The Magical Mystery Glock

Thursday, January 20, AD 2011

In the wake of the Tuscon shooting, there have been renewed call for gun control. This is hardly surprising, and while from my own point of view it seems like an attempt to make political hay out of widespread shock and fear, and I can certainly understand that for those who believe that our current gun laws make violence more common, this sort of event would seem to confirm their thesis. What is not, however, reasonable from those who believe that gun control would be a good thing for our country, is the odd fixation of the anti-gun lobby on the Glock brand.

The Glock 19

One common question from gun control advocates in the wake of the shooting was, “Why would any reasonable person think that civilians should need or want to own Glocks?” New York Times columnist Gail Collins summed up this line of thinking well in a column entitled “A Right to Bear Glocks?” Collins writes:

Today, the amazing thing about the reaction to the Giffords shooting is that virtually all the discussion about how to prevent a recurrence has been focusing on improving the tone of our political discourse. That would certainly be great. But you do not hear much about the fact that Jared Loughner came to Giffords’s sweet gathering with a semiautomatic weapon that he was able to buy legally because the law restricting their sale expired in 2004 and Congress did not have the guts to face up to the National Rifle Association and extend it.

Continue reading...

20 Responses to The Magical Mystery Glock

  • Granting that the Glock isn’t any more deadly than other handguns and granting that past gun control laws haven’t done much, what’s wrong with advocating an extended magazine ban? Loughner would have shot more people had his gun held more rounds. That’s undeniable.

  • Well, we’ve had extended magazine bans in the past, and they’ve neither prevented mass killings nor made an impact in the murder rate. It’s true that Loughner was tackled when he had trouble changing magazines, but a lot of mass killers (including Virginia Tech, Fort Hood and Columbine) used standard size magazines and changed them repeatedly before being tackled.

    I have no great attachment to extended magazines; I’m just not clear that banning them would achieve anything other than making gun control advocates feel good.

  • The Glock 9 mm. is light.

    Real men carry something effective like the M1911 .45 Government issue, or whatever.

    Heck, a rolled up magazine or newspaper is an effective weapon when intelligently employed. Thing is: need to keep alert and be ready to act at all times.

    PS: If that were a GOP gathering, someone would have stopped him before he got off three rounds.

    Fight gun violence! Shoot back.

  • If gun control had won, Loughner would still be shooting sheeple.

    This is not 1994. Tucson is similar to the 1993 LIRR raison d’etre for the 879th thru 902nd gun control laws, and Carolyn McCarthy and her 100% promotion of abortion and common snese socialism.

    Then, a white-hating, Jamaican immigrant shot up a commuter RR car. Mayor Dinkens (first and last black NYC mayor) was boss in NYC. So fellow-racist Colin Ferguson waited until the train was outside NYC to open fire. He was safe. No one in NYC and Nassau can carry a weapon except the murderers and cops that respond in 20 minutes.

    The sheeple had gun control to protect them!

    They were blessed with security and safety and got to experience how it feels to sit in their and cringe in their seats while the GUN calmly walked the aisle pumping rounds into sheeps’ heads.

    Fight gun violence. Shoot back.

    [T. Shaw — I take your point, but I’m going to ask you to avoid the sheep/sheeple kind of terminology when talking about shooting victims. It comes off as seriously heartless.]

  • “I have no great attachment to extended magazines; I’m just not clear that banning them would achieve anything other than making gun control advocates feel good.”

    Bingo. That has usually been the only good achieved by gun control legislation. However, in this political environment even this type of empty symbolic legislation is going nowhere quickly.

  • That has usually been the only good achieved by gun control legislation. However, in this political environment even this type of empty symbolic legislation is going nowhere quickly.

    I would just point out that it is often difficult for a sociologist to ascertain the effects of incremental policy changes. That does not mean that the policy changes are worthless, merely that their effects are difficult to isolate and discern. (And if I am not mistaken, hauling people in on weapons offenses was one of the salient features of ‘broken windows’ policing. ‘Symbolic legislation’ can have some salutary spill-over benefits.

