The recent tragedies such as the tragic El Paso shooting leave everyone outraged and yet, are twisted into partisan issues of Left vs. Right. The perpetrator is said to have written an alt-right manifesto desiring to kill immigrants. Now, he’s being used as evidence that conservatives are encouraging these vile acts through our stances on immigration and other issues. The same with the synagogue shooter, school shooters, and many others blaming lack of gun control. However, I don’t want to get into a gun control debate, rather a moral one.
To the Left, you want to blame conservatives for these acts of violence, saying your “enemy” the white male is to blame. It’s his white privilege, or his racism, or his toxic masculinity. You think we give white men a free pass while condemning people of color who do heinous acts. That we minimize it or even enable it and cheer them on. Well, I can tell you that can’t be further from the truth! Believe it or not, we’re just like you.
We have our own lives to live, with our families, our dreams, our goals, our biological desire to live as much as you do! Do you truly think we aren’t just as outraged when the next mass shooting occurs? Do you truly believe that we aren’t scared and appalled by the fact we can’t truly feel safe anymore sending our kids to school, going to the movies, going to concerts, going to our places of worship, even going to shop at Walmart…. 😦 This shooting struck me personally because I’m a fan of Walmart and go there all the time. It could have easily been me in that situation. Those mall shootings? I love the mall and am horrified to think I’m risking my life whenever I go have fun shopping!
Conservatives want to go to the movies, go to school, go to a concert, practice their religion, or simply pick up some items at the store just as much as you do without fear of dying or fear of a loved one going out to have some fun. How can you say we enable such things when they hurt us just as much as they hurt you? We speak of more guns not to be blind to their consequences only thinking of ourselves, but to have more armed citizens willing and ready to fight back to defend you and those you care about. We want solutions too. We want more than “thoughts and prayers” as well. Our solutions just aren’t in line with yours, but that does not mean we don’t care! We just want what DOES good rather than what FEELS good.
Another extremely important point is conservatives in no way shape or form condone or minimize violence driven by alt-right ideas. Those who commit vile acts in name of some so called “conservative” platforms are not real conservatives. No more that is, than you would say ISIS and Al-Qaeda are true Muslims like the every day Muslims in America, or the black thug reflects upon every black person in existence, or the illegal in MS-13 reflects on all Hispanic people.
Us having strong stances against open borders and illegal immigration draining our country in no way equals a desire to kill them!!! That’s a complete logical fallacy. It’s stating the obvious conservatives acknowlege their human right to life. We just don’t acknowlege their “right” to come here and leech off our country. Citing further examples, that synagogue shooting that happened does not mean conservatives were cheering and hate Jews when many conservatives are Jewish! Trump has family who are Jewish and openly condemned that and every other act of violence.
The white males who did these crimes are not who we are. We are not murderers who kill, threaten and terrorize to get our way. We are not terrorists whose only strategy is to bully people into submission. We are not the true racists who adore the Nazis and wish to repeat the Holocaust! They happen to be white males, but isn’t it absurd to think ALL white males are 1. conservative, and 2. feel entitled to kill based on conservative ideas? Keep in mind, this most recent shooter in El Paso was a registered Democrat… Now does that mean all Democrats are like him? Our rhetoric is not one of violence just because it takes a harder position on things. Speaking a blunt truth does not equate to a rallying cry for violence. The violence at places like Charlottesville, or those bombings of the Leftist leaders last fall do not reflect the even keeled conservative. Prominent conservatives have come out and condemned every act of violence as it happened. Also note, it’s contradictory to conservative philosophy to bully people into our views as true conservatives find our strength in our arguments, not threats!
Can the Left say the same? When violence occurs on their side? When the perpetrator was a person of color, an illegal, a religious fanatic? Who on the Left are speaking out against Antifa’s violence? Why are Left leaning towns stopping police from quelling Antifa mobs? I literally read several Leftists who endorse Antifa with one calling it “the immune system of Democracy” and stating in essence, that Antifa’s violence is justified since it’s against Fascists! Or what about the illegals who murder US citizens like Mollie Tibbetts? The fact he was an illegal who should have never been there to murder her and others like her is minimized by the Left. What about Congresswoman Omar saying “some people did something” in regards to the killing of 3000 innocent people during 9/11? You say the vast majority of Muslims condemn terrorism in the name of Islam yet why do we hear of so few Muslim leaders openly condemning terrorism? Including a Muslim congresswoman. Or the fact the Left-leaning media glosses over any violence by groups they are in favor with. You openly condemn a mosque or synagogue shooting, yet we can hear crickets when the church shooting happened. Or you decry white males for toxic masculinity or white privilege yet it’s “racist” to call out thugs in the inner city or the illegal who came here to murder.
Violence by lunatics on any side must be condemned by everyone! We condemned those police officers who wanted AOC shot. We clearly said they crossed a line and it was good they were fired as yet another example. ALL sides have fringed lunatics, but the loonies don’t reflect the mainstream. Why the double standard with the Left?
If Islamic terrorists are not who Muslims are….
If pedophile priests are not who Catholics are…
If illegals who do violence and leech off the country are not who Hispanics are…
If gang bangers and welfare mothers are not who black people are…
If Antifa is not who all Liberals are…
Then:
Racists, fascists, Nazis, xenophobes, misogynists, rapists, and mass shooters to name a few are NOT WHO WE ARE!!!!
A Lady of Reason 
Your comment set up —- newest up top — confused me for a moment.
No problems.
LikeLiked by 1 person
LikeLike
I LOVE IT LoR!!! Bravo!!! 🙂 ❤
Myself, like you LoR, KNOW that when we suspend or remove our unique, developed personalities (over many years in endless varied environments) from the organic biological body, BOOM… all of us are less than 0.1% different genetically and still as a whole less than 7.75% different biologically! These very real factual differences are ridiculously minuscule!!! I cannot overstate this! This is why we should ALL just be humans FIRST! Earthlings, period! Stop. Everything beyond is more insignificant.
Maybe in a far distant 2nd place could be all the other minuscule differences 7.6+ billion humans possess, ultimately “uniqueness” that is too often over-inflated. Blame it on that damn runaway Ego I guess. LOL 😉 Then perhaps blame it on the the environment/people we choose to surround ourselves in, huh? Or in some cases, choose to bubble-fy ourselves into like volunteer prisoners! Hahahaha!
Here is a fabulous article from Harvard University’s Graduate School of Arts & Sciences by Vivian Chou that delves into our species’ remarkable LIKENESSES! In other words, our differences as utterly minuscule as they really are, are in fact merely social, merely developed within each of our TINY sphere of comprehension and influence inside a small geographical area within a small time-period. Hence, they are NOT as Universal or Absolute or “Right” as we tend to convince our Egos and tiny spheres of temporary influence. HAH! Imagine that. 😉 Here’s the link to the Harvard article:
http://sitn.hms.harvard.edu/flash/2017/science-genetics-reshaping-race-debate-21st-century/
Thank you LoR for your feedback over on my latest blog-post! 🙂
LikeLiked by 2 people
Thanks! Glad you liked it!
LikeLiked by 1 person
My understanding is that mental competency and thorough training is an integral part of carrying a fire arm should one wish to become a law enforcement officer ( I stand under correction, I’m not American).
If strict guidelines are in force for state officials why are no such guidelines in place for members of the general public?
The time and (utterly ridiculous and wasted) effort it takes to regularly trot out calls for prayers for victims could be put to far better use with a few strokes of a pen to amend the relevant laws.
Seriously, how difficult can this be?
LikeLiked by 2 people
A very excellent question. I’d be curious to read any responses to that one.
LikeLike
I notice no one else has bothered to respond to my question. I wonder why not?
LikeLike
“Seriously, how difficult can this be?”
Ohhhhhh Ark. Clearly you are not an 8th or 9th generation American deeply invested in their honorable, LUCKY-to-have civic duties and education. 😄
It really SHOULD be that simple. I couldn’t agree more! But since at least 2010, but more like the late 90’s and into the 2000’s it is no longer the case. The reason it is not simple, ironically and quite sadly, is a very complex systemic-strategic anti-pluralism anti-diversity ideology gradually implemented all throughout our governments… from the municipal all the way to the Federal in Washington D.C. It is now impossible for anyone with only a high school diploma or GED and inner-city students rarely understand the disguised undercurrents, much less know how to dismantle them. 😦 And that is by design!
