicks.
Maybe someday you’ll realize that whatever’s gotten under your skin got there by the first amendment, not the second. James Madison never had to shoot anyone; he could rely on honest ideas that were way more effective in shaping his world than the tools of violence you and the NRA want to rely on.
Dan may not want to admit it John Wilburn, but any scorn you get from Warren, or anyone else, you earn.
J.M. White — January 1, 2013 @ 2:35 pm
“Is even one death by firearm acceptable in your world?”
So now I rule a world? There is no path that removes guns from our society and there is no path that removes killing from our society, neither of those facts has to make me say it is “acceptable” to kill someone.
It may be argued that “mental health is the true genesis of the problem“, but it is also true that the prevalence of certain types of guns in these mass shootings and the glorification of them does shift our focus to not having these guns as widely and easily available. You may not like it, but it is common sense. When a child dies in some car seat, we look for ALL of the flaws involved, not just the inattentive parent who trusted the car seat. Your victimization is in your mind. Your fear of confiscation is in your mind.
And Jack, our form of governance is called a Constitutional Republic, but we are most certainly a democracy. Elections are held in “democratic fashion”. Our rights are protected, but the demands of the majority are also the deciding factor in every election and every vote in Congress.
@Sandi Saunders: “And Jack, our form of governance is called a Constitutional Republic, but we are most certainly a democracy. Elections are held in “democratic fashion”. Our rights are protected, but the demands of the majority are also the deciding factor in every election and every vote in Congress.”
It is possible for the president to be elected without a majority of the popular vote. You know this.
How many murders should we consider “acceptable”, JohnW? No, I don’t accept 1 death by firearm. I also dont consider “acceptable” deaths from exposure, hunger, or treatable disease. I try to advocate for policies that would diminish the possibilities of these things. Now tell me, why would I advocate for universal coverage and adequate childhood nutrition and also think it’s just dandy for those same kids to kill themselves or eachother with Daddy’s gun that he’s too lazy to put away?
Tell me JohnW…are there any gun deaths you DON’T find acceptable?
You realize (of course) right now it takes about eight months to register a NFA firearm with the BATFE. Can you imagine how much it is going to cost the taxpayers and how long it is going to take when all of a sudden they have an immediate influx of three hundred million new applications to handle?
Do you realize how busy the local police departments are going to be when all of a sudden the chief is required to put his signature on hundreds of thousands of applications from their towns and cities?
I don’t think people are thinking a bit about how much it is going to cost the taxpayers if Feinstein’s bill is actually passed.
Also, if even 1% of gun owners decide that they don’t want to register their firearms, it will immediately create 1.5 million new felons.
Do you folks remember when sawed-off shotguns became illegal? The court ruled that they could be banned because they WERE NOT used by the military. Of course that is incorrect, but it was the rationale. Now it appears that it is the reason that people DO want to ban firearms, because they LOOK like what is used by the military.
Kristen,
Your whole premise is messed up. I don’t think murder is acceptable, but I don’t think an irrational emotional reaction to it solves anything and just makes things worse.
“I try to advocate for policies that would diminish the possibilities of these things.”
When the policies have stripped arms from all but the elite, “these things” have just begun.
“Now tell me, why would I advocate for universal coverage and adequate childhood nutrition and also think it’s just dandy for those same kids to kill themselves or eachother with Daddy’s gun that he’s too lazy to put away?”
See, here is where Warren’s angle against me is good to put back to you. Warren wants to ban guns because they are made to stop threats, but here Kristen has a problem with accidental deaths by children who may be so young as to not even know what a gun can do. By this reasoning, we shold ban power tools, drain cleaner, prescriptions, and kitchen knives because that rare father might not lock them up responsibly. Of corse accidents with those don’t make the news.
“Tell me JohnW…are there any gun deaths you DON’T find acceptable?”
What kind of question is this? I certainly don’t endorse murder and instead of just complaining about it, I proactively promote gun safety. The more parents and kids we educate, the fewer accidental/negligence deaths there will be. Help us spread that word. Last month I started having free safety seminars to help accomplish this.
Kristen, I was the one who asked the question of Sandi, not John W. The point was not an attack or anything like that. Regardless of whether we want to admit it or not, we are accepting of unnecessary death on so many levels.
Almost as many people drown while swimming as are murdered by firearms each year. Swimming is not a necessary activity. Where is the outrage at such needless death? Where is the cry for more swimming regulations?
This debate is simple: John Wilburn isn’t likely to be accepting of any further regulations on guns. People like you and Warren and Sandi find the status quo unacceptable. NONE of you are going to change the others’ minds, and NONE of you are going to make one single freaking difference in the problem while barking incessantly at each other on a backwater blog (no offense, Dan).
Personally, I will be more than accepting of further gun control if equal measures are taken to address the other parts of the problem. I acquire and use my firearms in a law-abiding manner, so further regulation only gives me more bureaucratic red tape through which to wade. I’m fine with that if it prevents firearms from falling into the wrong hands. But the murder, carnage and massacres will not stop, ever, until we change ourselves.
Mark these words carefully: if all we do is restrict access to guns, the next massacre will be done with explosives. Explosives are cheap, easy to acquire and there are thousands of recipes for them available at our fingertips. The heaviest restrictions we can possibly place on guns will not delay the next massacre one second.
This is a comprehensive problem and it requires comprehensive solutions.
“What kind of question is this?”
I’d say it’s pretty obvious and shouldn’t be hard to answer. Your insistance on grouping gun deaths in with car accidents, cancer, and a bunch of other non-relevant causes of death clouds the issue for you, maybe.
And please explain to me what murder has to do with “gun safety”?
JMWhite, you’re right, sorry. I see J and W and just went to Wilburn. Apologies.
Do you really think that if Lanza hadn’t had access to that gun, he’d have gone to that school and set off bombs? Or blown up his mother? Putting together a bomb takes a lot more forethought and preparation than just grabbing a firearm.
Jack:
“Also, if even 1% of gun owners decide that they don’t want to register their firearms, it will immediately create 1.5 million new felons….Do you folks remember when sawed-off shotguns became illegal? The court ruled that they could be banned because they WERE NOT used by the military.”
I really detest creating felons from good people with laws, especially laws in search of a problem we don’t have.
Whether Warren believes it or not, I make all kinds of compromises. Just having a permit to exercise a right in the first place is a huge compromise. By virtue of having a permit, we should have a significant expansion of liberty accompanying it, but we don’t. What we get is dumped into the Virginia Criminal Information Network. Guns are already heavily reglated and there are all kinds of punishments in place for the mere possession of them besides the myriad of crimes there are for misuse of them. Having given it more thought than he gives me credit, I feel there is nothing good to be gained by society for giving away more liberty. We’ve had over 100 years of compromises that have not served us at all. It is much harder to restore liberty than to give it away and a compromise with those that want more restrictions and less liberty is simply a new “baseline” for the anti-liberty crowd to work from.
So, the position I take is NO MORE GIVING AWAY LIBERTY.
J.M. White:
“NONE of you are going to change the others’ minds, and NONE of you are going to make one single freaking difference in the problem while barking incessantly at each other on a backwater blog (no offense, Dan).”
You’re right J.M. White, but in a few weeks several of us are going to Richmond where we absoltely do make a freaking difference. While we are talking to legislators, the others will be barking about Wal-Mart, fiscal cliff, birth control or whatever the blog’s topic of the week.