  • I would just point out that it is often difficult for a sociologist to ascertain the effects of incremental policy changes. That does not mean that the policy changes are worthless, merely that their effects are difficult to isolate and discern.

    True — though I as regards to my own support or opposition to something I think I’d tend to feel it’s necessary for me to see a clear cause and effect relationship, at least when it comes to instituting a legal ban on things. I think a lot of gun enthusiasts would fear that the primary incremental result from an extended gun magazine ban would be more restrictive gun bans in the future.

    I guess my attitude toward extended magazine bans is:

    If a ban were suggested against 20+ round magazines, I wouldn’t support it (and if I were in congress I wouldn’t vote for it) but it wouldn’t worry me much and I wouldn’t bother opposing it much either.

    If the 10+ round magazine of the “assault weapon” ban were brought back, I would bestir myself to oppose it a bit, but I still wouldn’t be extremely upset if it passed.

    I don’t really think either one of these is a good idea or would save a discernible number of lives — to be honest the main effect might be to increase the paranoia of the more extreme band of gun rights enthusiast — but I don’t think the loss of magazine size beyond ten would be a major problem for legal gun owners. Of course, that’s mainly because I think such a ban would do absolutely nothing to change the overall effectiveness of guns. It would just remove a completely surface level aspect of “bad-assery” from the gun store.

  • Mac,

    Sorry.

    I was out with arthroscopic knee surgery or I would have been on the LIRR train that that bad man shot up. I was also present at the (1993/2001) WTC bombings.

    Maintain a low profile, stay alert, keep moving, don’t get silouhetted on a military horizon, etc.

    Sorry, again. In doesn’t mean anything. One more such incident and I’m “packing it in.”

  • T. Shaw,

    Actually, that was me stepping in as editor — we each edit the threads on our own posts.

    Definitely understand. There are much lesser scares that have made me very glad to be a gun owner over the years. I just want to make sure we keep a level of discussion here at TAC that stays within certain bounds. Kind of the online version of broken window policing. 🙂

  • The 1994 ban on extended magazines didn’t ban existing magazines.
    The V Tech killer used a Glock with 15-round magazines. It’s very possible that he would’ve shot fewer people had it been 10-round magazines. One of the guns used in Columbine was a TEC-DC9 with a pre-ban 32-round magazine from which 55 shots were fired.

    It’s true that criminals will adapt to a ban by buying more magazines, guns, or recruiting accomplices. But every additional level of complexity is a place where criminals can get tripped up and it doesn’t affect law-abiding gun owners at all.

  • I think you kind of need to think about what you’re proposing here versus the size of the theoretical benefit. “Banning existing magazines” may sound very easy on paper, but in fact it would mean trying to confiscate tens of millions of magazines from legal gun owners — magazines that were bought legally and which have only an infinitessimal chance of every being involved in any crime. You’d doubtless have a lot of people who would (for one reason or another) defy the law, and so you’d have law enforcement tied up with enforcing it and the justice system tied up with prosecuting people for crimes (I’m assuming you’d have to make this a fellony to get any compliance) related to the law.

    And all of that chaos in hopes that maybe in the handful of crimes each year in which more than a dozen shots are fired, that changing magazines (assuming that the law succeeded in keeping these incredibly plentiful things from ending up on the black market) would trip up a criminal and thus result in fewer shots being fired?

    I can seriously see how, at first pass, the idea seems like a well intentioned way to “do something” about violence in the face of a news story about one of the exceptional events in which a lot of shots are fired, but it seems to me that once you think about it a bit the whole thing becomes both ineffective and untennable.

  • There are very few things impossible policy wise. Offer a $50 bounty on magazines with a capacity over 10, and you would see a significant number of magazines out of circulation. Combine that requiring a permit to transport after 180 days, and the problem would seem to be solved. I’m not claiming such a thing is prudent; I’m simply claiming it is a policy obstacle that can be overcome.

  • I wouldn’t want to spend much more than the recycle value to take illicit magazines off the streets. After a ban, I’d prefer that private charities do that. I think the most effective part of the ban would be making them unavailable at legit gun stores like the ones where Loughner and Seung-Hui Cho bought theirs. Marginal benefit for sure, but also marginal cost.

