Red James Cash
Banned
- Joined
- Aug 20, 2009
- Messages
- 12,824
- Reaction score
- 7,901
- Golden Thread
- 0
- Location
- New Hampshire
- Detector(s) used
- Garret Master hunter Cx Plus
- Primary Interest:
- Other
- #1
Thread Owner
Why You NEVER Trust The Media On Guns
Posted 2013-01-04 13:42
by Karl Denninger
in Editorial
Here you go folks -- proof, in their own words and deeds:
(Reuters) - A suburban New York newspaper that ignited a furor by publishingthe identities of thousands of residents who hold gun licenses has hired armed security to guard its staff after receiving an intimidating e-mail, a police report said.
Among a "large amount of negative correspondence" that White Plains, New York-based Journal News has received since publishing permit holders' names was one e-mail in which the sender "wondered what would get in her mail next," according to a Clarkstown, New York, police report obtained by Reuters on Wednesday.
The police investigated and determined that the email did not contain a specific threat and therefore was not illegal.
However, the paper's editor decided to hire a private armed security firm because they were concerned about their safety.
Gee, so what do ordinary people do when they are concerned about their safety, but don't have the money to hire an expensive private security firm?
They go buy a gun -- or three.
So here we have the proof, in their own words and deeds, that this newspaper belives that arms deter violence without actually being fired.
And that, incidentally, is the entire point that those of us who are called "gun nuts" have made all along. The mere presence of a firearm in the hands of a good guy, without needing to be fired, deters crime.
It in fact deters crime over a million times a year by some people's statistics, and even if you accept the numbers of The Brady Center, which is a hard-core "no gun" advocacy organization they admit that ten times as many crimes are deterred as are murders committed!
And they're understating the case -- by 10:1 -- according to less-biased (or oppositely-biased, depending on your point of view) sources.
But let's put this in the proper perspective -- The Brady Center appears to be perfectly ok with 100,000 or more people being raped or murdered every single year simply because they hate guns. Incidentally, that's a city of roughly the size of Davenport Iowa or West Palm Beach here in Florida.
If you're a woman who might be one of those victims of rape if the Brady Center gets their way how do you feel about that?
And let's not mince words -- since you can only execute someone once, at the point a felon decides to commit murder all the other crimes, including the ones he commits to get the gun(s) he uses, are "free."
The paper has thus joined Mayor Bloomberg, who never has fewer than about a half-dozen heavily armed guards around him at all times, President Obama who has an entire branch of the military and a complete private police force around him at all times, Obama's family (who has something like 18 armed guards at his daughters' school -- not counting their Secret Service detail!) and Michael Moore who had one of his (armed) bodyguards try to carry a firearm into NY's JFK Airport (and get arrested trying to do so.)
People still want to argue about high-capacity magazines and "assault rifles", but the fact of the matter is that I'm reasonably sure that the paper's hired security firm isn't using single-shot derringers for their security. No, they are almost-certainly using modern high-capacity pistols -- all of which can accept magazines with more than 10 rounds in them.
And frankly, if you could conceal one, I suspect you'd rather carry an AR-15 than any of those. It's hard to conceal something like that, however, when you're walking through WalMart.
For those who say that "good guys don't need such a weapon" can you please explain the fact that all the cops seem to have those "evil black .223 rifles" in their patrol cars? And as for them being "overpowered" and the incessant questions as to "why you need all those rounds" go ask a cop about the jacked-on-drugs ******* who absorbs a half-dozen rounds and does not stop attacking.
See, the point of shooting someone (if you have to) is to stop them from doing whatever felonious thing led you to shoot them in the first place. And unlike the movies where people instantly die when they're shot it is rather common for you to have to shoot a bad guy lots of times before he ceases whatever he was doing that led you to shoot the first time, especially if he's jacked up on drugs. The only thing that frequently stops those assailants is when they run out of blood pressure -- and that either takes a lot of holes or a lot of time. Further, under the stress of an actual situation where you need to use that weapon in self-defense you're rather likely to miss at least some of the time.
If you want to know why anyone would "need" a 30 round magazine, here's one example (out of thousands.) This was a jackass who killed two police officers in this area and ultimately was stopped by the police. He took 15 verified rounds according to the autopsy report from police fire before shooting himself in the head, and the police fired many more that missed.
That's right -- after absorbing 15 rounds he still had enough fight left in him to commit suicide.
The real world is not as depicted in the movies.