That said, I highly recommend you read two outstanding works that unveil this covert subterfuge and subtle takeovers beginning many years ago. The books:
Dark Money: The Hidden History of the Billionaires Behind the Rise of the Radical Right by Jane Mayer
Democracy In Chains: The Deep History of the Radical Right’s Stealth Plan for America by Nancy MacClean
Ark, whether anyone would agree or disagree… these two books will at the very least INTRODUCE YOU to just how America has become an Oligarchy, not a true, pure Constitutional democracy. But since you are not American, I won’t demand that you read them and give me an essay on both. LOL 😉 😛
LikeLiked by 1 person
Ironic how u comment on an article asking essentially why are the Left thinkers so fixated on demonizing the Right for every wrong doing done while choosing to look past any done by a claimed Leftist. And above all, fixated on the “blame game” rather than finding reasonable solutions to the REAL issues facing America and her citizens today and tomorrow. Why? Why is that question so hard for a true Leftist-thinking American to answer WITHOUT BLAMING THE RIGHT?
LikeLiked by 1 person
I hear you and understand you P.A.M., however, I am and always HAVE BEEN just an Independent, maybe Moderate-Left, sometimes and also often, I always want to hear ALL SIDES of any issue/controversy. Unfortunately P.A.M., in our current sociopolitical climate—that has been increasingly polarized, divided, and everything you’ve correctly mentioned in your comment-reply—is shrinking in America. Today there’s practically no middle, no civil, no tolerant, collaborative open-mindedness across the isles. I NEVER wanted the U.S. to be constantly disunited. But our current White House Administration does NOT want or strive for a UNITED States of America. 😔
Again, I hear/understand your annoyance with my comment(s) to Ark, but years ago I was mostly forced into choosing political sides which I have NEVER done in my voting-civil life until George W. Bush and our illegal invasion of Iraq. And I could easily argue Executive Branch Takeovers and highly Monetized Special-Interests taking over Washington D.C. going back to Ronald Reagan!
I’ve been pushed further and further away from my once “Independent Free-thinking Humanist” posture I’ve been (and really still am) all my life by this constant sociopolitical antagonizing by BOTH sides, yes, but in my own opinion more from the Right Conservative and Ultra-Conservative politics/politicians today.
Thank you P.A.M. for your feedback.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I like this guy. 🙂
LikeLiked by 1 person
I agree with the Lady of Reason that it is a mistake to demonize gun owners and to blame them for mass murders such as the recent ones in El Paso and Dayton. According the the 2016 gun ownership survey published in the Washington Post, about 32 percent of households own firearms. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2016/06/29/american-gun-ownership-is-now-at-a-30-year-low/?noredirect=on According to the Geneva based Small Arms Survey, approximately 393,300,000 legal and illegal firearms are in U.S. civilian hands. http://www.smallarmssurvey.org/fileadmin/docs/T-Briefing-Papers/SAS-BP-Civilian-Firearms-Numbers.pdf
I suspect those figures are low if we consider the reluctance of gun owners to tell a stranger about their guns. I certainly wouldn’t. Trump’s critics call him “divisive.” I would suggest that when the advocates of gun control demonize that large a segment of the population, they are being far more divisive. Many gun owners suspect that the gun control issue isn’t so much about guns as about the desire control and to marginalize conservatives, the “ignorant hicks” in flyover territory who haven’t got the sense to recognize the superior judgement of their liberal betters.
One of the commenters criticized the Lady of Reason and conservatives in general for not offering a solution. Perhaps it would be helpful to mention the solutions that the NRA advocates. First of all, there is empirical evidence that indicates armed citizens deter active shooters. As the interesting video provided by Re-Farmer indicates, active shooters tend to be suicidal and thus not afraid of dying however, I suggest that they are afraid of not being able to carry out their mass murder fantasies if their targets can fight back. John Lott’s research indicates that over 90% of mass shootings occur in gun free zones where the perpetrators are assured of unarmed victims. https://crimeresearch.org/2018/06/more-misleading-information-from-bloombergs-everytown-for-gun-safety-on-guns-analysis-of-recent-mass-shootings/ The NRA has been trying to point out for some time that a sign prohibiting firearms doesn’t offer much protection against someone bent on murder and suicide. That is further illustrated by the fact that wherever the NRA holds its annual meeting, the crime rate drops dramatically. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HOZVV_jeRe0 Apparently criminals don’t think armed victims are that much fun to attack. Those who are uncomfortable with firearms might be uncomfortable with those facts as well but facts are stubborn things.
In addition to being a source of firearms training for law enforcement and civilians, the NRA has a School Shield program designed to help schools ensure the safety of staff and students. Here’s a link to a youtube video of a presentation by Lt. Col Dave Grossman who has studied the psychology of violence extensively. He has quite a bit to say about mass murderers in general and, in this segment, about school shooters and school safety. I attended the seminar that he held at the NRA Annual Meeting and I found it most enlightening. No discussion of mass shooters would be complete with out Col Grossman’s expert input. I suggest to you that the NRA is part of the solution and not part of the problem.
I doubt that I will convince any of those who have already made up their minds in favor of gun control. All that I can ask is that you look at the evidence that I listed above. Perhaps some input from Scott Adams of Dilbert fame would be if interest. He is a democrat and a gun control advocate but I think that he has some useful insight into the issue:
https://www.scottadamssays.com/2016/06/22/why-gun-control-cant-be-solved-in-the-usa/
LikeLiked by 3 people
Don’t be confused… the NRA exists to promote the Second Amendment for gun manufacturers and leads the country in promoting the fear to its members of a government takeover and we will need our guns to defeat some tyrant. They bang away constantly at this idea the the only possible true “patriot” is one who is armed. I’m a card carrying GOP’er and I belong to the NRA. If you read their publication, The American Rifleman, LaPierre’s article is nothing but fomenting the fear that Liberals want to take away guns.. and Liberals are some enemy. Totally disgusting. Liberals are fellow Americans… not some enemy. Owning a gun for fun, owning a gun to hunt, owning a gun to defend house and home.. all that is fine. Owning a gun thinking you and your gun is going to keep the country safe from some kind of tyrant it totally misguided. You will be far too busy protecting your family from gangs who want what you have, and trying to survive in the apocalypse to follow as government and services collapse. The NRA is taking its members for a ride. Much more can be accomplished by them, they could easily be the leaders in gun control and control the narrative… but they dare not deviate. They are not representative of gun owners but rather they are a fringe patriotic organization promoting fear of government and fear of losing gun ownership.
LikeLike
Thank you for your opinion articles, Dems. Now, like Lady of Reason (who doesn’t want to pride any reason) you still haven’t provided a solution. I agree, “gun-free” zones are a complete waste of energy and work just as well as “thoughts and prayers”. What’s your conservative solution that our legislators can actually DO to fix this? MORE guns? Make the NRA MORE involved in our government? Democrats like to throw more money at issues that don’t need it; conservatives seem to like to throw more guns at issues that also don’t need it.
LikeLike
But Lady of “Reason” you’re not just like me, and I’m not just like you. A big difference is” I don’t continue to vote leaders into office that flatly refuse to do anything about gun control. You do. That’s a huge difference. If you were afraid – truly afraid – to go to a movie or to an outdoor event because of the possibility of gun violence, I would think you would want to do something about it, but apparently not. Furthermore, I don’t know anyone that just wants to blame white males; I have never heard a single person within my social and occupational spheres echo that sentiment. Most of my discussions center around the lack of any action on the part of Congress. None. nothing.