“Mark these words carefully: if all we do is restrict access to guns, the next massacre will be done with explosives.”
Long before there was a machine gun ban, background checks, the gun control act of 1968, the ATF, the importation bans, the gun control act of 1986, the Brady Bill, or Assault Weapon Ban, there was this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bath_School_disaster
J.M., you’re right and explosives will be IMPOSSIBLE to legislate away.
What then?
How many tragedies down the road will we get before we admit that we need armed guards in the schools?
“…and NONE of you are going to make one single freaking difference in the problem while barking incessantly at each other on a backwater blog…”
Comment by J.M. White — January 2, 2013 @ 2:06 pm
The difference, J.M. White, is that some of us do more than post on this blog. People from both sides of this argument will be in Richmond in a couple of weeks to speak with our legislators. I will be there, John Wilburn will be there, Dave Hicks will be there.
Warren, gdad, Sandi Saunders, Kristen, Dan Casey? Will any of you be there? Or will it just be another day of yapping?
We’re there on a regular basis. This blog goes round and round and round and I’ve considered wasting my time elsewhere, but do know that it is far from the best of my efforts to effect change.
So gunowners who choose not to comply with the law should be treated differently than other people who choose not to comply with laws they don’t like?
Kristen:
“Do you really think that if Lanza hadn’t had access to that gun, he’d have gone to that school and set off bombs? Or blown up his mother? Putting together a bomb takes a lot more forethought and preparation than just grabbing a firearm.”
He didn’t just grab a firearm. He murdered the owner and took the firearm. I’m convined that someone who is that screwed up in the head woldn’t let that little obstacle stop him any more than VT’s ridiculous gun ban regulation would have compelled Cho to stay in his room and study.
“He didn’t just grab a firearm. He murdered the owner and took the firearm.”
God why do people keep saying this. You have it bassackwards. He murdered her WITH THE GUN. Clearly, he took it BEFORE murdering her or he wouldn’t have been able to use it in the commission of the murder. So answer the question, JohnW. If the firearm hadn’t been there, would he have run off to Sandy Hook and set off a bomb? That’s the question, and the answer isn’t tough to figure out. It’s no.
And guns are the problem, not the solution. We’re not turning our schools into armed camps to appease the .5% of the population who thinks the solution to the problem is more guns.
It’s funny that you asked about Adam Lanza, Kristen, because I have a theory about that. The young man was extremely angry at his mother. When he finally decided to kill her, her death just wasn’t enough. He hated the school as well because it took time away that he felt his mother should be spending on him. It wasn’t enough to kill her; he had to kill what she loved, as well. Complete destruction of the problem was his goal.
So, yes, I do think that, given that he planned to go the school and do what he did, that he would’ve planned whatever was necessary to achieve his goal.
Explosives aren’t complicated in the least. I can take all the raw materials to make a gun and it would take me weeks to complete. I can take all the raw materials to make a bomb and have it ready this afternoon.
I will grant you that having the firearms and ammo easily available to him enabled this tragedy to happen as it did. Perhaps something as simple as a vault could’ve prevented this as it happened, but make no mistake that Adam was an extremely angry, hurt and unstable young man; I doubt he would’ve stopped at very much to find an outlet through which to release his rage.
Jack and John W: I understand that you may be doing things behind the scene to enact change and that’s commendable. Sitting on this blog and butting heads incessantly like testosterone-riddled billy goats, however is NOT going to enact change and it was that to which I was referring.
Yes, we know that gun advocates are “there on a regular basis“. That NRA/VCDL and other gun advocacy groups are what we are discussing. That push to end restrictions, make permits easier, make volume gun buying easier, insure your rights and everyone else be damned is the problem! Gun control advocates and organizations will be there as well (they always are too).
No one forces a one of you to “waste you time” here. No one.
The change you seek to “affect” will not happen any more. I see that you do not get it, but this time it is different and these machismo weapons are too easy to get. The least we can do is make it harder. And we will.
Kristen:
“So gunowners who choose not to comply with the law should be treated differently than other people who choose not to comply with laws they don’t like?”
Should David Gregory go to jail?
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/jan/1/two-systems-of-justice/
Sandi, Kristen, Warren, Dan, Hillary, I would like each of you to answer.
Sandi:
“Gun control advocates and organizations will be there as well (they always are too).”
They are?! They get lost in the sea of orange Guns Save Lives stickers! LOL.
“No one forces a one of you to “waste you time” here.”
Are you not just wasting your time here too Sandi, or is there something more noble than meets the eye?
Kristen:
“JohnW. If the firearm hadn’t been there, would he have run off to Sandy Hook and set off a bomb? That’s the question, and the answer isn’t tough to figure out. It’s no.”
Anyone that filled with hate and rage would have found a way. You make it seem as this was a spur-of-the-moment decision. No way. This was building inside him.
Kristen:
“And guns are the problem, not the solution. We’re not turning our schools into armed camps to appease the .5% of the population who thinks the solution to the problem is more guns.”
Armed camps?! That’s absurd. It’s the kind of statement I expect to read here, though. Teachers could carry uneventfully if it weren’t for yor side making such a bigger deal of it than it is.
Only one “massacre” of three people or more has happened outside of a “gun free zone” in over 50 years. You can say the idea I favor won’t work, but it has not been tried. Your way is a century of failure.
Kristen:
“And please explain to me what murder has to do with “gun safety”?”
Right after you tell me what “those same kids to kill themselves or eachother with Daddy’s gun that he’s too lazy to put away?” has to do with murder.
Anyone that filled with hate and rage would have found a way. You make it seem as this was a spur-of-the-moment decision. No way. This was building inside him.–Comment by John Wilburn
If this is true, then John Wilburn has rebutted himself. Since he “would have found a way”, then even an armed teacher couldn’t have stopped him.
That has been my point all along. It would be very difficult for an average person with little training to handle such a violent situation.
Newman:
“That has been my point all along. It would be very difficult for an average person with little training to handle such a violent situation.”
ONE shot by an armed teacher could have ended it! There is NOTHING worse that could have happened than what did. A few armed people inside could absolutely have stopped this before TWENTY-SIX people died.
I did not rebut myself. Someone who wants to go up against armed teachers will not have ten minutes to slaughter unimpeded. Knowing he couldn’t kill lots of kids without armed resistance could have changed his mind on making the school a target in the first place. If not, his mission would have been much smaller in scope.
Folks, heard about this article and study on NPR this morning:
http://www.npr.org/2013/01/02/167984117/-stand-your-ground-linked-to-increase-in-homicide
The results suggest that people are emboldened during conflicts to stand and fight rather than defend and retreat, resulting in a 7% to 9% increase in homicides in states that have passed stand your ground legislation. That they possess a gun is a major factor, in my opinion, that leads to the decision to stand and fight when a reasonable path of retreat is available.
“Irrational emotional response” is regularly used in gun threads to demean arguments made in favor of further restrictions on gun access. For many on this blog who oppose further restrictions on gun access, one of the consistent motivators seems to be a fear that the US Government ultimately intends to confiscate all firearms in this country. Such a fear of confiscation has no rational basis given the number of guns in the US. To claim that only one side of this debate has the corner on rational thought is disingenuous. John Wilburn, Dave Hicks, JM White, Kristen, Sandi Saunders, et al, have all made impassioned and well-reasoned arguments for their respective positions. In my mind, the big question is will our lawmakers find productive middle ground.