  • But if a “complete” ban actually left tens of millions of the things floating around the country on the grey market (which is seems to me either RR or MZ’s proposals would) then you might as well save the money on collection and enforcement and just have a ban on manufacture and sale of new ones.

    Which, yeah, might mean that some crazy intent on shooting a lot of people shot them with a 2-3 second pause every ten shots. I’m just not clear that’s a huge benefit.

    Like I say, I don’t see a huge downside to a “high capacity” magazine ban (though I see exactly zero chance of such a thing passing any time in the near future) I just don’t think there would be much upside other than annoying gun owners and making gun control advocates feel mildly better.

    If there was to be a piece of legislation taken out of this whole tragedy, I’d think the most obvious choice would be trying to come up with a way to make it harder for someone who has been reported to police repeatedly for issuing death threats and generally unstable behavior to walk in and buy a gun and ammo without having to answer a few questions or get put on a waiting list or something.

  • “If there was to be a piece of legislation taken out of this whole tragedy, I’d think the most obvious choice would be trying to come up with a way to make it harder for someone who has been reported to police repeatedly for issuing death threats and generally unstable behavior to walk in and buy a gun and ammo without having to answer a few questions or get put on a waiting list or something.”

    1. Make it easier to involuntarily commit crazy people who are a danger to themselves and to other. 2. Create institutions to treat and care for said crazy people. The civil libertarians would howl at one, and the cost would make most people howl at two. Until we bite the bullet on this, we will still have the odd massacre by someone who is deranged, and clearly mentally ill people living homeless on our streets.

  • Make it easier to involuntarily commit crazy people who are a danger to themselves and to other.

    We had a case in Brooklyn where a student was involuntarily committed for weeks. Turned out the student was completely sane. If anybody supports this now, they won’t once more stories like that come out.

    Create institutions to treat and care for said crazy people.

    Again, in NY, back in the 60’s and 70’s, notoriously underfunded mental institutes arguable made matters worse than no funding at all because it gave people the impression that something was being done. There is no public support for increased funding and politicians would rather dip into the coffers to buy votes than help non-voters.

  • In this political climate, political dissidents would end up in the mental institutions just like in the USSR.

    “Oh, you think that blob of cells is a human being, do you Mr. McClarey? Well that is clearly an insane belief, and you may be a pro-life terrorist. 3 years in a psychiatric ward! Next!”

    Besides, didn’t that incompetent left-wing sheriff know about Loughner in advance? Wasn’t it is professional failure that really is to blame here?

  • No Joe, I assure you that by the time I was done in the courtroom those who sought to involuntarily commit me would find themselves buried in litigation for the remainder of their existence. Contra One Flew Over the Cuckoo’s Nest it is very difficult, certainly in Illinois, to have manifestly mentally ill people committed against their will. The streets and jails are currently where the majority of seriously mentally ill people are “housed” in this country. The fortunate ones live with long-suffering relatives who are often at their wits end as to what to do.

  • I don’t know RR, I think the student in question might be a few screws loose:

    http://gothamist.com/2011/01/14/brooklyn_college_student.php

    In Illinois a legal hearing would have had to have been conducted, with appointed counsel for her prior to her committment.

  • Glock 19 “not suited for… personal protection.”
    Thanks! I needed a good laugh.
    And thank you for posting the picture of the Beretta, which aesthetically blows the polyGlock out of the water.
    Oops. Violent rhetoric. Mea culpa.

The President’s Speech

Thursday, January 13, AD 2011

I did not watch President Obama’s speech last night, nor any of the memorial service turned pep rally, but I have read the transcript.  After reading through it I have to concur with the majority sentiment that this was a very good if not excellent speech. In fact this is perhaps the best one the President has given, granted that is a pretty low bar.  President Obama’s speeches can most charitably be described as vague, but this one contained a very clear message and was very appropriate for the occasion.  I was struck in particular by this passage:

You see, when a tragedy like this strikes, it is part of our nature to demand explanations, to try to impose some order on the chaos, and make sense out of that which seems senseless.  Already we’ve seen a national conversation commence, not only about the motivations behind these killings, but about everything from the merits of gun safety laws to the adequacy of our mental health systems. And much of this process, of debating what might be done to prevent such tragedies in the future, is an essential ingredient in our exercise of self-government.