The problem is – and it is political – with Repugnant-cans in control nothing will ever get done about it. They would have us just accept this as the “new normal.” After 300 years of history, we can no longer expect that our children will come home from school alive. Or that our mothers, fathers, brothers, sisters, etc. will ever return home from a trip to the mall. A six-year old boy was killed because he made the fatal mistake of attending the Garlic Festival in Gilroy, CA with his parents. That was all he did and it cost him his life. This is what Moscow Mitch and his band of Trump-enablers would have us believe. Their classic line of “But changing the laws wouldn’t have stopped this from happening” is just a reprehensible talking point. Even more reprehensible is their idea that we need MORE guns, “good guys with guns” or, better yet, TEACHERS with guns! Really? In the classroom? This never happened in the past, never. Before the GOP/Conservative movement got behind the gun lobby’s redefinition of the 2nd amendment and saw to it that the gun laws were changed so anyone could buy anything at anytime. Now we have more guns per capita than any other nation in the world AND we have more mass shootings than any other nation in the world and we’re perplexed as to how this has come to happen in the United States.
And why? Because the NRA gives the Repugnant-cans money? A group of perhaps 2 or 3 million people are going to hold the rest of the nation hostage so they can continue to sell lots and lots of guns? Do we believe this is true, that there is nothing that can be done at all about this? Is it really some god-given right to own a gun? Of course it’s not and our founding fathers never meant that it should be nor could they have envisioned the kind of mass-manufacture of guns or the incredible lethal
It is a flawed thesis and anyone with an ounce of common sense could figure that out however, in the American political universe, “common sense” goes right out the window when money enters the scene. Gun manufacturers are actually writing legislation for our members of congress, and not Dumocrats, but Repugs, and not just federal laws but state laws as well. So, if you did think to join the fight against the gun lobby, know up front, you’ll have your work cut out for you. After Newtown 91% of Americans wanted something done about gun control laws. 91%. 91% of Americans couldn’t agree on the colors of the flag, yet they somehow came to gather on this issue. And what did Congress do? Nothing, not a single thing. We are no longer represented, we’re ruled. And until we – that is the universal “we”, all Americans – stand up and demand change, nothing will ever get done.
But we do have their thoughts and prayers, after all, so we got that going for us.
This will go on until America finally wakes up – if ever – and stops listening to what our elected officials say and start looking at what they do. Now I realize they’ll have to turn off “Dancing with the Stars” for a moment but it’ll be worth it.
LikeLiked by 2 people
This goes against “Please Don’t Feed the Trolls”, BUT….
If you want people to respond to you, you might start by acting like an adult. Name calling went out in elementary school. All Republicans want to kill people ir watch them gunned down is about as ASININE a statement as all black people are murderers and rapists.
If you’d actually READ any of what’s said here, every conservative I’ve seen here is fine with gun control, background checks, etc… so long as they’re designed to catch bad apples and not universally ban guns. If you boil down Lady of Reason’s entire post, ALL it was about was “Quit saying I’m the same as the shooters just because I’m a lawful, responsible gun owner”.
LikeLiked by 3 people
I came here after reading the email version of the post prepared to offer alot of commentary. All of it supportive too (yes, I’m weird; a relatively conservative erotica writer, lol). 95% of my points were already made in existing comments though.
The mainstream media exploits the situation, and gives these psychos too much attention. The younger shooters especially have frequently been quoted as hoping to become (in)famous via their shooting sprees. Getting around HIPPA laws to include mental health issues in background checks AND not giving these wack jobs so much publicity is going to be a big part of stopping this insanity.
I consider myself the typical law abiding gun owner. We own two pistols strictly for home defense (so so neighborhood and typical Cailfornia hog tied police department). They stay locked up PROPERLY in a safe, which is protected by a household security and surveillance system. I also hope to God I NEVER have to actually point mine at another human being. I also practice regularly so that if I’m ever forced to protect my life, that I hit who I’m aiming at and am never a danger to anyone or thing else.
While I’m big on the belief that the “Swamp” is big on playing both sides against each other to cover up their garbage, I also find it ironic that the same liberals screaming conservatives are all mass murderers were the same people screaming even louder “don’t blame and stereotype us” when the one shooter went after the republican congressional softball team also. Nevermind the media only reporting half the story, such as the Gilroy shooter being of Iranian descent, or the El Paso shooter supposedly being an eco-extremist left wing racist.
LikeLiked by 4 people
Yep… Selective outrage!
LikeLiked by 1 person
A Lady of Reason, waiting for your response on this…come on, I think you’ve been spending way too much time on Lori Alexander’s nonsensical excuse of “articles” (and I use that term VERY loosely with her writing). Give some logical “true conservative” solutions that can be inplemented by our legislature. You’ve defended guns, conservatives, even brought in muslims, pedophile priests, pointed more fingers at Democrats and practically EVERYTHING that did not have to do with the 2 shootings within a 24 hr time span. And mentiones the word “solution” a total of ONE time. And not solution was actually mentioned or discussed…like so many conservatives have done…
LikeLiked by 1 person
Others have addressed your questions. Read more of my blog for my answers to many issues. But then again, there’s no getting through to those like you who come already on the defensive (I assume you found me from Lori’s blog…). Like I said, an ability to fight back would help rather than run and hide and be shot like sheeple….
LikeLiked by 2 people
The ability to fight back WOULD be great, please take note. And in this case I ask ONE question based on the blog post written by YOU. What is YOUR (or a TRUE) conservative solution? You say you don’t support this psycho on killing spree and this is not what conservatives are about. Okay great! Now what’s the conservative solution? It’s one question. Never thought a logical conservative would find it so daunting but now I see why GOP politicians twiddle their fingers and offer their thoughts and prayers as responses. Way to run and hide, right?
LikeLiked by 1 person
Did you read my reply? That IS a solution… Others suggested other ways too. It’s not about just one catch all solution….
LikeLiked by 2 people
@ Lady of Reason
Just to clarify: Are you suggesting that one solution would be if more people were armed and they fired back at such maniacs?
LikeLiked by 1 person
Yep. To stop them…
LikeLiked by 1 person
And you can’t see there might be a problem here?
Not even a teeny weeny problem?
LikeLike
I see is not perfect, but how else can you fight back without substantial risk to your life? Gun vs. Knife…. Gun vs fist???
LikeLiked by 1 person
I asked if you were able to see a problem with everyone being armed and shooting back at such maniacs.
Can you think of any problems with this scenario?
Surely there must be a few that you could imagine, yes?
LikeLike
I ask you, what would you want people to do in a mass shooting? Stand around and get shot without even trying to fight back? Shooters know people will run or hide and feel the liberty of no one doing anything to stop them. They don’t expect people to defend themselves. No solution is perfect, but what risks are you willing to gamble when it’s your life? Since you are trying to prompt me to answer you like a child, why not just give me the “correct answer” 😂 I’m dying to know what your answer is to stopping them when you’re there.
LikeLiked by 1 person
If you read my first comment you will understand my thinking on this topic.
It is at least a sensible middle ground to banning firearms.
That you will not offer a direct answer to my question suggests you are fully aware of the type of mayhem that would ensue should armed members of the public open fire in a crowded area with people running around in a mass panic.
It would be practically guaranteed that even more deaths would ensue, which is why your somewhat hand-waving pithy answer is not a solution but would merely exacerbate the situation. And I suspect you know this only too well.
LikeLike
@Silk Cords
If burglars managed to bypass your home security systems and broke in at night while you were sleeping, how effective would your firearms be for home protection if they are ”locked up PROPERLY in a safe.”
Would you politely ask the burglars to, ”Please wait a moment” while you, calmed down, came to your senses, unlocked the safe, retrieved the firearms and then proceed to make a citizen’s arrest, or shoot them dead depending on how homicidal your burglars were?
If your home security systems are top notch and have proved effective in deterring all burglaries to date what is the need of firearms for home security?
In fact, what is the point of having firearms in the home in the first place?
LikeLike
Assumes many facts not in evidence, as a lawyer would say. 🙂
First, from the wording of your question and the attempt to box my into an answer that you specifically want, I doubt you’re interested in actual discussion, just condemnation. Still, I also believe the only way society is going to return to sanity is if we stop listening to extremists on both sides and star having honest, open minded discussions with people who hold different views.