“Anyone that filled with hate and rage would have found a way.”–comment by John Wilburn
Your words, not mine.
“Folks, heard about this article and study on NPR this morning:”
Yep, I was also going to post this. There are some pretty damning facts and quotes in the story. Here’s just one:
“And in murder cases, Donohue says, the laws might end up being a refuge for some defendants.
“I’ve been hearing from defense lawyers around the country that if they happen to have a criminal defendant in a stand your ground jurisdiction, pretty much no matter what happens, you can say, ‘Well, I shot the guy, but I felt threatened and had a reasonable basis for fearing injury to myself,’ ” he said.”
If this is true, then John Wilburn has rebutted himself. Since he “would have found a way”, then even an armed teacher couldn’t have stopped him.
That has been my point all along. It would be very difficult for an average person with little training to handle such a violent situation.
Comment by Newman — January 2, 2013 @ 6:53 pm
No, he hasn’t. You’ve made an invalid comparison. Adam Lanza wasn’t a cyborg. A bullet would’ve snuffed his life out just like his victims and indeed, one did. Finding a way to create carnage is in no way the same thing as being unable to be stopped while creating said carnage.
I fully agree with your last sentence, though. It’s fun to shoot our guns and watch violence and play violence and immerse ourselves in violence as we do, but my personal experience has shown me that most people lock down when the bullets start winging by their heads. Training and the subsequent muscle memory that result are the only things that can help on that end of it, too. When in that type of heightened situation, armed or not, it’s always a game of chance and chance favors the prepared.
For the record, I’m in favor of having non-lethally armed teachers (tasers and such), but only with thorough (not “adequate”) training and certification. In fact, I’d like it to be mandatory, because a massacre situation is not the only time they would be useful. I’m more than willing to pay increased taxes for that training for them, as well. After all, if we’re not all willing to pay a little more for the security of our children, then what are we really arguing about, anyway?
Yes, you can add the whole notion of “stand your ground laws”, that groups like the NRA and VCDL have “fought” for to the list I started. That push to end restrictions, make concealed carry permits easier, make volume gun buying easier, not allow tracing and purchase records to be tracked, the insure your rights and everyone else be damned is the problem! You will reap what you have sown.
Your insistence that the Newtown shooter would have managed to get guns “somehow” could easily be argued. He was isolated, withdrawn, did not have friends and social outlets, was not close to his family. If his mother the prepper and gun owner had secured her weapons, he might well have killed her with something else, but if he could not access the guns, he would have done what? How would he know who to rob, or how to do it? You take a lot for granted in your supposition and oddly, it is all in your favor. However, if the truth is that guns are always so easy to get, it means that even more people control is in order because that is wrong on every level.
As the police can attest, yes one person with a gun CAN make a difference. Sometimes. Do you even realize how many entrances some schools have? How large some school campuses are? Even if we could afford armed security at every school that is a band-aid on a much, much bigger and deeper wound.
Jason Perdue:
“The results suggest that people are emboldened during conflicts to stand and fight rather than defend and retreat, resulting in a 7% to 9% increase in homicides in states that have passed stand your ground legislation. That they possess a gun is a major factor, in my opinion, that leads to the decision to stand and fight when a reasonable path of retreat is available.”
I don’t really care about the study or its results. I care about being able to take care of myself and my loved ones. What if retreat is not an option? Stand-your-ground is NOT a license to murder. Some people, particlarly the elderly and disabled, don’t always have the option to retreat. In some circumstances, attempting to retreat could get one killed.
There is a lot to think about and choices to make, but I should have EVERY right to defend myself.
Sandi:
“As the police can attest, yes one person with a gun CAN make a difference.”
I agree.
“How large some school campuses are?”
Yes, this is why we need state agency preemption and repeal of the federal gun-free school zone. Those expansive, unmarked borders make it very easy for someone to become an unsuspecting victim of laws.
“it means that even more people control is in order because that is wrong on every level.”
…people control is wrong on every level. There, fixed it for you.
.
314: “Warren wants to ban guns because they are made to stop threats”
Absolutely unfounded assertion by John Wilburn
JW, I’ve never called for banning guns.
You’re lying, mister.
All I’ve ever called for is stronger regulation of massacre weapons and ammo types-those whose design is inherently to facilitate rapid mass violence-and tighter oversight of those entrusted with them.
That you say massacre weapons are made to STOP a threat is to pretend that a source of a problem is the solution to the problem, making it clear how “solutions in search of problems” dismissiveness of others is a projection defense.
In this weekend’s NYT, a front page story related V.P Biden taking a question from a gun owner who cradled and stroked his semi-automatic and said “this is my baby”. Biden said he thought the guy had a made an admission against his self-interest; that is, if the guy thought of his gun as his baby he could have issues that ought to disqualify him from using guns. John, your defense of massacre weapons is nearly that gun owner’s level of irrationality.
Your relexive defense of massacre weapons and paranoia over gun confiscation by “elites” also shows how, no less than your tea party promoting VCDL co-volunteer, you’re indoctrinated by right wing political nuttery, which with each passing day and election becomes more of a fringe element in American life. You seem oblivious to how the radicalized NRA-the only NRA you’ve ever known-has a directors board comprised of far right political operatives, gun industry and prison state voices, and window dresssing celebrities. Where are the AMA or Red Cross directors if guns save more American lives than they take?
Perpetuating violence’s potential isn’t a humane mindset, but it yours, John. So I’ll definitely continue to point how closely your dogmatic faith in tools of violence resembles the fundamentalists you sneer at.
Just stop lying, John. When others use vivid words, they’re used because the ideas that words carry penetrate the brain much better than bullets do, since they don’t destroy like bullets do. And when you lie like the one you told above, and push debate to absurd extremes, the ricochet means you’re shooting at yourself.
Even if someone-it won’t be me-calls for confiscation of guns, it won’t be as if they’ve called for confiscation of your baby. Or will it?
314 part 2: “The more parents and kids we educate, the fewer accidental/negligence deaths there will be” (JW again)
That can be true, but no one should think it’s automatically true, because it isn’t. More importantly, aside from those much smaller categories of accidental and negligent gun deaths, education alone doesn’t offer much improvement in gun massacre episodes, gun suicides, or most problematic of all, the numerous everyday individual gun murders.
315: “Mark these words carefully: if all we do is restrict access to guns, the next massacre will be done with explosives”
comment by J.M. White
J.M., you’re dramatic, but not particularly prescient. The Oklahoma City bombing was before the Brady bill, remember, so no one should be in denial about explosives. But the guns/explosives analogy has real problems of comparison, since until there’s an advent of suicide bombing in the U.S., massacre by exposives has some operational considerations that massacre by gun avoids.
Ten years before McVeigh, I gained some insight on the guns/explosives comparison while doing some work with Tread Corp. At that time it was still the family owned business that had made a reputation building gun safes and other gun storage products, but they were diversifying with an ANFO storage and transport product line. While the actual gun safe fabrication methods could be adapted to ANFO products, the other considerations (besides manufacturing ones) showed the significant differences between guns and ANFO, which despite it’s potential is less often used as an explosive than in non-explosive applications.