Yes, the first shot (that hits) is often lethal -- eventually. Unfortunately "eventually" means 2, 3, 5 or 10 minutes later a good part of the time and the guy assaulting you can kill you several times over in those 2, 3 5 or 10 minutes.
The entire point of shooting a bad guy in the first place was to stop his attempt to make you dead. If you can't shoot him enough times to accomplish that then your attempt at self-defense has failed, irrespective of whether the guy assaulting you dies as well.
So if you ask me "how many rounds do you need?" my answer is "One more than it takes to stop, at this instant, however many felons are assaulting me."
And since I cannot predict how many bad guys are going to come at one time nor can I predict how many of them will be on PCP, crack, meth or god-knows-what-else it's none of your damn business how many rounds someone chooses to carry around and whether they're in one magazine or three.
The point here is rather simple: The logical and indeed God-given correct response to a perceived threat to your safety by a superior force is to acquire the means of equalizing that force and if that perceived threat turns into an actual assault you then use the means of equalizing that force as many times as are necessary until the assault ceases. The more-capable you are in that regard the less-likely the assault will succeed.
The device known to assist you in this matter with the highest degree of reliability is called A Gun.
People don't buy guns because they want to commit violence. A person who wants to commit violent felonies doesn't give a damn about the law and will steal or otherwise illegally acquire all the guns he wants to use -- and then use them. It is particularly outrageous to argue over "gun control" in the context of murderers, since you can only give a criminal the needle or lock him up for life one time. Further, it's also silly to talk about magazine restrictions because with a bit of practice a bad guy can change them in a literal second or so.
The bottom line is that any restriction on firearms will be ignored by someone willing to commit murder -- whether it's one murder, 20.... or 77.
If you think not go speak with the people of Norway, a nation with some of the toughest gun laws anywhere. With absolutely nobody able to resist (because they had no lawfully-owned guns) a madman showed up at a youth camp and killed 77 people with both guns and bombs, injuring over 200. 69 people were shot and killed in no small part because nobody was able to equalize the force that the assailant unlawfully procured and used.
People buy guns because they don't want to be helpless victims at the hand of someone who they perceive may break the law, whether that person happens to be an anonymous email sender, someone who hates them politically or is a member of a tyrannical entity, whether private or governmental in nature.
And, as the statistics show, the more guns they buy the less-likely it is that the buyer will ever need to use one of them for any purpose other than target practice.
Posted 2013-01-04 13:42
by Karl Denninger
in Editorial
Here you go folks -- proof, in their own words and deeds:
(Reuters) - A suburban New York newspaper that ignited a furor by publishingthe identities of thousands of residents who hold gun licenses has hired armed security to guard its staff after receiving an intimidating e-mail, a police report said.
Among a "large amount of negative correspondence" that White Plains, New York-based Journal News has received since publishing permit holders' names was one e-mail in which the sender "wondered what would get in her mail next," according to a Clarkstown, New York, police report obtained by Reuters on Wednesday.
The police investigated and determined that the email did not contain a specific threat and therefore was not illegal.
However, the paper's editor decided to hire a private armed security firm because they were concerned about their safety.
Gee, so what do ordinary people do when they are concerned about their safety, but don't have the money to hire an expensive private security firm?
They go buy a gun -- or three.
So here we have the proof, in their own words and deeds, that this newspaper belives that arms deter violence without actually being fired.
And that, incidentally, is the entire point that those of us who are called "gun nuts" have made all along. The mere presence of a firearm in the hands of a good guy, without needing to be fired, deters crime.
It in fact deters crime over a million times a year by some people's statistics, and even if you accept the numbers of The Brady Center, which is a hard-core "no gun" advocacy organization they admit that ten times as many crimes are deterred as are murders committed!
And they're understating the case -- by 10:1 -- according to less-biased (or oppositely-biased, depending on your point of view) sources.
But let's put this in the proper perspective -- The Brady Center appears to be perfectly ok with 100,000 or more people being raped or murdered every single year simply because they hate guns. Incidentally, that's a city of roughly the size of Davenport Iowa or West Palm Beach here in Florida.
If you're a woman who might be one of those victims of rape if the Brady Center gets their way how do you feel about that?
And let's not mince words -- since you can only execute someone once, at the point a felon decides to commit murder all the other crimes, including the ones he commits to get the gun(s) he uses, are "free."