Getting back to ‘facts not in evidence’, you don’t know how long it takes me to get into my safe (biometric locks allow nearly instant access for example), or how far my bedroom is from the front door OR how many interior doors may be between me and the entrance.
Coming to my senses… I trained 17 years in the martial arts. Contrary to TV and movies, that hardly makes one invincible though. I’m also old and have moderate physical disabilities. What my training DID leave me with is excellent situational awareness and response time.
To get to the heart of your questions though, let’s look at the most extreme event I have dealt with. My cameras caught an armed intruder coming over the security gate at the front corner of the house. I locked and loaded and was outside the front door first. Never even fully pointed it at him. He ran, and I let him go after yelling to never come back. Chasing him to make a citizen’s arrest only would have resulted in a violent confrontation as he tried to resist said arrest, so I saw no point in pursuit. Contrary to popular liberal propaganda, very few gun owners want to shoot anyone, ever. Shooting somebody is something ONLY to be done in clear life and death situations.
The alternative? The *average* response time for a 911 emergency call in the US is 10 minutes. As it so happens, the police department here is understaffed and so restrained by far left policies that they do all they can to avoid responding to anything where shots aren’t fired. The standard response is “Fill out a report online and we’ll (pretend to) look into it”, OR “They’re gone now, there’s nothing we can do. We don’t have the resources to spare.” That second reply is what happened with the thug coming over my gate and twice when my car got broke into and the perp was scared off. It’s so surreal it sounds false, BUT that’s California for you.
So, the point of having a gun in one’s house I suppose depends on if you feel a person has the right to be personally safe from harm anywhere, or if even in their home they should have to worry about being robbed, beaten, raped or killed.
Me… Yes, I believe in the right to RESPONSIBLE gun ownership. As I’ve stated multiple times, I also believe in in-depth background checks, including mental health records checks and enforcing existing laws. I’m open to reasonable new laws that will filter bad apples from good also. Existing laws far too often are ignored by lazy governments and police departments. It came out today that the El Paso shooter’s mother had tried to warn authorities about him. That’s happened several times with these shooters.
Banning guns wouldn’t have stopped the person in San Diego that went on a stabbing spree a couple of night ago either. Nut cases will always find new ways to commit violence, be it knives, clubs, scissors used as a knife, or driving rented trucks into crowds. Mental health and pushing the idea in society that violence is NOT cool and is ONLY acceptable as an absolute last resort for self defense will go further than blanket bans, OR labeling anyone who owns a gun as trigger happy.
LikeLiked by 3 people
The problem is that most gun owners are unlikely to be like you.
And as I mentioned in my comment, if your home security was that good you shouldn’t need firearms on the premises.
As far as ”responsible” goes, just how responsible do you think it is to allow
assault weapons to be sold to the general public?
If you consider responsibility such a key aspect why are mass shootings happening in the first place?
Your argument is no different from those offered every time this issue raises it’s head.
If you lot couldn’t care enough after Sandy Hook then it’s unlikely you will give a shit about genuine gun control.
LikeLike
You know, with the opening line, I though I may have gotten through to you a little.
I already told you why a security system is only a deterrent, and a warning system at best. It may scare off some, but hard core criminals don’t care. They think they can be long gone in the 10 minutes to a half hour it takes Police to respond, if they come at all. You get me a security system that projects a force field, THEN we’ll have a discussion about an alarm making a gun unnecessary.
Taking half a step back… Let’s put my statistics class to use here. How many gun owners do you know and have had in-depth conversations with to come to the conclusion that none of them are like me? I’m betting none, and you’ve just let the talking heads convince you that we’re all evil. You’ve got multiple gun owners here TRYING to show you differently.
I’ll be honest, and I may alienate a few conservatives in the process. No, not all gun owners are like me. You want my honest estimate having been around several more gun owners than you? 15 percent or so of them worry me a little. The type that would seem a little too quick to shoot and claim self defense.
The flip side to that is EVERY single gun owner I’ve met is sickened and offended by all these shootings also.
The whys these shooting are happening have been answered repeatedly here. Mentally ill idiots that want to be famous, hateful idiots and criminals that never should have gotten guns, at least half of which should have been caught by existing background check and similar laws.
A better question might be how many times can you ignore perfectly legitimate answers so you can keep spouting the talking point that all gun owners are psycho killers?
“You lot”… Is that something like “all you damned black people?” Group stereotypes and labels of any type are asinine and infantile. And quite frankly, it’s offensive as hell for you to presume to tell me that I don’t give a shit about anybody, at Sandy Hook or anywhere else, that’s killed because I’m saying don’t punish me for some asshole’s actions.
You’ve been given multiple steps in the right direction towards getting this problem under control, from a dozen different people here. You ignore them completely though and insist on “genuine” gun control where everyone has all guns taken away and only criminals are armed. Not a single liberal here has been able to counter my point about Okinawa and the Shogun banning weapons there in the feudal era, or how Britain is now suffering from waves of criminals using everything from scissors to pipes for robberies now that guns and knives have been banned. Hell, let’s take it a step further… Criminals and terrorists have used vehicles to run down people in recent years, so YOU shouldn’t be allowed to own any vehicle at all. I don’t care if you’re not guilty, vehicles are dangerous, so you don’t get to have one because of some other person’s actions.
OR, does limiting vehicle use to people who are properly licensed and are mentally stable enough to drive safely make more sense?
That said, I’m done here. Your Sandy Hook assertion was offensive to say the very least. It shows you’re incapable of rational discussion and possibly rational thought, AND are devoid of any empathy.
LikeLiked by 3 people
I have never asserted that gun owners are evil. And that statement demonstrates that you’re being overly defensive. I wonder why?
But obviously not enough to do anything about it.
Obviously the checks are good enough, then are they?
Again, inflammatory rhetoric that I have never used. You sound like you are about to froth at the mouth. Take a deep breath.
No, it refers to the American people in general, but specifically to those who are adamant that any sort of gun control is a challenge to their so-called personal freedom.
And once more you are getting very hot under the collar. Doesn’t sound like you are as controlled and reasonable as you would like us to believe.
And again, not enough to do anything about it.
But nothing meaningful has taken place, so what is one supposed to think? Are you waiting for a specific number of mass shootings or similar tragedies before you are prepared to enact change to the laws?
No one bothered to counter it because it was a bloody stupid comparison.
A lot of time (years) and thought went into developing martial arts and the ingenuity to develop weapons out of what were ostensibly household and farm implements.
Purchasing an off the shelf automatic weapon and spraying bullets into a packed crowd doesn’t.
In actual fact, your response shows that you are extremely resistant to implementing any law that curtails the willy-nilly sale of firearms to any Dickhead that walks into a Walmart with a wallet full of money.
LikeLike
Typo. The checks are NOT good enough
LikeLike
So, what IS the conservative solution? I’m genuinely curious. Because so far, all conservative politicians have offered is plentiful thoughts and prayers from their comfy bed with the NRA. When Trump was on his “I hate Obama and I want everything he did gone!”-phase, he billed out gun checks and regulations that made it harder for mentally ill people to obtain guns. Conservatives lauded this (did they know what was being signed?…). So…what is the “true conservative” solution and stance on this? Mentally ill people have a hard right to assault weapons? Is it the NRA money? Let’s just let everyone have a gun, wether good, crazy, or past history of WHATEVER and have our fingers crossed that when one cracks another will shoot him before he blows the heads off of too many people? Every time there’s an incident like this conservatives offer prayers and defend guns. It’s time to actually offer a solution. What’s the solution?
LikeLiked by 1 person
“Do you truly think we aren’t just as outraged when the next mass shooting occurs? Do you truly believe that we aren’t scared and appalled ….
,,,
We are not murderers who kill, threaten and terrorize to get our way. We are not terrorists whose only strategy is to bully people into submission. We are not the true racists who adore the Nazis and wish to repeat the Holocaust! ”
From the comments I’ve been seeing, not only do the leftists (I’d love to have a better word to use, because they’re really not left or right anymore, but their own category of delusions) think “conservatives” are NOT outraged by this, they believe “conservatives” (Republicans, right wing, whatever; anyone who isn’t lockstep with them) are happy about the shooting and eager for more of them. Because they (“conservatives”) love guns more than they love people. They *do* think we are all terrorists, racists and haters that celebrate these shootings.