But at a time when our discourse has become so sharply polarized  at a time when we are far too eager to lay the blame for all that ails the world at the feet of those who happen to think differently than we do  it’s important for us to pause for a moment and make sure that we’re talking with each other in a way that heals, not a way that wounds.

Scripture tells us that there is evil in the world, and that terrible things happen for reasons that defy human understanding. In the words of Job, ‘when I looked for light, then came darkness.’ Bad things happen, and we have to guard against simple explanations in the aftermath.

For the truth is that none of us can know exactly what triggered this vicious attack. None of us can know with any certainty what might have stopped these shots from being fired, or what thoughts lurked in the inner recesses of a violent man’s mind.

Naturally there’s been some blowback by some conservatives horrified at the notion that anything President Obama has done or said could ever garner praise by fellow conservatives.  For example, just read the comments to any number of blog postings on the Corner last night.  Almost all of the NRO contributors praised the speech, drawing the ire of a large band of followers (though not all, certainly).  I’m not really sure what more the President could have said.  If there’s any criticism due this speech it is that it does seem a bit over-long.  It’s almost like one of those homilies where it feels like the Priest is vamping in order to hit some pre-conceived notion of how long the talk should be.  But it is foolish to have  expected the President to have delivered a full-blown attack on leftists who engaged in any “blood libel.”  The tenor of his remarks were certainly appropriate for the occasion.

I don’t think that President Obama’s political career is suddenly going to be rejuvenated because some right-wing pundits like one speech that he gave.  If this wasn’t your cup of tea, fine.  I’ve found myself disliking many an Obama oration that others have drooled over, so opinions may vary.  But to me this was a speech well worth the praise it has received.

Continue reading...

25 Responses to The President’s Speech

  • It was a good speech, spoiled by the “Let’s Make a Deal” audience reaction, whooping it up, hooting, whistling when solemnity was called for — totally inappropriate at a memorial but symptomatic of today’s youth which has little respect for tradition.

    Obama struck the right tone, but could have done without the Indian guy at the beginning who hogged 20 minutes of face time for one of those interminable blessings that came right out of a Hollywood script.

    While deserving of recognition, the wild adulation over Daniel Hernandez was way over the top.

    As political theater, it succeeded, and Obama probably will get a nice bounce in the ratings. Other than that, I don’t think it will change the discourse one iota.

  • No problem with the speech, but shouldn’t we expect more decorum and reflection from a memorial service? It came close to being turned into political theater. He could have given the speech any time, but a memorial should be lead by priests or ministers, with the President, if he attends, sitting respectfully in the audience. Ideally it should be private. He did talk about the victims a bit, but it never should have been about anyone else in the first place. As it was they were relegated to being little more than a prop.

  • “..but shouldn’t we expect more decorum and reflection from a memorial service? It came close to being turned into political theater.”

    Perhaps not as bad but nonetheless in the mold of Wellstone’s send off.

    http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/001/830clrob.asp

  • Too late to say you’re sorry. He should have told his Obama-worshipping imbeciles to STFU on SATURDAY.

    That was nothimng other than a pep rally/stump speech.

    Did he pray for the reprose of the soul of the GOP Judge assassinated by his dope-addled, left wing lunatic who “brought a gun” to “punish his enemies”?

    They booed the GOP governor (probable she’s next on the liberal hit list) and Obama lied about “she opened her eyes.”

    It is part of all liberals’ natures not to let any crisis or tragedy go to waste . . .

  • I only read the excerpt you cited. I thought it was excellent. As far as those on the right who may refuse to acknowledge any good from the President, we shouldn’t get too worked up about it, but still take the high ground and try leading by example. There are always going to factions within factions that are so blinded by their own biases that the only reality to them is their bias. They no longer stand for good that led them to their position, they end up standing up only for their position. Reality and any sense of good be damned. I think you see a far larger portion of the left affected by it, but there is clearly a significant portion of the right too.

