As long as the gun rights fanatics won’t negotiate, the killings will go on

NCCI Holdings, a company involved in workplace data, just released a new report on workplace violence.  According to the U.S. Dept. of Labor, nearly 2 million American workers each year report that they have been involved in some kind of violence where they work, which includes threats, physical assaults and homicides.  The Bureau of Labor Statistic says 11 percent of those incidents were homicides, the fourth-leading cause of occupational injuries.
An important NCCI finding which has not been played up by the media is the fact that 80 percent of workplace homicides were caused by guns, compared to 10 percent by stabbings.  This report was released just two days before the Tucson massacre where a mentally ill gunman injured U.S. Rep. Gabby Giffords, also injuring 14 others and killing six.  No particular connection to the workplace but an example of loose gun laws that allow a deranged gunman to buy a weapon.
The National Rifle Assn. (NRA) is even for keeping guns out of the hands of individuals trying to purchase a firearm but they aren’t championing the cause.  They are afraid that it will show weakness and their message is one of fear (that someone will take their guns away) rather than negotiation on things like background checks, the gun show loophole and concealed weapons laws.  So they whip their membership into a frenzy to deny anything that smacks of sane gun control.

A recent post I did on the issue, New York’s strong gun laws make state safer than weaker states of Arizona and Texas,” brought me a conglomeration of comments from these NRA trained fanatics.  Some of their points are worth considering because there are always two sides to every argument.  Many are just very inane and an affront to any intelligent human being.  But not once does either group admit there are major problems with our gun laws like a lack of background checks, the gun show loophole and concealed carry.

There was a recent article by Leonard Pitts, Jr., Pulitzer Prize-winning columnist for the Miami Herald that blames firearms for much of the political change in this country.  Like the fact that Arizona Rep. Gabby Giffords was forced to leave Congress due to the reckless use of an easily available handgun. 

He recounts past instances in our history with similar outcomes like the assassinations of Abraham Lincoln, James Garfield, William McKinley, Huey Long, Malcolm X, Medgar Evers, the Kennedy brothers, George Wallace, Martin Luther King and others.

Glock 19

Citing Jared Loughner’s easy access to the semi-automatic Glock 19 he purchased at the Sportsman’s Warehouse outlet in Tucson, Arizona, Pitts exclaims that Loughner was able to acquire the gun despite the fact that he had been rejected by the U.S. Army and kicked out of a community college due to his behavior.  Pitts continues this line of thought with, “Which suggests that, while Loughner may be unbalanced, American gun laws are downright insane.”  I couldn’t have said it better.
Pitts also has an opinion on the refusal of the gun lobby to allow the banning of automatic high-capacity magazines: “The hunter who needs a gun that fires hundreds of rounds a minute isn’t much of a hunter.”  Amen!  And he even cites the political left for its crusade to get rid of all guns instead of concentrating on the specific issues of just making it harder for the bad guys to obtain them.  Just like the political right led by the NRA won’t give an inch.

Yes, the killings will go on if we don’t find some means for conciliation, and that includes both sides of the issue.  Pitts comments that this whole fiasco reflects the will of the people and that is tragic because they are the ones getting killed.

35 thoughts on “As long as the gun rights fanatics won’t negotiate, the killings will go on”

  1. Don't fret Phoenix182 once you prove he uses logical fallacies and discredit any of his so called sources he will just make a quick ad hominem fallacy post and ignore anything else you post. At least that's what he did with my comments in a previous post of his.


  2. You continue to spit this rhetoric of yours. You complain when people insult you however your attempts to look educated and intelligent are undermined by your sheer determination to begin your blog post insulting the very people you are trying to persuade. I love how all the pro gun control fanatics lean on the Tucson incident. It's your crutch… I just want to make one comment about that incident, if his own family didn't see it coming what makes you think a “better” background check will somehow magically discover this information. Seriously, it comes down to real common sense, laws restricting gun ownership only affect those who follow the laws. I wont repost my laundry list of statistics that refute your ignorant claims. When will you find a new “cause” to ignorantly follow… here's one for you… car account for more deaths nationwide than any other man made item. It is easier to get a drivers license than to buy a firearm. Not all states have the same requirements for a drivers license however, out of state drivers licenses are accepted in all 50 states. Even intentional deaths from cars account for more deaths than accidental firearms related deaths. Where is the cry for more control on drivers licenses? Countries which have stricter rules for driving have less deaths from cars (Germany). You ended your replys to my comments in your previous post with, “Not only is gun control not wrong, it is so right because someone else will be killed today where i live with a handgun that was obtained due to loose gun laws and that is wrong.” Well my reply is not only is gun control wrong but today where I live someone else will be killed by a car, driven by a driver who obtained a license due to nationwide loose licensing laws and that is wrong… You write a post about our inability to compromise when you, yourself is so set in your way that you refuse to “wake up and smell the coffee.” You are just as close minded and stubborn as the most stubborn “gun nut” and this is why I wont even bother looking up statistics that refute your rants anymore, since you don't take the time to do your own research, you just spew the crap the Brady Campaign gives you. Finally, I understand your reluctance to accept being wrong, no one likes it. I welcome you to actually refute any of the stats I threw at you in the previous post… Good luck.