I wish that were hyperbole, but the comments I’ve been reading are saying exactly that. And, of course, it’s all Trump’s fault, because Orange Man Bad.
There is a lot of ignorance going around, and one of the biggest examples of this is people who believe that these sorts of shootings happen only in the US, or that the US has the most and worst of them. Because of Trump, guns and the NRA. The reality is, despite the fact that the US has more guns than people, they are nowhere near the top of the list.
They are 66th.
http://worldpopulationreview.com/countries/mass-shootings-by-country/
Take out Democrat controlled cities with the strictest anti-gun laws, like Chicago and Detroit, and the US drops almost to the bottom of the list.
The other thing that is often ignored is, mass shootings are not all alike, and they are not all political.
El Paso’s shooter seems to be a part of a new category of mass shooter. The troll. Someone who is after the celebrity and notoriety of the act. He has written a “manifesto” that he knows the media is going to go over with a fine tooth comb and selectively quote, when in reality, it is most likely going to be filled with contradictions. He is manipulating the media with it.
The Ohio shooting is something else entirely. The man killed his own sister. No manifesto. The shooter had to be killed to be stopped. Something set this guy over the edge, but he still was lucid enough to pre-plan and put on body armour. These types of shooters tend to either shoot themselves, or commit suicide by cop.
A third category is mad passion, such as murder/suicides, where someone kills off specific people (such as family members), then kills themselves.
In the end, though, only one person is responsible for these shootings, and that’s the person who pulled the trigger.
LikeLiked by 5 people
Let’s assume for the sake of argument here that you know what you are talking about… and your last sentence sums it all up. Is it your opinion that we simply just ignore it all and move on with life because of some statistical revelation that “it’s not all that bad when compared to the rest of the world”.. or.. do you have a suggestion to try an find some solution?
LikeLike
Doug, most normal conservatives get shouted down or dismissed by the extreme left when offering solutions. Reducing the hype and deliberate misinformation (as Re-Farmer pointed out) will go a good ways towards encouraging the fame seekers and otherwise calm tensions. I won’t resume to speak for Re-Farmer, but if you want MY opinion, we need proper enforcement of the gun laws we have for starters. Too often a glitch in the system that should have prevented these savages from having guns allowed them to get them. We need a way to check mental health records as part of a background check also while still making sure mental health doesn’t become a blanket excuse for gun grabs. I have other ideas as well, but this isn’t my thread, and I’m not who you asked for a reply.
LikeLiked by 5 people
Actually, I am presuming this is a relatively “open” blog and I am certainly not in charge.. and if I post something I am presuming anyone can jump in. My question to Re-Farmer is for any Conservative willing to suggest an idea for a solution to mass shootings. Personally, my perception is that Trumpian Conservatives spend a lot of time trying to defend everything, and lately like to present themselves as victims, and offer no new ideas or solutions to anything. Apparently they prefer the universal cop-out “just enforce the existing laws” as a cure-all for the nation’s ills…. except for immigration, of course, where “new” laws and walls will fix that problem.
And there’s a move to get lawmakers to re-convene Congress. I gave up anyone caring after Sandy Hook.. I mean, what could be worse than killing a bunch of children in school? Apparently we haven’t reached that number yet.
As I am writing this I am seeing that Trump is supposed to address the nation about the shootings at 10am Eastern; I feel so safe already.
LikeLike
As far as I can tell Doug, it is indeed a blog where reasonably civil discourse is freely allowed. I was just trying to avoid monopolizing the replies or presuming to speak for others. 🙂
“Trumpian Conservatives” is one of those false labels created by the “swamp” and the media though. Same with the labels trying to put all liberals into camps that make even Pelosi look conservative. If you get nothing else out of your time at Lady of Reason’s blog, I hope it will be that much. Me personally, I hate Trump’s personality and brashness. I think he comes off as the stereotypical arrogant rich Manhattan dweller. Many of his policies work though. Even in the Reagan or Clinton era booms, unemployment wasn’t so low that companies were recruiting in prisons. Some things here and there I do disagree with though. Likewise I’m sure you disagree with some liberal ideas here and there, at least to a degree.
Getting back to the subject at hand… Banning the tools of violence will not stop violent people or those desperate to defend themselves. Imperial Okinawa being one example. The Shogun banned the native Okinawans from carrying weapons. To fight oppression, they developed some of the deadliest martial arts and improvised weapons in existence. Nunchaku (nunchucks) were originally a grain flail used to separate wheat from chaff. Modern Britain is another example. They’ve moved from banning guns to banning knives to trying to ban handymen’s tools and such because muggers just look for different weapons. Look at the terrorists and whackos that have tried to use vehicles to run down people in crowded areas when weapons weren’t available also.
Aside from what I mentioned before, one of the biggest things I think needs to happen is a concerted effort to change the mentality around guns, for owners and non-owners. People need to be educated that a gun is just a dangerous tool. It’s not a self propelled killing machine, nor is it a toy or some augmentation for one’s masculinity. That’s how most people viewed guns back in the 1950s and 60s. I think the NRA could do alot to rehab it’s image via a campaign to promote that mindset.
Enforce existing laws isn’t a cop out either. It’s not the only solution BUT there’s case after case where if the existing laws were enforced, it would have prevented a crime.
I think we need more comprehensive background checks on weapon purchases. Including my previously mentioned getting the bugs out of the system and checks for previous mental health issues. HIPPA be damned in this instance. Besides, a yes or no can be given without disclosing confidential medical information.
Me personally, if there’s a situation where a shooter took a gun from a family member and it can be proven that the family member was negligent in not securing the gun properly (left out, etc… not the criminal broke into their safe), then I’d like to see the family member or friend face serious charges as well. I spent as much on my safe as I did my pistol because I take my responsibility as an owner seriously.
Despite the fact that concealed weapons permits holders are statistically least likely to be involved in criminal activity, etc… I’d also like to see them be required to take the exact same firearms training as police so I *know* they have the judgment to determine when it’s safe to shoot, can accurately hit a target, and have more respect for guns than some owners do.
LikeLiked by 3 people
“Moscow Mitch” or “Massacre Mitch”, I agree.. is a bit “labelly”. “Trumpian Conservative” describes the separation from those Conservatives like myself who care not for the man. That being said (and I do like your reply.. as Conservative blogs go I find this one seems to have a few folks who can explain themselves rather than echo the mundane… which I tend to admire -no, not the mundane- even if we have differences of opinion. But that’s just the elitist me.), I own guns, I’m in the NRA, and I am a GOP member… but Trump has got to go. Let me pass on a reply I just did on another blog regarding some poster (a religious on at that) calling for everyone to arm themselves in order to defend themselves, and who applauded the NRA for all it’s benevolence to safety training and education.
ME: – Jeez…. for a religious guy you are rather anxious to go out and kill someone… and now you are encouraging others to do the same.
HIM: – I find your insinuation thoroughly insulting. Not to bore you with the obvious point of this piece … I’m encouraging people to protect themselves, their loved ones and innocent people who just might be around a hostile situation through no choice of their own.
ME: – Yes.. and protecting one’s self using a firearm presumes you’re not intending to use the firearm to fire a warning shot into the air and the culprit runs off… but you are intending to kill someone, again presumably, the philosophy is “it’s either you or him”. What I am saying that using a firearm for personal defense carries with it a lot of responsibility.. and NOT just gun safety. When you kill someone.. it’s very real. No one knows how well they might recover from that because not a lot of folks who are faced with killing someone are just going to shrug it all off with a “it was either him or me”, kick back, and snort a beer. Heck, even cops sometimes kill themselves over the psych results from serving and protecting the public. Mental health goes both ways.
Now.. this is not to suggest that morally speaking, you kill someone you are breaking a Commandment instilled in us from birth.. which is why some GI’s get PTSD. I imagine there is an “it’s ok for certain exceptions” Bible quotation.. but I was taught.. no exceptions.