JW points to the Bath school bombing of 1927 as if it proves anything, but any student of history knows many other famous cases, both before (e.g. Wall St., 1920) and after (e.g. Birmingham,1963, and many others in the sixties). I remember an early ’70′s case when a Salem teenager blew up his family’s garage and people drew parallels to the deadly accidental blast at the NYC SDS townhouse the year before. Dynamite and pyrotol, used in the ’27 rampage, are regulated better than any common massacre guns and their ammo, and the overall success of the ATF in limiting malevolent incidents involving explosives shows what the same agency that oversees guns can do when realistically empowered to do so.
So let’s be more conscious of the strong limitations of comparing guns and explosives. The greatest similarity is that both require regulation that puts the worst in human nature at a disadvantage. But currently, assault guns trail explosives in that regard to a dangerous extent.
Correcting myself: I just remembered that of course McVeigh’s evil was after the Brady bill was signed into law; I guess I was mixing it up with the pre-Brady Waco debacle that prompted McVeigh’s post-Brady atrocity. But it doesn’t affect my point made above, that guns and explosives can’t be denominated in discussion as if they’re identical in terms of massacre control. Massacre by exposives has operational considerations that massacre by gun avoids.
It’s late, I’m tired, I make mistakes.
But as long as I’m having to post this addendum, I’ll just remind everyone of McVeigh’s nutty belief that he was defending “liberty” against a tyrannical government, and invite them to study posts above that echo those sorts of sentiments, and then to note the massacre control positions of the poster who made them.
Warren:
“Even if someone-it won’t be me-calls for confiscation of guns”
How would we know? You don’t even have the guts to identify yourself.
“JW, I’ve never called for banning guns.
You’re lying, mister.”
On this thread…
“1) limit the number of rounds in clips and magazines private individuals can own
2) tightly control access to semi-automatic anti-personnel guns
3) significantly bolster gun registration and tracking procedures
4) close the private and internet gun sales loopholes
5) greatly toughen concealed carry permit requirements and qualifying….And, yes, in the interest of mssacre control, a steep user tax on massacre weapons, for those who still insist on keeping those types of guns, would be both justified and constitutional. We should support a Gun Violence Cost Recovery Act.
Comment by Warren — December 29, 2012 @ 1:59 pm”
…you call for a magazine ban and yet more stuff that creates price increases which serve only to take guns from the non-elite. It’s a de facto ban.
It is no longer about the issues with you. It’s a sick personal obsession of contempt for me. It honestly disturbs me on that level beyond the issues themselves. You are sick and I mean that sincerely.
I’ve read every one of your posts, more so than others, because they are invariably laced with slander. I’ve digested each of your points and remain convinced that you are wrong. I used to think you were well-meaning, but your style and often unprovoked assault on my character has persuaded me to believe otherwise.
Ironically, you say I convince no one but myself and that my motives are disingenuous, but you have clearly demonstrated in increasing fashion over the last few months that your motives are much more rooted in beating (on) individuals with whom you disagree than advancing the positions you claim to care about.
Perhaps this is why you wield your keyboard from the anonymous comfort of your Salem home. “Warren” gets a do-over. John Wilburn does not. Don’t convince me of the power of your words when you’re afraid to own them.
Warren:
“until there’s an advent of suicide bombing in the U.S., massacre by exposives has some operational considerations that massacre by gun avoids.”
Positively untrue. The majority of massacre shooters do commit or plan on commiting suicide at the end of their rampages. There is no operational hang-up for a homicidal-suicidal maniac at all.
Warren:
“I’ll just remind everyone of McVeigh’s nutty belief that he was defending “liberty” against a tyrannical government, and invite them to study posts above that echo those sorts of sentiments, and then to note the massacre control positions of the poster who made them.”
How about this comparison to a mass murderer, Dan?
Yes, you can add the whole notion of “stand your ground laws”, that groups like the NRA and VCDL have “fought” for to the list I started.
Comment by Sandi Saunders — January 2, 2013 @ 10:44 pm
Virginia is already a Stand Your Ground state. It has been so for much longer than VCDL has been around.
I don’t really care about the study or its results. I care about being able to take care of myself and my loved ones. What if retreat is not an option? Stand-your-ground is NOT a license to murder. Some people, particlarly the elderly and disabled, don’t always have the option to retreat. In some circumstances, attempting to retreat could get one killed.
There is a lot to think about and choices to make, but I should have EVERY right to defend myself.
Comment by John Wilburn — January 2, 2013 @ 10:48 pm
That you don’t give opposing arguments any credence has been apparent all along.
“There is no operational hang-up for a homicidal-suicidal maniac at all“. Do you hear what you just said?
“No, he hasn’t. You’ve made an invalid comparison”.–comment by JM White
in reply to
“If this is true, then John Wilburn has rebutted himself. Since he “would have found a way”, then even an armed teacher couldn’t have stopped him.”–comment by Newman
I have made no comparison. If you read the whole post you will see that I am merely quoting John Wilburn’s own words. He is admitting that sometimes there is nothing that can be done if a lunatic decides to kill.
I think the Aurora Theater shooter was wearing body armor, was he not. Seems he planned ahead in case anybody shot back. Would this comparison be valid?
I don’t think banning particular guns will fix anything. Honestly, I don’t believe there is a fix for it.
JohnW, first of all, you have absolutely no way of knowing whether or not Lanza spent time planning his attack or if it was spontaneous. Everything points to it having been spontaneous, and if your position is that -absent an easily obtainable high-capacity weapon – he’d have been just as likely to burst into that school with a freshly made bomb, just say that. You won’t, because it’s ridiculous.
JasonPerdue, it makes perfect sense that someone with a gun – especially facing someone without one – is going to be less invested in de-escalation of a conflict. As JohnW tells us, guns are a great “leveler”! So that guy in the wheelchair feels completely empowered to shoot a motorist dead because he thought they were trying to hit him. And the home owner feels great about shooting two unarmed kids dead, because hey -he can.
Guns are the problem, and the solution is fewer, not more of them. As Ive said before, the rest of the first world seems to have figured that out. Surely the bestest country in the galaxy can.
Jason Perdue:
“That you don’t give opposing arguments any credence has been apparent all along.”
When it comes to foolishly declining to protect my family for what someone else believes in, no.
Newman:
“I think the Aurora Theater shooter was wearing body armor, was he not.”
No he wasn’t, but his scary-looking “tactical” vest made the media assume such. It was quickly debunked, but got enough play in the media to succeed at fooling the public.
Kristen:
” Everything points to it [Lanza's massacre] having been spontaneous”
On the contrary, he may have been taking some pretty serious meds with known violent side effects. Have to wait until that shake out, but whether the act itself was spontaneous or not, HE certainly wasn’t.
Attention handicapped people: Kristen says preventing your robberies and murder are not worth legislation to temporarily calm her fears. If anything happens to you at the hands of a more powerful assailant… Oh we’ll. Her privilege of comfort trumps your right to self defense.
“then even an armed teacher couldn’t have stopped him.”–comment by Newman
It’s a comparison in abstract, admittedly, since you seem to imply that with sheer determination, he couldn’t be stopped by an armed teacher. Your following statement (with which I agree) is about poorly-trained teachers not being able to handle the situation, but you can’t assume that all teachers will be poorly trained, can you? The argument is not about stopping someone from killing one or two people, it’s about giving people a fighting chance to stop a rampage.
He is admitting that sometimes there is nothing that can be done if a lunatic decides to kill.