  3. Ok, here's what was posted and deleted (somehow) numerous times.

    You misuse the term 'ill-informed'. Not only does my post fairly convincingly show that I am knowledgeable on the topic, but you then attempt to support your claim through ad populum. Namely, the supposed 'gun show loophole'.

    There is no gun show loophole. This has been widely discussed and the information is available to anyone who bothers to look for it. It's a political stunt…a bit of ignorant propaganda. Licensed dealers are required to conduct background checks. Private parties are not. Any dealers who sell without performing the check are already subject to harsh punishments. Any private parties who sell without checks are obeying the law, rather they sell at a gun show, or from their home, or at the corner 7-11.

    Now, if you are claiming that dealers aren't facing penalties, then that's a problem of enforcement, not legislation. Feel free to offer the solution if you have one.

    If you are claiming that private parties should be regulated, then call it a 'private party loophole', and quit trying to shoehorn unrelated topics into unfitting laws. While you're at it, please provide for us the manner in which you would solve the problem, since so far no politician has been able to do so.

    As to the offhand dismissal, that is not an argument. In fact, it cheapens you greatly as it demonstrates not just your total lack of knowledge, intellect, or ability, but shows your willingness to engage in negative fallacy (ad hominem, ad lapidem) rather than debate or even reason.

    I wouldn't consider being educated on a topic wasting time. In fact, you are so desperately in need of said education that I would be failing in my civic responsibility if I didn't publicly correct your errors. I will continue to do so, any time you post incorrect information.


  4. Jack, hoping you can help… it has to do with the seriousness of Workplace violence and weapon control, and I need your expertise and insight into this terrible growing problem.

    They have just allowed metal forks and knives in our cafeteria at work and couple people have been hurt by the fork especially as it has really sharp prongs.

    The work-place Fork violence is at an all time high. The forks need to be regulated. There are employees who are angry and have problems at home and come to work and are lured by the shiny silver utensils. They then are overcome by the power of the fork, and commit violence with the said fork.

    There is no legislation or regulation on these extremely sharp and deadly weapons. These forks are killing and injuring innocent people.

    Some of the Fork Fanatics have taken these forks home and I am afraid the fork violence will extend to our homes and neighborhoods. More and more criminals will be possessed by these forks which result in more fork violence.

    Please lend us your expertise in banning and regulating these deadly devices that kill, scratch and maim at will. The forks must be banned, they are the cause of so much pain and suffering.

    oh wait……. Forks don't kill/injure people, the people holding the forks do…. DUMBASS!!!


  5. Phoenix182,
    all I can say is that this is one of the best responses I've ever seen to a typically inane 'gun control' article.

    Keep up the good works, and I hope you keep this text handy. These kinds of articles are all the same, so you could do us all a favor and simply cut and paste this response into each one you see.


  6. You are not knowledgeable. You are an idiot, a bigot, and a coward who deletes dissenting opinion from your sorry ass blog. You don't have the stones to engage on Kos. seems to me you're fearful about all kinds of things. Keep posting this shit to dailykos and you'll keep getting your lying ass hammered into the ground. Let me know when you're man enough to respond to your comments there, you gutless piece of shit.


  7. The problem with the gun control reduces crime/violence/whatever is that we have more than 4,000 years of history of civilian arms restrictions. In that time we have had more than 60,000 laws or edicts restricting or eliminating civilian access to weapons. None has succeeded in reducing crime or violence – and such laws have only temporarily shored up unpopular regimes. The most common reason such laws were enacted in the first place.

    We have put more than 130 million new guns in American's hands in the last twenty years. Our homicide rate is down by more than 50%, from 9.8 to 4.8, and continues to fall. Other violent crime rates are down a similar amount.

    And, for those who care to look, the reason our crime rates were so high in the first place was a gun control drive. A drive that resulted in passage of a law to end violence in America forever. The Gun Control Act of 1968.

    So the gun rights people have a good reason not to debate with the pro crime fanatics. We do not want to die in a hail of gunfire.


  8. I'm a coward, yet you're the one that deletes open, honest, polite responses to your diatribes? In one of my posts that you deleted I did use my name. If you're really that curious it's Kristin Guttormsen. I've never hidden it…in fact I can't since I've done so many interviews, lectures, written so many published pieces, etc.

    Your pitiable attempts to belittle others based on political or personal ideologies that differ from your own speaks volumes about the weakness of your own position.


  9. You are a coward, whoever you are. You and your other demented gun buddies hide behind anonymous and fictitious names to disgorge your bullshit. You know my name and where I live. Have the guts to give me your name and where you live. Like I have said before, the only way you freaks can feel like a man is to carry a gun. Pathetic.

    Jack E. Dunning


  10. Hey, here's a fun quote for ya:

    “Did you know that your opinion is just as important as the next person's, and this blog is where you can be heard?”

    Gee, if only people believed what they promoted, eh? Eh?


