Seen on the street in Kyiv.

Words of Advice:

"If Something Seems To Be Too Good To Be True, It's Best To Shoot It, Just In Case." -- Fiona Glenanne

“The Mob takes the Fifth. If you’re innocent, why are you taking the Fifth Amendment?” -- The TOFF *

"Foreign Relations Boil Down to Two Things: Talking With People or Killing Them." -- Unknown

“Speed is a poor substitute for accuracy.” -- Real, no-shit, fortune from a fortune cookie

"If you believe that you are talking to G-d, you can justify anything.” — my Dad

"Colt .45s; putting bad guys in the ground since 1873." -- Unknown

"Stay Strapped or Get Clapped." -- probably not Mr. Rogers

"The Dildo of Karma rarely comes lubed." -- Unknown

"Eck!" -- George the Cat

* "TOFF" = Treasonous Orange Fat Fuck,
"FOFF" = Felonious Old Fat Fuck,
"COFF" = Convicted Old Felonious Fool,
A/K/A Commandante (or Cadet) Bone Spurs,
A/K/A El Caudillo de Mar-a-Lago, A/K/A the Asset,
A/K/A P01135809, A/K/A Dementia Donnie,
A/K/A Dolt-45, A/K/A Don Snoreleone

Saturday, December 5, 2015

355 Mass Shootings So Far

That's the number that the pro-gun control crowd is bruiting about.

I don't know about you, but I certainly don't recall reading about or seeing coverage about a hundred or more mass shootings. And the reason that neither you nor I have, Gentle Readers, is because that number is bullshit.

What's closer to to the truth, you ask? Try four.

If a drug deal goes sour in Chicago or East St. Louis, the parties commence to shooting as an alternative form of dispute resolution and four of the clowns get winged, that's a "mass shooting" to the gun banners. Three guys bust into a house and the homeowner caps all three, that's a "mass shooting" by the criteria of the Obama Administration (and heaven help us if said homeowner has an Evil Black Rifle-- pearls will be clutched).

"355 mass shootings" is a lie. Worse than a lie, it is deliberate propaganda.

You want evidence that the gun-banners cannot be trusted to have an open and honest conversation: Think "355 mass shootings".


S O said...

CenterPuke88 said...

Actually, looking over the list, with 4 deaths, I get 41. I know that probably often includes the shooter, but that's higher than 4 and lower than 355. Both sides are guilty of massaging statistics to make their arguments, and both sides are guilty of outright lies here and there.

I could say...You want evidence that the gun-lovers cannot be trusted to have an open and honest conversation: Think "prayers". I don't like the way the numbers are played with on both sides, and I'd like a true investigation of why these things are increasing so much. But the NRA and co. are busy blocking any research, mainly because they are afraid it won't favor gun rights...and the anti-gun crowd pervert the data so much, no one would trust their studies.

I've said it before, this will end badly for either the Second Amendment or the Country. Society seems to have changed in a way that is becoming incompatible with the freedoms we believed we grew up with, and a fearful populace is becoming more willing to subordinate their rights on the alter of security, not to mention the rights of minority groups. The demographics seem to favor the gun control side rather than the Second Amendment side, and the steady drip of gun crime is likely to eventually wear away the rock, no matter the long term costs.

Is the disarming of the populace a good idea, I doubt it. Is an armed populace gonna prevent a tyranny, nope. Will we slowly boil in the pot as the heat gets turned up, looks likely.

Eck! said...

I for one hold if the second amendment is revoked to severely altered to allow deep abuse the country will be gone by default. Regulation will replace law.

The anti-firearm crowd has always lied, their only tool is propaganda. Even the so called assault weapon is a creation of that fabric. I joke one should realize that
an assault weapon is something that is not made and can't be bought. An assault rifle
can be but keep in mind that is defined as a short barrel rifle with capable of full auto otherwise known as a machine gun.

The other issue is that the firearm crowd feels its all about them and their feelings. The resort to cognitive dissonance when its time to reconcile feelings and lies when faced with them.

Last item on the anti-gun crowd that is notable. They will start the conversation and if it doesn't fit their narrative then close it down or cherry pick who they talk to. Look at their sites. they make it clear they don't want conversation
they want their way and compliance.

As to a conversation with them, Not likely as the premise is faulty. They lie,
its provable lies and their not backing down from them. After all they view
those not hostile to guns as "gun lovers, "Ammosexuals"m and so on. its irrational and I've learned never to argue with an irrational person as its pointless.

Sorry CP, try and get one of them to take that 355 mass shooting lie and moderate it to something believable and see how far you get. I doubt you can get them to back down to 354.


3383 said...

Sounds a lot like the abortion debate.

CenterPuke88 said...

Eck!, I understand, and agree in several important ways. But the irrationality isn't a one-way street. I think the intransigence on some reasonable acts on gun checks is coming back to bite the NRA. I know that the failure to properly enforce laws already on the books is causing a demand for more laws. As 3383 said, it's a lot like abortion sides.

I think the country is already gone, the Second Amendment will be the collateral damage.

Will said...


"...some reasonable acts on gun checks...", means you don't know what you are talking about. That sort of crap "feels" correct to those who are ignorant or brainwashed, or is deliberate falsehood by those with ulterior motives.
Too many people in this country know nothing about history, except what they hear from politicians and hollywood and the "news" media (but I repeat myself).

Eck! said...

Well it starts with what part of "shall not be abridged".

Its not a problem with reasonable, its that the regulation is unending.

Here in ma to own anything you need a FID, basic rifles and no handguns outside the home not even for transport. If you buy a rifle or handgun you have to register it. THer eis a list of guns that you can buy (MA compliant). If you want more than that you must get a LTC, some local chiefs will not sign off on that unless you are connected (Boston), maybe. I will not go into the things that you must submit to apply for LTC. Hint, to meet it all is over $250 for a, maybe. Oh, and there have been documented confiscations, "because we don't like your type". That's the surface.

That doesn't leave out the 4473 when you buy or the NICs check. Those I feel should be there.

That's not abridged at all, right?

Oh, criminals still have guns and its worst in Boston.


CenterPuke88 said...

Will, that statement shows YOU don't understand what I'M talking about.

Our current gun laws, with a little tweaking, would be pretty descent, if enforced evenly and fairly. Eck! brings up the problem with "may issue" and jurisdictional variance. You assume I want "more" laws, well, not really. Let's stop violent and insane people's easy access with moves that make sense. So then, what makes sense:

-A true database for background checks that contained what was needed and was accessible by all persons selling a firearm.

-The no fly list would be a good start to add for blocking purchasers, IF the damn thing was run correctly (due process, appeals, etc).

-Insurance requirements for guns would be a nice addition, IF we could ensure they weren't used to block or limit ownership, so that's out for now.

-Lawsuit reform, to allow suit in true manufacturer negligence situations would be good, IF strong protections were in place to prevent SLAPP style attacks on manufacturers.

-Enforcement of access to firearms and the carriage of such by all legal owners and users.

-Removal of redundant and contradictory firearms regulation across the county, and a strong National regulation of transport and carriage of firearms. hOWEVER, this regulation would have to provide affirmative rights, with regulation as needed rather than strongly constrained rights and some permissions. In other words, it would rationalize the regulations when you wish to travel with your firearm, rather than the current mish-mosh.

-Strong penalties for persons who illegally act to deprive a person of their right to own or carry, either by action or omission.