I think everyone would agree to that statement or at least they should, because it’s sort of like saying that water is wet. That in no way rebuts his position. Again, he’s not saying that an armed teacher would’ve stopped the entire event from ever happening. He’s saying that with even one armed teacher in that school and Lanza may not have done as much damage as he did.
“I think the Aurora Theater shooter was wearing body armor, was he not”
No. He was wearing a tactical vest. http://bit.ly/VkXwbB
I don’t think banning particular guns will fix anything. Honestly, I don’t believe there is a fix for it.
I fully agree with the first sentence, though I’m not quite so fatalistic about the fix. We need a fundamental change within ourselves. It’s not going to be easy or simple by any stretch of the imagination, but I still believe it can be done if we all pull together.
“On the contrary, he may have been taking some pretty serious meds with known violent side effects.”
His body may have been invaded by the Pod people. How about we stick with what we already know, shall we? And please, make your case that he could just as well have created a bomb to execute his intentions.
A tactical vest is a lot like a fishing vest… it’s a vest with pockets to hold your stuff. It provides about an equal amount of protection as a typical sweater vest.
It does look scary, though… so “body armor” is the term used in the media to describe them. Much like “assault weapon” is used to describe a firearm that looks scary.
I don’t believe that armed teachers will prevent future classroom massacres. At the most, it would make massacres a bit more of a challenge for the crazed-and-murderous-gun-wielding set. A gunman who simply walked into class with a drawn gun could easily get the drop on an armed teacher whose weapon was holstered.
This might not be true if a classroom’s doors were locked and the murderous nut had to shoot his way in. By then the teacher might have his or her gun drawn and be able to engage in a classroom shoot-out.
Perhaps the only other option is to train and arm ALL the students, and perhaps issue them body armor as well. That way the gunman might get the teacher, but the little kiddies would be able to gun him (and perhaps some of themselves, sadly) down before he got much further.
We could even add a gun section to the Virginia’s SOLs!
“I don’t believe that armed teachers will prevent future classroom massacres. ”
So if a gunman walked into a classroom, the teacher wouldn’t defend the students? You have a low opinion of teachers.
I think everyone would agree to that statement or at least they should, because it’s sort of like saying that water is wet.–comment by JM White
Well I guess didn’t read his post the same way you did. Most of John Wilburn’s debate has centered around his assertion that arming people will fix the problem. I merely found it interesting that he said, “Anyone that filled with hate and rage would have found a way.”
Some people would say that water isn’t wet and you will never convince them otherwise.
We’re one of the most highly armed nations on the planet and have the highest rate of gun violence and death in the developed world. Arming people doesn’t appear to be the solution.
I see that yet another Roanoke area worker escaped unharmed by following standard advice and not resisting a robber.
“So if a gunman walked into a classroom, the teacher wouldn’t defend the students? You have a low opinion of teachers.”
–Comment by Henry
Nope. I don’t. It’s simply that the gunman is going into the room with his gun drawn, and the teacher — unless he or she is walking around gun in hand, is not going to have time to shoot back before the gunman takes out the teacher. If the gunman is intent on a massacre, the teacher will be his first objective. When you think about it from that perspective, arming teachers turns them into sitting ducks for any gunman intent on a massacre.
Of course, if classroom doors were locked from the outside, that would force the gunman to shoot his way in, which would potentially give the teacher time to unholster and aim a pistol, or grab an AR-15 from the classroom gun rack (presumably, that would be anchored in the wall at a spot higher than the kiddies could easily reach). Then, a shootout would begin, which is why the kiddies should be issued body armor.
“I don’t really care about the study or its results.”
Well, at least we know now where John W stands on a a law that apparently results in several hundred deaths a year. A law that isn’t necessary for a person to defend him or herself but apparently does embolden macho idiots with guns. Nice.
“Then, a shootout would begin, which is why the kiddies should be issued body armor.”
Highly unlikely.
It’s pretty easy to quickly take out someone who is entering through a doorway, if you are on the other side of it. You have the advantage because you know exactly what their position will be (the narrow confines of the doorway), but they don’t know where you are until they have come through the door…in the second it takes them to figure out where you are you already have the drop on them.
There is a reason that members of law enforcement refer to doorways as “vertical coffins”.
Even if you don’t have a gun, you could still possibly take out someone coming blindly through a doorway by positioning yourself against the wall beside the door and smashing them in the head with something heavy or stabbing them in the neck with scissors as they enter the room. That’s riskier because of the close quarters, shooting him from a distance would be preferable.
And in any case, in the scenario you are describing, the students would be behind the teacher. They wouldn’t be in his or her line of fire, only the line of fire of the crazy murderer. And he was planning to shoot them all anyway, with or without resistance. In what universe would the teacher trying to kill him first make things worse?
http://archpedi.jamanetwork.com/article.aspx?articleid=204929
I found this study on a NYT parenting blog thread talking about how to handle the gun questions with other parents when your child is planning a playdate.
The study’s in JAMA, which should satisfy as far as its crediblity. The author outlines the study’s limitations, but these limitations don’t make the results less startling.
“Two fifths of the parents in our study who reported that their children did not know the storage location of guns in their homes and one fifth who reported that their children never handled a firearm in their homes were contradicted by their children’s reports.”
With this information at hand, I’d say it’s incumbent on parents with young children playing at eachother’s homes to be aware of the gun status of any house their kid is playing in.
.
“With this information at hand, I’d say it’s incumbent on parents with young children playing at eachother’s homes to be aware of the gun status of any house their kid is playing in.”
ALL parents should teach their young children to never handle a gun if they should find one. That should be a no brainer.
Trying to hide your gun from your kids is ignorant. Not talking about the firearms in your house and thinking that will suffice is like thinking that your kids will never have sex if you just don’t talk about it. In both cases, education is the way to go.
VTHokie, I agree with you about everyone teaching their kids to not approach a gun. But if one’s available, the odds of an accident do go up, and kids are unreliable.
As for parents “hiding” their guns from their kids, I don’t see why that’s ignorant. There are plenty of things that are appropriate to adults that don’t need to be handled by their kids. It’s legal to own a vibrator, but I bet most parents keep them out of sight of their kids.
Kristen:
“His body may have been invaded by the Pod people. How about we stick with what we already know, shall we?”
Yet you love completely unfounded conjecture when discussing ways in which gun owners should be watched, limited, or are supposedly unstable as a group. Pick one and be consistent.
Dan:
“This might not be true if a classroom’s doors were locked and the murderous nut had to shoot his way in. By then the teacher might have his or her gun drawn and be able to engage in a classroom shoot-out.”
I was with you here, but then, when you started getting silly and decided that you would drop the serious questions, I decided it wasn’t worth a serious answer. Don’t give up so easy, Sir.
“When you think about it from that perspective, arming teachers turns them into sitting ducks for any gunman intent on a massacre.”
Once someone is murdering kids in mass, the teacher will be killed when attempting to intervene unarmed. At least being armed gives them a better chance. Don’t rely on the generosity of a murderer to decline to take the teacher out too simply because he or she is unarmed.