  11. Feel free. I broke no law, nor even a rule. If you don't want public comments, turn them off. Otherwise, deal with what comes with trying to be a public commentator. Your continued pitiable behavior in preventing replies to your comments only serves to further diminish your credibility.


  12. Phoenix 182 or whoever the hell you are, I am reporting your spamming threat and obvious follow up in carrying it out to my IP provider and the proper authorities. Because I value the comments to my blog, I haven't turned them off yet, or set up monitoring.

    Jack E. Dunning


  13. You are one of the most ill-informed gun fanatics I have ever run into. As an example, although it is a well-known fact that the gun show loophole is a major problem, New York Mayor Bloomberg's group, Mayors Against Illegal Guns sent investigators to an Arizona gun show where they purchased weapons from a private dealer, telling him they probably couldn't pass a background check. The seller didn't even ask for one and told the investigator that he didn't need one. What planet have you been on?

    The rest of your comments are just nonsense babbling that don't deserve answering, like most of what you people spew out.

    Please don't waste any more of my time.

    Jack E. Dunning.


  14. It's not just the missing facts:

    Mr. Pitts, like so many others, fails to acknowledge that violence has always forced political change. Long before there were firearms there was violence in politics (et tu brute?). Once acknowledged we lose the ability to conveniently blame an inanimate object for the failings of the human race.

    No, the real problem with this article is that it tries so hard to create a buildup that doesn't even exist.

    Crime is down. Violence is down across the world. Recent studies show that we are living in the most peaceful, least brutal time in all of recorded history. That isn't to say that there aren't still issues, because of course there are. The point is that you're trying to say how awful things are when they're the best they've ever been overall.

    What's more, you try and put the blame for this on an inanimate object, yet if we look at the overall timeline of quality of life we see that it has increased the fastest since the invention of the firearm and seems correlated to the lethality and availability of more and more destructive weapons. I don't believe this to be a causal relation mind you, but it's an interesting correlation in that it instantly disproves any attempts to ascribe negative causation to weapons.

    Finally, the killings will go on no matter what. Remove the physics which allows gunpowder to function tomorrow and the killings and assaults and violence will continue…just in a different form. There has always been violence and always will be. It has nothing to do with firearms, or laws, or societies, or anything else. Humans are alive, and life is violent.

    Overall it suggests a complete lack of knowledge, logic and reason on the part of the author.

    On a side note, I want to point out that you include 'concealed carry' as a blanket major problem with gun laws. I have no idea what you even mean by it, since it's such a broad topic, but my feeling is you're talking about things you again know absolutely nothing about or are at least getting perfectly wrong. If you want to clarify it I would be happy to dissect it and educate you.


  15. It's not just the inferred inconsistencies:

    The workplace violence incidents were not 'caused by' guns, they were committed using guns. 'Caused by' infers a causal action which is impossible to ascribe to an inanimate object.

    Mr. Pitts, and apparently you, seem to suggest that failings in the American mental health system, or in academic reporting requirements, are failures in 'gun laws'. In point of fact they are failings with entirely unrelated laws and bureaucratic systems. If you wish gun laws to effectively use these other systems you must first fix them to make it possible.

    Who said that hunters are the ones using your non-existent magazines? Hunting is not the only use of a firearm.

    'Hundreds of rounds per minute' is a meaningless soundbite intended to cause fear without rational basis. In the first place it infers automatic weapons fire, which is independent of magazine size and is so carefully regulated by the government that it has not been a significant issue in about eighty years now. In the second place there are very VERY few combinations of weapon and magazine that can actually hold a hundred rounds, never mind multiple hundreds. Finally, any trained person, with multiple weapons available, could fire hundreds of rounds per minute using revolvers, or possibly even old muskets if properly laid out.


  16. Might be the least knowledgeable post I have read so far this year.

    It's not just the specific failed points:

    Being a firearm rights advocate does not infer any relation to the NRA. Many of us, like me, dislike the NRA to one degree or another. Continually trying to force fundamentally different people under the same umbrella weakens you, not us.

    There is no lack of background checks. They are performed with nearly all firearm purchases. There may be weaknesses in the background check system (or more accurately the storage and retrieval of records with the checking authorities), but not a lack of checks themselves.

    There is no 'gun show loophole'. You may feel there is a private sale loophole, but so far no one has come up with a workable solution to that…perhaps largely because they continually try to make it something it isn't.

    There is no such thing as “automatic high-capacity magazines”. There are magazines (which are interchangeably used in both automatics and semi-automatics by definition), and there are variations in capacity (though there is no rationally set definition of 'high capacity').


  17. That's some great regurgitation of skewed facts, mixed heavily with severely disjointed points and rhetoric. It's easy to see that this was written in a single sitting, without a first draft. Way to get a sophomoric point of view onto the Internet!


  18. You are likely to get shelled and take heavy fire on DK. I used to be there, before the Gun Lunatic Posse TRed me off. I tried on several occasions to get responsible limits consider: limits on rapid change magazines, # gun purchased/month, etc. No limit was acceptable, yet the gunsels continued to proclaim their “reasonableness”. Lying morons.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s