The paper has thus joined Mayor Bloomberg, who never has fewer than about a half-dozen heavily armed guards around him at all times, President Obama who has an entire branch of the military and a complete private police force around him at all times, Obama's family (who has something like 18 armed guards at his daughters' school -- not counting their Secret Service detail!) and Michael Moore who had one of his (armed) bodyguards try to carry a firearm into NY's JFK Airport (and get arrested trying to do so.)
People still want to argue about high-capacity magazines and "assault rifles", but the fact of the matter is that I'm reasonably sure that the paper's hired security firm isn't using single-shot derringers for their security. No, they are almost-certainly using modern high-capacity pistols -- all of which can accept magazines with more than 10 rounds in them.
And frankly, if you could conceal one, I suspect you'd rather carry an AR-15 than any of those. It's hard to conceal something like that, however, when you're walking through WalMart.
For those who say that "good guys don't need such a weapon" can you please explain the fact that all the cops seem to have those "evil black .223 rifles" in their patrol cars? And as for them being "overpowered" and the incessant questions as to "why you need all those rounds" go ask a cop about the jacked-on-drugs ******* who absorbs a half-dozen rounds and does not stop attacking.
See, the point of shooting someone (if you have to) is to stop them from doing whatever felonious thing led you to shoot them in the first place. And unlike the movies where people instantly die when they're shot it is rather common for you to have to shoot a bad guy lots of times before he ceases whatever he was doing that led you to shoot the first time, especially if he's jacked up on drugs. The only thing that frequently stops those assailants is when they run out of blood pressure -- and that either takes a lot of holes or a lot of time. Further, under the stress of an actual situation where you need to use that weapon in self-defense you're rather likely to miss at least some of the time.
If you want to know why anyone would "need" a 30 round magazine, here's one example (out of thousands.) This was a jackass who killed two police officers in this area and ultimately was stopped by the police. He took 15 verified rounds according to the autopsy report from police fire before shooting himself in the head, and the police fired many more that missed.
That's right -- after absorbing 15 rounds he still had enough fight left in him to commit suicide.
The real world is not as depicted in the movies.
Yes, the first shot (that hits) is often lethal -- eventually. Unfortunately "eventually" means 2, 3, 5 or 10 minutes later a good part of the time and the guy assaulting you can kill you several times over in those 2, 3 5 or 10 minutes.
The entire point of shooting a bad guy in the first place was to stop his attempt to make you dead. If you can't shoot him enough times to accomplish that then your attempt at self-defense has failed, irrespective of whether the guy assaulting you dies as well.
So if you ask me "how many rounds do you need?" my answer is "One more than it takes to stop, at this instant, however many felons are assaulting me."
And since I cannot predict how many bad guys are going to come at one time nor can I predict how many of them will be on PCP, crack, meth or god-knows-what-else it's none of your damn business how many rounds someone chooses to carry around and whether they're in one magazine or three.
The point here is rather simple: The logical and indeed God-given correct response to a perceived threat to your safety by a superior force is to acquire the means of equalizing that force and if that perceived threat turns into an actual assault you then use the means of equalizing that force as many times as are necessary until the assault ceases. The more-capable you are in that regard the less-likely the assault will succeed.
The device known to assist you in this matter with the highest degree of reliability is called A Gun.
People don't buy guns because they want to commit violence. A person who wants to commit violent felonies doesn't give a damn about the law and will steal or otherwise illegally acquire all the guns he wants to use -- and then use them. It is particularly outrageous to argue over "gun control" in the context of murderers, since you can only give a criminal the needle or lock him up for life one time. Further, it's also silly to talk about magazine restrictions because with a bit of practice a bad guy can change them in a literal second or so.
The bottom line is that any restriction on firearms will be ignored by someone willing to commit murder -- whether it's one murder, 20.... or 77.
If you think not go speak with the people of Norway, a nation with some of the toughest gun laws anywhere. With absolutely nobody able to resist (because they had no lawfully-owned guns) a madman showed up at a youth camp and killed 77 people with both guns and bombs, injuring over 200. 69 people were shot and killed in no small part because nobody was able to equalize the force that the assailant unlawfully procured and used.
People buy guns because they don't want to be helpless victims at the hand of someone who they perceive may break the law, whether that person happens to be an anonymous email sender, someone who hates them politically or is a member of a tyrannical entity, whether private or governmental in nature.
And, as the statistics show, the more guns they buy the less-likely it is that the buyer will ever need to use one of them for any purpose other than target practice.