Also, other armed teachers and personnel in the building can respond to a threat, so it isn’t a situation where that one teacher is it. Body counts of 26 would be a thing of the past.
gdad:
“Well, at least we know now where John W stands on a a law that apparently results in several hundred deaths a year. A law that isn’t necessary for a person to defend him or herself but apparently does embolden macho idiots with guns. Nice.”
gdad, you’re right; it isn’t necessary. Both pro and anti-gun lobbyists called to table those four castle doctrine bills last year. We wanted them tabled because they had a very dangerous component of unauthorized entry that could criminalize legitimate self defense and the antis wanted them tabled because they are simply all for anything that slaps gun owners and makes them victims.
Virginia does NOT have a codified castle doctrine/stand your ground law. We have hundreds of years of case law that protects self defense. I’m sure you think all those judges got it wrong and that the victims should have died for what you believe in, but oh well, those cases are in the books now.
VT Hokie:
“In what universe would the teacher trying to kill him first make things worse?”
Exactly. There is NOTHING that could have made 911, Aurora, Norris Hall, or Sandy Hook ANY worse. Those gun free zones played out to their worst possible outcomes.
Kristen:
“I found this study on a NYT parenting blog thread talking about how to handle the gun questions with other parents when your child is planning a playdate.”
I agree with vetting the responsibility of anyone who watches one’s kids, but to single out guns is suspicious. If guns were in the list of interview questions along with prescription meds, power tools, the watcher’s driving record, kitchen knives, flammables, etc., I could go along with that, but if guns are singled out simply because they are guns, the safety angle is dispelled.
VT Hokie:
“Trying to hide your gun from your kids is ignorant. Not talking about the firearms in your house and thinking that will suffice is like thinking that your kids will never have sex if you just don’t talk about it. In both cases, education is the way to go.”
Absolutely. You make it taboo and they accept the challenge. Sounds like the people doing the study didn’t include gun owners, so they aren’t asking the right questions in the first place.
Kristen:
“VTHokie, I agree with you about everyone teaching their kids to not approach a gun. But if one’s available, the odds of an accident do go up, and kids are unreliable.”
Guns, sex, drugs, and all kinds of other potentially dangerous things are EVERYWHERE and aren’t going ANYWHERE. Better to learn up front than by the seat of one’s pants.
Guns = sex = drugs? Come on, JW. You can do better than that.
“Guns, sex, drugs, and all kinds of other potentially dangerous things are EVERYWHERE and aren’t going ANYWHERE.”
This literally made me laugh out loud. Next you’ll be telling me about demon reefer.
Guess what, JohnW, I know you don’t have kids, but you should be able to figure out that most parents aren’t concerned about their 6-year-olds suddenly deciding to have sex on a playdate. Or witnessing it. And either way, no one dies.
And I wouldn’t let my kids play at the home of people too dumb to put away the bong.
Dan:
“372.Guns = sex = drugs? Come on, JW. You can do better than that.”
That’s not what I said and I don’t see how you don’t get that. Reads like you’re having a tipsy afternoon, Dan. You’re getting silly with everything today. What’s up with that?
372. “Guns = sex = drugs?”
Well, the white guy fondling his gun in Chris Obrion’s cartoon was kissing the gun and sniffing the fumes, so let’s defer to John’s expertise on this.
http://blogs.roanoke.com/dancasey/category/chris-obrion-cartoons/
Kristen, your desire to “beat” me in the gun discussion has you (and Dan
) twisting everything to the absurd.
“Or [a 6 year old] witnessing it [sex].”
You make it sound intentional; that’s creepy.
It’s about time for a daily dose of insult from Warren…
3…2…1…
And the real crime here is what?
http://www.roanoke.com/news/breaking/wb/318581
Guns = sex = drugs?–Comment by Dan Casey
Not at my house. A gun is all I’m allowed to have…..
John Wilburn: “That’s not what I said and I don’t see how you don’t get that.”
It must be, because Dan stands firmly against IMAGINING what other people mean.
“. . .because Dan stands firmly against IMAGINING what other people mean.”
Not necessarily true, VT Hokie. However, I am firmly for trying to resolve ambiguity in what people mean, based upon what they write or say. That’s why I (unlike you, btw) asked mikeO for clarification of his statement.
Which he has yet to provide, of course.
And note: even my “Guns = sex = drugs?” line to John Wilburn was framed as a question.
“Guns, sex, drugs, and all kinds of other potentially dangerous things are EVERYWHERE”
JohnW, can’t imagine why anyone would think you’re linking guns, sex, and drugs as “potentially dangerous things”. We’re clearly making it up. So why don’t you clarify what you actually meant by “Guns, sex, drugs, and all kinds of other potentially dangerous things”.
And while you’re at it, tell me why Lanza didn’t use a bomb.
I didn’t ask for clarification of mike o’s statement because I didn’t need it. Maybe I’m a better mind reader than I thought.
Dan, “That’s why I (unlike you, btw) asked mikeO for clarification of his statement”
Honestly, did I clarify what you were looking for? not expecting agreement just wanted to make sure I didn’t bail on a good debate…
I most often don’t have time to look too far back in the threads, so I try to look at the most recent. Sorry if I disappointed.
Analyzing your response to VT’s “imagining what other people mean” comment, one might think that you are leaving yourself an “out” by your “Not necessarily true” prologue in your answer.
A therapist might help you to come to an understanding between your desire to be “truthful” and your desire to be political and/or abrasive with those you might disagree.
Just at thought…
Kristen,
Not looking back at the whole “dangerous things” argument.
Back in my day it was not “guns, sex, drugs”; it was “sex, drugs, rock-n-roll”.
Am I showing my age???
Just a bit of levity….
mikeO, it is clarified. Thanks
Everybody gets it except Kristen. Guns, sex, and drugs are all potentially dangerous. The muzzle end of a gun, the wrong drug or wrong amount of the right drug, or an STD can all kill. I don’t even know why you’re asking me to explain that. None are bad in and of themselves, though.
I didn’t realize Warren posted his ever so predictable insult seventeen minutes before I posted. It wasn’t approved yet. Who knows why it was approved at all.
http://nation.foxnews.com/gun-rights/2013/01/03/fbi-more-people-killed-hammers-clubs-each-year-rifles
So what, Jack? More people are killed in bicycle accidents in the U.S. each year than die by pistol shots from Derringers. What is your point?
Really, JohnW? I don’t see a chorus of people agreeing with you, so I’m not sure who you think “gets it”. You can choke to death on a grape if you swallow it wrong. I guess that makes grapes “potentially dangerous”. I’m stunned Lanza didnt just go into that school throwing grapes.
I’d love to hear how sex is “potentially dangerous”. Issues much?
Jack, what if we add in the respective number of suicides, fatal accidents, and massacres involving hammers and guns. What’s the story then?
And drug deaths from prescription drugs beat hammers, but since both hammers and prescription drugs have a beneficial use as their primary raison d’etre, and guns have only violence as theirs, what’s your point in raising a false equivalence?
With the exception of a few minority voices, no one, is or has asked you to “foolishly declining to protect my family” John Wilburn, your continued need to be a victim here is just disgusting. This is not about “what someone else believes in” either. This is about solving a problem that keeps recurring and whether you like it or not, or admit it or not, the easy access and prevalent machismo of certain guns IS part of the problem.
VT Hokie, are you a combat trained and experienced gunman? If not I do not think you have the expertise to say it is “pretty easy to quickly take out someone who is entering through a doorway” under any circumstance. In speaking to a veteran of Iraq combat and a police officer, I am led to believe the arm chair gun carriers are much like the arm chair quarterbacks.