My point… “We need to arm ourselves!” is an emotional cry, unless one thinks it all out.
You get the idea. I do agree it’s entirely not about controlling assault weapons… BUT… the things were indeed designed by the military to kill as many people as possible in as short a time as possible. There’s no denying the reason for their existence.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I think I get you better than some of the others here do, Gary. My vibe is you do want honest communication and to understand where people here are coming from. THAT said however, some if the frustration from others is doubtless coming from the wording of your replies.
In response to my original reply for example, you singled out my comment about how failures in enforcement of existing laws have contributed to some of the shootings. You largely ignored the rest of it beyond my not wanting to monopolize the conversation.
Re-Farmer is correct in that there’s no simple solution to this mess. It’s the same way we’re never going to be able to cure cancer by doing one thing like eliminating sugar. There are multiple things at play here. Heated rhetoric putting so many people in a heated mood, sloppy enforcement of existing laws, a general decline in morals anymore, HIPPA laws shielding some people and allowing them to buy guns, relatives that are sloppy in securing weapons or thumb their noses at a restraining order and arm a future shooter, etc… Going into detail on a proper fix would literally take a book.
I didn’t even hit on how most of the shootings keep taking place in gun free zones for example. Shooters chose places with minimum risk. I’m NOT saying the Aurora theater had no right to say no guns, but I am saying that maybe they had a moral obligation to have armed security along with that choice.
A couple of other points here. 🙂 The proper interpretation of the Hebrew is “Thou shall not MURDER”. If you talk to a rabbi, esp an orthodox one, you’ll find there’s a big distinction between killing and murder. Life and death self-defense being the biggest exception. I meant what I said in an earlier reply about hoping I never have to point a gun at another person. If it clearly came down to my life or their’s though, I’d shoot.
GI PTSD is due to a variety of factors, everything from not being prepared to take a life, to seeing friends killed, to restrictive rules of engagement that get our forces killed.
Assault rifles… Complex situation. I think the issue is more one of some of the owners and their mentality. The M16 was originally designed as a hunting rifle though. Now it and the AR civilian versions have morphed a good bit since it’s invention, I’ll give you that much. AN AR can only shoot as fast as you pull the trigger though. The news uses assault rifle to mean machine gun. Same way they can’t distinguish between CO2 and CO when doing environmental stories.
For what it’s worth (my feeling being it’s a distraction vs the bigger issue), “assault rifles were given that name in the early 20th century when armies were phasing out rifles that were 5 feet or greater in length. Shorter rifles worked better in close quarters, be it hand to hand combat range, or assaulting an enemy trench or base.
The 5.56mm round is really underpowered vs many hunting and other rifles. My point being that if you ban ARs, the psychos will only switch to a different type of rifle. It’s hearts and minds that we need to change while tightening laws in ways that don’t infringe on sane, legal gun owners
LikeLiked by 3 people
Bah, I meant Doug, not Gary. Sorry about that, LOL.
LikeLiked by 1 person
“Let’s assume for the sake of argument here that you know what you are talking about… ”
With a condescending opening like that, why would I even bother to read the rest of what you wrote?
I am not playing your game, Doug.
LikeLiked by 3 people
So what’s the solution, Re-Farmer? You splendidly defended Conservatives and guns (the most important), now what’s your conservative solution for these mass murders?
LikeLike
How can there be any one solution to such a varied and complex problem?
A mass killing, according to the FBI definition, is when 4 or more people are killed within a tight geographical area and without a “cooling off” period between deaths. There are other definitions used elsewhere. It’s a definition that serves only to categorize, and definitions can be messed with. One example being the claim, after a school shooting early in the year, that there were already an impossible number of school shootings in just the beginning of 2019. The number was inflated because the people who came up with it counted all shootings that happened someplace in the vicinity of a school, including accidental discharges in the parking lot of a closed school, to late night gang violence near a school. People with an agenda will go out of their way to mess with the definitions to make their point. Another example was an article at a “science” site. Their research date showed that places in the US with the tightest gun laws had a 53% greater risk of gun violence – but if they “adjusted” for X,Y, Z and the phases of the moon, they were able to get the result they wanted: tighter gun laws reduced shootings. Also, mentally ill people.
I think the first thing that needs to be done is to stop viewing all mass killing as being the same, simply because it is a mass killing. Or to assume they are the same because of the type of weapon used, or because of the colour of the perpetrators skin.
If we want to prevent people from reaching the point of doing something so heinous, we need to look at what is happening on a case by case basis, and without presuppositions. It’s not going to solve anything if we go in saying “Trump is evil and encouraging this; get rid of him and the shootings will stop.” (which I’ve seen) That’s just dumb. But it’s not much more helpful to make blanket statements about mental health. There is enough stigma preventing people with mental health problems from getting help. Having “potential mass murderer” hanging over the heads is just going to keep more people from seeking help.
The reasons people do stuff like this are varied and complex, and there are no blanket solutions. We can, however, look at these cases and hopefully be able to learn from them to help reduce changes of it happening again.
Until then, the last thing that should be done is take away people’s ability to defend themselves. Law abiding citizens aren’t the problem, and punishing them for the actions of someone who doesn’t care if they are breaking the law or not is backwards thinking. It would be like denying people driver’s licenses, because other people drive without licenses and cause accidents. These shooters target gun free zones for a reason (most famously, when the gay bar got shot up, people cried homophobia. It turned out the shooter had a different target in mind, but there was too much armed security, so he switched the the handiest, least secure target he could find right away). We all get emotional about tragedies like this, as we should, but we can’t let emotionalism get in the way of seeking out and finding solutions. That sort of thing tends to backfire.
LikeLiked by 4 people
So.. your “solution” is let’s just kick back and judge each mass shooting on a case-by-case basis and then after a while, as we address and find solutions for those case-by-case shootings, we will have covered them all at some future date? Actually, not to single your “solution” here as being any different to what likely most Trumpian Conservatives would conjure up.
First and foremost we MUST make sure it was the fact that the shooter might have been an illegal alien that led to him/her pulling the trigger… and/or there is some question of legal citizenship. (the “holy grail” of reasons)
We have to make sure the skin color of the shooter was the cause for him/her pulling the trigger.
We have to make sure the shooter was simply a disgruntled employee that made him/her pull the trigger.
We have to make sure the shooter’s nationality was the cause of him/her pulling the trigger.
We have to make sure any manifesto left behind reflected the cause for the the shooter to pull the trigger.. and only if we can verify it wasn’t left behind to confuse the media into believing the reasons were not some diversion. (gotta admit.. this was a new one on me from in this blog; fake manifestos!)
We have to make sure it was a mental health problem that caused the shooter to pull the trigger.
We have to make sure the stats of past mass shooting events get blurred enough to foment confusion while enhancing blame deflection.
If all that doesn’t fit then Conservatives have the fall-back option at all costs…
We must make sure Trump’s caustic, inflammatory, racial dialog had nothing to do with the shooter pulling the trigger.
We must make sure that the shooter’s right to own a firearm of his choosing had nothing to do with the shooter pulling the trigger.
We must make sure no reasoning for any shooter to have pulled the trigger includes the idea that guns, assault weapons, need to be regulated.
We must make sure that while the price of having the Second Amendment being interpreted by the Court they way it is has, cost lives and most definitely will in the future… but that’s not our problem. It’s the price of freedom!
LikeLike
Oh, and as a BTW, this research is already being done. This video discusses school shootings specifically, so the solutions would not apply to the recent public shootings, but the organization’s research covers all mass shootings.
LikeLiked by 1 person
YES! And this video illustrates what I have been pushing that there needs to be some long term mental health intervention (did you happen to watch the second one with Williams?). Perhaps the single most lacking issue concerning any attempt to even address mass shootings is the social uncertainty regarding safety.. everywhere. Any plan that is introduced.. to be readily accepted and to re-gain public confidence in public safety.. MUST be an all-inclusive effort to address an immediate, and intermediate, and a long term… involving all elements of society. We currently have no leadership in our country so this will not work, sadly, for now. But any plan must be concise, make sense, and have measurable and final goals that will likely remain policy forever given the symptoms will never fade and will always need prevention.