A teacher is NOT going to be expecting an armed, crazed and rampaging shooter to come through the door any moment of the day. Not even one who carries a gun for all the danger they never encounter and I am sick of hearing people claim such.
Interpersonal violence is not going to be stopped, not even slowed down, in reality. But this is about the mass shootings and they have commonalities and situational events we CAN work on, work with and make them harder. Preventing ALL of anything is too much to hope, but preventing one, or even a few is worth whatever problems you gun advocates believe it will cause you IMO. As you have all admitted at one point or another, you have plenty of guns left to defend yourselves and families with. And we know that too.
Sandi:
“VT Hokie, are you a combat trained and experienced gunman? If not I do not think you have the expertise to say it is “pretty easy to quickly take out someone who is entering through a doorway” under any circumstance.”
VT Hokie, in case you missed it, Sandi has never shot a gun in her life. Keep that in mind as she critiques your qualifications.
and guns have only violence as theirs, what’s your point in raising a false equivalence?
Comment by Warren — January 3, 2013 @ 8:52 pm
Literally millions of rounds of ammo are discharged through firearms in a lawful, non-violent manner each year. Unless maybe you’re trying to argue that “violence” includes the release of the kinetic energy when a projectile strikes a legal, inanimate object as a target, too… To that I would say that you’re arguing semantics as well as being deliberately obtuse.
This have been ridiculous equivocations from all sides on this thread. To even pretend that one side is solely guilty of it is to do this VERY IMPORTANT debate a great disservice.
John Wilburn, in truth, as I said, I used the recommendations of the Iraq combat veteran and a veteran police officer in my “critique”. I do not care if she/he stayed at a Holiday Inn Express last night, I doubt she/he has the expertise to say what ANYONE else would, could or should be expected to do. Neither do you.
“I do not care if she/he stayed at a Holiday Inn Express last night…”
Maybe it’s the beer, but I found that reference to be quite humorous. I would also like to blame the beer for my fudge of the sentence in my previous comment that should have read, “[There] have been ridiculous equivocations from all sides on this thread.”
Additionally, I like the fact that a redux thread from April that’s also been hijacked to hell from the start is now on the “Most Popular” list.
Then again, I’m easily entertained.
‘Sandi has never shot a gun in her life. Keep that in mind as she critiques your qualifications.’
comment by John Wilburn
It’s equally useful to keep in mind what things JW’s never done that should be borne in mind when judging his positions.
Serve in the military?
Serve in law enforcement?
Be long term responsible for the daily life needs of another person?
Bury a friend or friends after a gun suicide?
Bury a friend or friends after a gun homicide?
Bury a friend or friends after a gun accident?
Work in an emergency room?
Work on an urban lifesaving squad?
Question the reasons behind the NRA’s gun positions?
Etc.
Credibility challenge from…..
“Warren”
Whatever!
J.M. White:
“Additionally, I like the fact that a redux thread from April that’s also been hijacked to hell from the start is now on the “Most Popular” list.”
I know. I love it! The original topic obviously would NEVER have made it there. A top five for a long time was the first thread I ever commented on. I was inspired to comment when I saw an article in which Dan was comparing campus carry to nuclear WMDs! No, I’m not kidding.
Let’s not forget that the first 100 comments had nothing to do with guns.
But I especially like the fact that John W crowed about anti gunners letting it turn into a gun thread, and then somebody counted up that John W. had actually posted more than 25 percent of the gun comments to that point. Meaning that John W was carrying the heavy water of keeping it a gun thread.
I cannot dispute that people often argue hypocritically, semantically, obtusely and with many false equivalencies, I know I am guilty of it, some also argue with lies and out of context information, but I do not think that you can seriously call shooting a gun in any instance a totally “non-violent manner”. The fact that the norm is to shoot at human shaped torsos has always bothered me and made the effort seem violence related fantasy (more so than a video game). Certainly shooting at caricatures of politicians, activists or causes is not really all that “non-violent”.
Seeing that poor old dude on the news getting stung by bees cleaning up after “shooting parties” was incredibly sad to me. Just leaving the detritus of your violent fantasy is unacceptable.
I grew up seeing “bulls-eye targets” which actually showed marksmanship in a truly “non-violent” manner. Of course I grew up with hunters not armchair vigilantes and self-defense fanatics.
I support the premise of the Second Amendment, but I do not and will not agree that it guarantees anyone an assault rifle similar to military weapons and a huge magazine of high powered bullets.
“The fact that the norm is to shoot at human shaped torsos has always bothered me and made the effort seem violence related fantasy (more so than a video game).”
I shoot regularly with about a dozen different people and I’ve only seen one silhouette target and one K5 (bad-guy silhouette) brought to the range in ten years, so I wouldn’t say that that is the “norm”. Most often, we shoot at 12-inch bulls-eye targets or old beer kegs (which I then crush with a tractor and recycle). The people with whom I shoot are accuracy heads, not macho redneck cowboys. We’re more interested in maintaining consistent velocities through the chronometer and downrange precision than blasting away at a human-shaped target.
Of course, we’re competitive and we talk smack to each other, but that’s as far as it goes. I don’t think that just because I like the styling, accuracy and reliability of my HK91 that I’m a vigilante or a self-defense fanatic. It’s a fine firearm, born of a military function, that I use to hunt large game and target shoot. In fact, if I had to pick a home defense weapon the HK would be the last weapon for which I’d reach; that’s what rock salt shells and the cheap, simple Winchester Defender is for.
The point is that it’s easy to get swept up in thinking that most gun people are swaggering, violent potential killers, but I’ve actually found the opposite to be true. It is true, however, that many of them are heavily libertarian when it comes to regulation. That in itself doesn’t make them dangerous people.
I’ve been to the range near Blacksburg dozens of times, and I’ve yet to see a human-shaped target in use. Regular paper targets, bowling pins, soda cans and bottles, milk jugs, and the indicator targets that more clearly show points of impact are what I typically see in use. Closest to a human-shaped target I saw was a LEO using a stand and a square paper target mounted at the approximate center-mass location at about 15 yards. He was practicing drawing his sidearm and firing 3 quick rounds.
I’ll echo JM about accuracy. When I spend time at the range, that’s my focus. If I’m using a rifle, I’m initially testing the sights or scopes on them, and adjusting if neccessary. Once dialed in, I’m working on my accuracy and consistency…often competing with my wife to see who does better (she’s darn good). With handguns, we’re again focusing on accuracy and consistency. One of the things we like doing is picking a can or bottle, and trying to ‘walk’ it up the range as best as we can, by hitting it, re-adjusting to its new position, and hitting it again.
The reason we focus on small targets like a can or a 12″ paper target is that they’re small, and at a distance os usually 50-feet or greater. If we ever (and I hope it’s a never) find ourselves needing to defend ourselves, a person is substantially larger than what we practice with, and from the statistics I’ve seen, usually at a far shorter range. Like, if we ever were faced with a home intruder, the longest distance would be about 35 feet…the linear distance from the far end of our back living room near the fireplace, to the laundry room…on the other side of the dining room and kitchen. Practically anywhere else and it would be 20 feet, max.
Let’s not forget that the first 100 comments had nothing to do with guns.
Comment by gdad — January 4, 2013 @ 8:57 am
What are you talking about, gdad? Comment #14 was the first mention of guns on this thread and it was penned by Scott M.
And therein lies the awful rub J.M. White, what exactly does make someone “dangerous” and how the hell can we tell before a crime or mass shooting is committed?
Warren was exactly right in that many of the things in mass killer manifestos DO correlate with the same arguments gun advocates beat us about the head with. Does correlation mean causation? No, it does not. We cannot accurately decide where the line is and when it is crossed and that is the horror involved.
I freely admit I have never been to a gun range of any kind other than the private property target shooting I mentioned growing up. But all of the ones shown on TV have human shaped targets.
I am pleased that you are the exception that I am certain John Wilburn, Jack, Dave Hicks and all of the other gun rights advocates are who post here, but surely you know that you cannot “vouch” for all gun rights advocates or gun owners.
I guess I would have more sympathy for gun rights advocates and gun owners, if I did not see that so many people in this supposedly free nation are more harassed, more regulated, more maligned, more watched, more heavily labeled, isolated and unwelcome just about every day of the week. I also find it amusing that they can so clearly see my arrogance, my condescension, and my disdain, but completely miss their own.
“And therein lies the awful rub J.M. White, what exactly does make someone “dangerous” and how the hell can we tell before a crime or mass shooting is committed?”
One of the many areas that needs serious discussion and work.
I wasn’t trying to vouch for all gun owners, of course. I was just offering my own anecdotal evidence. My point was more that even though the ones I know are rabidly anti-regulation, that doesn’t mean we should live in fear of them. In fact, they’re all people who would stop to assist you if you were broken down on the side of the highway. I also know that you’re not trying to imply that all gun-owners are dangerous people. Sometimes when we get carried away with our positions on “hot” issues, that extreme stereotyping is what we inadvertently end up portraying. We could ALL put more effort into listening and evaluating instead of just talking at each other.
As far as gun ranges are concerned, I know that the two that I use in North Carolina have banned human silhouette targets at their facilities. From my understanding, many ranges around the nation have banned those types of targets. Utah even bans them at public ranges.
J.M. White, I was going to post a response to your “amateur pscho-analysis from a distance” about Lanza on Wednesday. My reaction was to note how after you theorized about his psycopathology, you seemed to immediately proceed as if that was a settled operative explanation for what he did, instead of maintaining constant acknowledgement that it was your own speculation from superficial knowledge of Lanza’s case. Or so it seemed to me.
Too many discussions about making gun violence harder for the mentally ill do that. Amateur psychological explanations, made at a distance, are okay for introducing aspects for discussion, but not for settling them. When applied to gun violence, perhaps we can coin an apt phrase to alert ourselves to this phenomenon; perhaps “armateur psychoanalysis”?
Warren: Considering that I stated from the very start that it was a theory, how much more do I need to qualify it as such to satisfy you? Do I need to state the qualifier in each sentence I compose? Do you want it bracketed, italicized and/or emboldened? Good grief, man. What’s next, an “amateur psychoanalysis” font? If it matters, I’d prefer italicized Verdana.
I never claimed to be a psychologist, but I am intimately familiar with feeling neglected and abandoned by my mother for things she was more interested in than me. I know intimately the unfettered rage that a teenage child can have in that situation. I also know intimately that my rage would’ve never been sated simply by destroying her alone if it had come to that. Other than the freedoms granted me by the 1st Amendment, I believe my personal experiences with my own unstable, very angry, adolescent mind give me enough standing to publish any theory I see fit.
That said, I’ll make sure that I satisfy your arbitrary requirements to the letter from this point forward so as to avoid any further confusion for you. I wouldn’t want you to start quoting me out of context and comparing me to terrorists… a fact that is very telling of your own psychology, by the way.
410:
J. M., I think the problem was my careless inclusion of the word “constant”. I wasn’t trying to criticize or arbitrarily require anything of you, I was only building from your post to raise a general red flag. That I couldn’t know your personal background to that degree demonstrates precisely what makes speculation about causation so problematic.
As for my having made comparisons among those who use invective about “tyrannical” U.S. government plots to confiscate guns, what it says about this longtime gun owner is that I’m in the vast rational majority in how I regard such unfounded paranoid rhetoric, even as I’m willing to employ a more sharp edged style than others. To settle on a particular interpretation of what else it says about me is recognizable as speculation.
That said, when anyone tries to use another perosn’s having never fired a gun to impeach their positions on massacre control measures, it’s fair to wonder about the long list of relevant experiences they’ve never had. The spontaneous list I posted to JW bear on the massacre control debate because they were items that go to one’s sense of the consequences of gun violence beyond abstraction, of life’s fragility, of applying honest skepticism to what truly motivates the NRA’s policy positions, and so on. I’ve occasionally posted some of my own answers to the list, and invite others either to do so or try making the case that only technical knowledge of guns really matters, or is paramount.
Again, J.M.. I apologize if my post seemed unduly critical or inadvertently triggered emotions from your past. It was not my intention, and were I aware you’d take it as personal criticism, I’d have written it differently. There are models for doing so, just as there are models for maintaining acknowledgement of speculative forays without special fonts or constant qualifying. But the general point about the limits of assigning causation to cases like Lanza’s has new urgency in light of the NRA’s insistence that massacre control discussion not include the role of guns.
I wasn’t personally offended in the least, Warren, so you have neither need nor reason to apologize to me. I, however, apologize for any snarky or offended tone I may have taken. The Sandy Hook incident is what triggered my emotions, not you, my friend. Instead of trying to understand the violent act itself, I often try to understand the person delivering the violence because I know what I was capable of at that age/level of maturity.
Actually, I don’t disagree with your overall point. Pretending that we know the motivation of an individual’s mind is never better than standing on shaky ground, at best, and even more so when it concerns a deceased individual. Pretending that we do can and often does exacerbate or at least obscure the real problem.
For the record, I’m not a fan of the NRA. I prefer to do my thinking for myself, and choose not to be openly ridiculed by my supposed peers for my dissent. I refuse to be a part of any organization that prefers I walk in lockstep with their policies/politics. That’s as deep as I’ll go on that subject.
Thank you for your kind words, sir.
“What are you talking about, gdad? Comment #14 was the first mention of guns on this thread and it was penned by Scott M.”
Come on J.M., I didn’t read every comment, but in a quick scan, I saw exactly two involving guns in the first 100. As I said before, the first 100 had nothing to do with guns. The gun angle didn’t take off until after Hillary brought it back up concerning teachers at #104 and then PP replied with something that had nothing at all to do with teachers and violence.
“VT Hokie, are you a combat trained and experienced gunman? If not I do not think you have the expertise to say it is “pretty easy to quickly take out someone who is entering through a doorway” under any circumstance.”
I was specifically referring to a situation where it is known there is a gunman on the loose in the building, and the teacher has followed the prescribed protocol and is in a corner out of the line of sight of the door, waiting for the events to play out. Should the gunman decide to enter that teacher’s room, his only point of entry is the door. If you are already aiming at the doorway, you have the drop on him, because you know his position, but he won’t know yours until he’s already exposed himself in the doorway.
No, I’m not an expert, but the person who explained to me about doorways was the police officer who taught my concealed carry class. He is the one who described a doorway as a “vertical coffin”. Entering a room where an armed suspect is hiding is an extremely dangerous situation for police, which is why they train on how to “clear” a room. It only makes sense that the same situation would be to your advantage if you were the one hiding and your adversary was the one entering the doorway.