My degree is in the applied behavioral sciences so I am a little more tuned to some of this mental health “stuff”. Back in the late 80’s, way before Columbine, I was interfacing a lot with the local school district of which my kids were attending school. In response to some parent outreach initiative locally to include parents in some aspect of subjects being covered in the class room I was asked to make a few class presentations in history. Simply standing in front of the classroom doing my thing I could easily spot three or four kids, both genders, displaying elements of emotional trauma. Mentining this to one of the teachers I got a response that teachers see this all the time in class… but the problem of reporting it was the huge issue as society was not prepared or set up to deal with anything until the problems started. For one thing, most parents don’t want to believe their kid is messed up.
Now.. how all this relates to the here-and-now… and back to our posts in here… again, we can blow off mass shootings as being simply mental health issues.. and leave the damn guns alone. Yet… assault weapons killing people is the one common factor in all shootings, so it’s obvious some might think some control of tat is the answer. After all, they were banned for ten years from 94-04. But if assault weapons are banned it just will not solve any problem at all in the long term. Yet.. if it’s part of a larger program (build a sunset like the first ban).. then it can make some sense.
But this Conservative.. “don’t touch my guns” mindset will go nowhere.
LikeLike
Exactly! Great analysis!
LikeLiked by 1 person
That’s your solution to the people that have lost their lives and loved ones in theae horrible hate murders. “You need to fight back and not be shot like sheeple”. ANDDD BINGO. THAT IS WHERE Conservatives are NOT “just like you, Dems”. I don’t consider myself a Democrat by any means of the imagination (I’m all for border security and “gun-free zones” are as ludicrous as “abortion free states”) but there needs to be some level of gun regulation. I’d just wish Conservatives wouldn’t scream “SOCIALISM!! COMMUNIST!!” at the mere mention of perhaps prohibiting the mentally ill or people with histories of violence to maybe, Oh I don’t know, NOT obtain semiautomatic weapons? Just a little thought to nudge some action other the the solution of “my thoughts and prayers are with the families of El Paso, they need to know how to defend themselves instead of being shot at like the SHEEPLE they are”
LikeLike
Still waiting on a solution from our Conservatives that doesn’t include the same ->
-it’s because our society needs Jesus
– People need prayer more than ever
– It’s fatherlessness that’s hurting these poor mentally ill boys (notice how this beauty came up to deviate fault of gun violence of caucasian shooters, but never once when it was a non-caucasian shooter…)
-Their souls are sick/hurting/hungering for Jesus
-Somehow all single mothers out there are 100% responsible for the this shooting inspired by hatred (gotta love the misogyny in some conservative circles because women belong in their house kitchens and must not depart from that)
-Abortion caused this!!
-And last but certainly not least, the crown favorite and most notably loved solution of conservatives “Lack of thoughts and prayers is probably the single biggest factor” – I credit this to great former Republican presidential candidate Mike Huckabee.
LikeLiked by 1 person
We’ve given our opinions in detail…. Sorry if we don’t say what you want to hear just because you keep repeating yourself rudely demanding answers that were already given.
LikeLiked by 3 people
THAT’s what you got out of what I wrote?
WTF is wrong with you?
There already *are* gun regulations. Lots of them. They need to be enforced.
Also, having learned to shoot on a bolt action rifle, including a WWII sniper rifle, then moving on to semi-automatic rifles, people freaking out over a simple improvement in technology, as if it’s something more nefarious than it is, only shows an ignorance of guns.
Also, the only people I’m seeing making “thoughts and prayers” comments like yours have been from people like you, attacking “conservatives” (whatever that means to you; I’m not sure).
You, sir, have just joined Doug in the “I’m not going to bother reading what they say” zone. Congratulations.
LikeLiked by 4 people
One of the toughest truths I have come to accept is that gun laws have no effect on gun violence. Vermont has essentially zero gun control and is the safest state in the country. On the contrary, Chicago has among the strictest gun control in the nation but is a third-world war zone. The violent crime rate of a given area boils down to culture.
LikeLiked by 5 people
Exactly!
LikeLiked by 2 people
No hard feelings about Lori’s mommy blog but I personallygave conservatives more credit than to read what she’s peddling. Come on now, I know Lori teaches women not to say a peep about politics since it’s “a man’s job” but surely since you created your own blog you can answer a question from your own writing? Anything at all? What’s your “conservative idea” for a solution our legislators can do to fix this?
LikeLiked by 1 person
Go ahead… Keep asking the same question I already answered… Or tell me what’s unclear in the answer I just gave.
LikeLiked by 3 people
Forget gun bans for a moment. The Comprehensive Background Check bill is being held up by McConnell and the GOP for some odd reason. So.. any ideas anyone?
LikeLike
So what would be a good solution, Raging Gay Conservative? Conservatives don’t like ANY regulation (even preventing mentally ill people from obtaining guns), so what is a logical plan our legislators can do that’s in line with conservative ideas for a solution? A Lady of Reason likes to rant about how this doesn’t represent her. But a wise person once told me, if all you’re doing is “voicing a concern” WITHOUT offering a solution, you’re just b^itching.
LikeLike
Unlike you having a grudge about me on Lori’s blog? 😂
LikeLiked by 1 person
Uhh.. Taylor, I am neither gay, raging gay, nor anything resembling a raging Conservative. In fact, your reply to my post gives me pause that you are paying attention.
LikeLiked by 1 person
That’s a GREAT question, Doug!
LikeLike
A very well done and impassioned post regarding Conservatives being just “regular” folks. I have no argument on a thing you said. Yet I do have a few observations that I can bullet-point (sorry for that untimely pun; not intentional).
1. My perception is that the typical Trumpian Conservative is seen as a “Trump enabler” when hias supporters endeavor to applaud his every whim and allow all his foibles to be valid simply because of some perception of “look at all the good he’s doing for the country”. Well, then we pause and ask… this divisive and racist political climate he’s given us that very likely contributed in no uncertain terms to the El Paso shooting.. and now Dayton.. is THIS the good he’s doing for the country? You are absolutely correct… Conservatives are people too, with families and desires to go to the mall without being shot… and before Trump the differences between the ideologies was far more benign. My Conservatism existed in those times. It does not anymore.
2. Antifa.. the anti-facist organization, gets a ton of play with Trumpian Conservatives and why when it’s not doing much of anything? No question it’s a far Left clamor as much as neo-Nazis are the far Right. They do things then they go to jail… like anyone else. I certainly do not condone what they are alleged to have done. But to hear the Right wing use it to promote themselves being victims.. where is this even happening on some grand scale? Yep.. there’s the occasional beating somewhere or maybe some confrontational nonsense at some demonstration here and there… but exactly where is this organization disrupting society at all? Honestly, given all the garbage Trump has created in this country Antifa is not your main problem as a Trump supporter… and any fears you have are likely provided by Trump himself. If you want to be a “victim” then share in the universal victimization of all Americans by Trump’s idiotic and incompetent behavior.
3. What is so gosh darn important about those four female Congresspersons?? They do not represent the Dem Party in general, they are freshmen to Congress and have little clout in general, and not a one is even running for any greater office. Why does the Trumpian Right insist on accepting Trump’s labeling them as something important to fear? So.. then I ask… why do Trump supporters support him out of his contrived fear of everything?
4. As we awoke this morning there was another shooting in Dayton where nine more people were killed by apparently an assault rifle… again. The thought crosses my mind wondering if our “civil war” is going to be a trail of racist-nutjob public shootings. Maybe the future shootings (and there will be more) will be initiated by more “sane” individuals, perhaps collectively, as a strategic strike on society. One thing we do know.. mass shootings seems to be a “white man” crime. Why is that?
5. My last point.. and I keep banging away at this… we need a national focus on mental health, across the board. Mental health problems in our society present themselves across all facets of society… and most families have at least one person suffering from mental issues. EVERY aspect of our daily lives is affected by those with various forms of mental health issues… from people like the young Kennedy girl all the way to returning service members with PTSD… to opioid addiction… to the minds of mass shooters. It’s our number one social problem. One of these candidates would be pushing for a universal commission to explore our current science regarding mental health and the brain, current treatments, current social impacts, impacts of laws, future possible legislation and Constitutional limitations… any and all aspect of how mental health affects our country. Come out with a Kennedy-space-program-like initiative to attack this crisis.
Fini.
LikeLiked by 3 people
1. From my perspective, the divisive and racist political climate is fomented by those who preach identity politics and attempt to frame every discussion in terms of “systemic” discrimination and “White supremacy”.
2. To me, “antifa” equates to “anti first amendment” because they frequently blockade others from making/attending speeches they disagree with — and often by violent means.
3. I suspect that Mr. Trump focuses attention on them to exacerbate tensions between the moderate and progressive factions of the Democratic Party.
4. According to an analysis done by Mother Jones, not all mass shootings are committed by white men, or by men, or with “assault” weapons.
https://www.motherjones.com/politics/2012/12/mass-shootings-mother-jones-full-data/
In fact, according to Statistica, which graphed the MJ stats, whites are under-represented on a shooter per capita basis:
Whites – 62/111 = 56% of shooters vs. 73% of pop.
Blacks – 19/111 = 17% of shooters vs. 13% of pop.
Latino – 10/111 = 9% of shooters vs. 16% of pop.
Asians – 8/111 = 7% of shooters vs. 5% of pop.
Native – 3/111 = 3% of shooters vs. 1% of pop.
https://www.statista.com/statistics/476456/mass-shootings-in-the-us-by-shooter-s-race
And once gang-related shootings and other felony homicides (which don’t receive widespread national media coverage) are factored in, the over-representation of young Blacks and Hispanics becomes even more apparent.
LikeLiked by 6 people
Excellent Ron! For those of you just tuning in.. Ron is a great example of critical thinking. This is NOT to suggest I am some authority on the subject, but my blog experience has been a lot of reading of a whole lot of emotion and very little significant thought based on honest common sense based on some level of credible citation.
Ron, I am concluding that Mother said “white” was 56% and the other site was 62% of total mass shooters. That your interpretation? Now.. the trick is, what do “we” or anyone else do with this data to affect change one way or the other? Not baiting you here.. I certainly have no answer other than some possible demographic/economic effect and mental health in general.
Regarding the “not all mass shootings are done using assault weapons” if of course true enough, but me being an old stats guy I’d love to extrapolate this data to determine if there were a certain demographic to the weapons used to suggest a pattern… and maybe a couple other patterns in here as well. I suppose one could go as far as establishing how many people were killed using assault weapons vs. other weapons of choice.
I personally have little issue offhand in the need to ban assault weapons as I don’t see that as an immediate cause for the shootings, although technically assault weapons ARE the cause of so many deaths and injuries, which is the nature of the weapon in itself… inflict as much damage to other humans as possible in as short a time as possible. My concern is the overall reasoning one feels the need to own such a weapon. To me.. play time-bang-bang shoot things up on a range or other rural environment, or hunting, are reasonable reasons.. as in personal/family protection. I find NO validity in the NRA/patriotic nonsense that owning such a weapon helps to keep government from turning tyrannical. But that’s an argument not for the here and now.
To your points 1 and 2… obviously we have two opinions here.. and that’s ok.
Good reading your reply… even if we differ. 🙂
LikeLiked by 2 people
Hi Doug. Apologies or the late reply.
I couldn’t detect any pattern in the shooters’ weapons choice. What did stand out, however, was that a fair number of shooters had known mental health problems prior to their shooting incident. So I think advocating for policies that facilitate treatment for people with mental health issues would be more successful than arguing for more gun laws.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I apologize for replying to your post. You see, for some strange reason, I’m prevented from replying to A Lady of Reason’s posts when I ask her a question. So I’m replying to wherever I’m not blocked from replying to since I know she’ll see it even though, like conservatives, will shy away and offer thoughts when confronted about issues like this.
LikeLike
If you would look through comment threads on other posts, you’d see some pretty strident opponents I allowed a voice on my blog. However, just trolling repeating the same things in a rude manner gets the conversation nowhere. Until you have something new to say to add to the debate we don’t need to hear the same thing said 10X. Rest assured though, I do see all your comments and will be more than glad to let any go through for all to see as long as they’re adding and not just going in endless circles and in an entitled demanding tone.
LikeLiked by 2 people
I can certainly understand your passion, Taylor… but I’m guessing if you were a bit less contentious……….. You see, no one is going to convince anyone to “their side” of things because that’s where we are riding these days. It’s not just this blog.. but pretty much all political blogs. No room for compromise because both sides are afraid of loosing something that apparently each side thought they had, but didn’t. Those of us that are Americans in this blog.. are in fact, ALL Americans… not enemies. And the political chasm between us all runs deep and for entirely different reasons and conclusions… quite literally suggesting both sides are from completely different worlds. The single most common denominator.. everyone is responding to their own fear. This is nothing new to you or anyone else in here, I am sure. But my point.. we gotta live with the divide for now until something comes along to bring us back to some center. Logic and common sense mean nothing because each has their own measure of what exactly that is.
This is very likely the progression in the months ahead… between now and the election “things” are going to get very difficult and downright bad, socially and politically, and quite conceivably economically. We have yet to see the worst of anything and if anything, one would be prudent to watch carefully and take heed. Most certainly it will not mean the country will fall nicely into what you, me, or anyone else in here thinks it should be.
So far we’ve not paid the price of what it will take to even things out. Example, mass shootings will continue until the price has been paid to begin solving the problem. I have no idea when that might be but you can be sure more people will die. Very likely people will also die from outside events. The economy may suffer… world events will get nastier.. climate will continue to change making natural disasters more common… until the price has been paid to begin the fixes.
In the meantime… blogging means you keep at it until you can’t… then walk away.. there will always be another day. If you’re a religious person you might pray to make this as painless as possible for us all.
LikeLike
I mentioned this to a liberal family member: the gun is a tool but our society has a soul sickness. It starts with the degrading of connections between people. It is the fact that we are breaking down bonds and not creating them. People hurt in silence. Not hurting like the snowflakes say but an actual hurt. Its not just (x) type of people but it is starting to manifest in people in need. The acknowledgement, even in death, is what they are getting from these events. We have two options that both need to be taken: (a) stop glamorizing/using their names in the media (b) start actually caring about people in general, being a physical part of a communty, empathy/etc.
LikeLiked by 5 people
Good points! I bet a lot are copy cats that want a sick shot at fame…
LikeLiked by 2 people
Purpose, relevance, and a shot of being on top/winning.
LikeLiked by 2 people
I hear you on this, but there’s one major glitch with the suggestion of being “friends,” might solve the problem. Communities both great and small have churches, clubs, therapy groups, events, etc..the kind of individuals who commit these acts are on the fringes of hell. They’re not the kind of person you can stand their company for very long. Nick Cruz, the parkland shooter was hailed as the type of kid who needed friends, nobody would be nice to him, he was bullied, nobody would sit and have lunch with him, etc..well, maybe nobody wanted to because he was a psycho? It was the fault of the people he was staying with that they allowed him to have his firearm knowing he was a problem person. I wouldn’t even let someone like that in my house let alone live with me and own a gun?
Lanza’s mom was another certifiable idiot. You know your son is disturbed, but you think having skeightiy-eighty guns around and making that “a fun activity you can do together,” a good idea? THESE are the kind of people who should never be near a fork let alone a gun.
Along with the thugs in Chicago and Philly. 6Action news, you can read about shootings daily and the Philly mayor is always on some kind of Trump Derangement Syndrome rage instead of governing his city. smh.
LikeLiked by 2 people
I am going to think on your comments. Thank you for a great response. I am troubled by these things. I am hoping that we could start to try to try and trim down the margins. (In the industrial safety world, re-align the holes on the swiss cheese).
LikeLiked by 2 people
Exactly! No easy feat but right?!
LikeLiked by 1 person