  • Assuming yesterday was a statistically average day: In the time it took President Obama to make nice with his base, 86 (rounded) unborn babies were (Constitutional right) killed. Some seem to think the most abortion-promoting regime leader this side of Red China is “good” because he can lead a campaign rally.

  • Again I didn’t see the event, and from the reports it sounds pretty bad. But to what degree, if any, does President Obama bare any responsibility for that? Did his office plan the event, or was he simply an invited participant? He may not have been fully aware of what was going to play out.

  • Did he pray for the reprose of the soul of the GOP Judge assassinated by his dope-addled, left wing lunatic who “brought a gun” to “punish his enemies”?

    Judge Roll was the first of the slain that he singled out.

  • Made no mention of who was responsible for the event. Apparently the U of A planned it. My point was the gaudiness of it all. This captures my opinion:

    http://www.chicagonow.com/blogs/publius-forum/2011/01/arizona-memorial-a-most-disquieting-display.html

  • I too thought the pep rally atmosphere was odd at first but as his speech progressed into a message of hope it became appropriate.

    Judging by the fact that his speech went way over schedule, he may not have been expecting interrupting applause.

  • Anybody know where to find a video of the Mass that Palin refers to?

  • “The tenor of his remarks were certainly appropriate for the occasion.”

    Sure. I expected nothing less, to be honest. Obama knows how to be appropriate, and his failure to join in on the blame game will probably make leftists as angry as the rightists who wanted him to denounce it.

  • “Expand our moral imaginations”? Are you kidding me? I think it better if we “diminish the diminutiveness of our fears”.

  • I concur: good speech, but it was a very improper tone for a ‘memorial.’ For instance, when the native American opener announced that he was Mexican on one side of his family there was loud cheering…

  • The speech was fine. The “memorial” felt like a pep rally. The “medicine man”, he is Carlos Gonzalez an associate professor of clinical medicine and an MD at the University of Arizona, with the eagle feather at the beginning giving a native blessing was surreal beyond belief.

  • Why not get Bishop Kicanas of Tucson for opening benediction? It’s not as if he’s busy running the USCCB. Both Judge Roll and Christina Green were Catholic, afterall, and none of the victims were Indians.

    Insane academic bias.

  • I don’t read the Corner, but the sensible criticism I’ve seen elsewhere hasn’t been for the speech itself, but for the circumstances surrounding it. As T. Shaw points out, if you’re going to give a “let’s all pull together and not place blame” speech, you do that as soon as the blaming starts. The president can get TV time anytime he wants; he didn’t have to wait for this. He kept mum for days while his minions in the press did a hatchet job on everything in sight that looked or smelled conservative, and now that they’ve all shouted themselves hoarse and been discredited anyway, he gets credit for calling for moderation (implying in the process that this was a problem of general “polarization,” and not entirely a one-sided attack)? Please.

    If he’d given the same speech right away — and called out some of the worst offenders in the process — that would have shown some real statesmanship. No, we shouldn’t expect that, because he’s not a statesman; he’s an orator and politico. He routinely uses “enemies” language in reference to conservatives because that’s what he believes. He’d never put Doing The Right Thing ahead of Gaining Political Advantage From The Situation. The Right Thing can wait until the political advantage has dried up.

    So, he did the right thing in the end, like a boy who gets caught hitting his sister but refuses to apologize until he’s had to go to bed without dessert for a few days and starts to realize maybe this isn’t working out that great after all, so he works up some sincerity and gets it over with. Maybe better than nothing, but not much. Do you give the boy a cookie?

  • I didn’t watch the memorial (not getting TV and all) but reading the speech it looks like it was exactly the right tone. Good to see Obama taking the high road.

  • Just saying . . . for five days . . .

    HE PREFERRED THEY TALKED 24/5 ABOUT THE WEREWOLF OF WASSALLA: They weren’t talking about gasoline/home heating oil prices rise (cap and trade would have made long term prices worse); Joblessness increases; wholesale food prices climb.

    “Initial Claims for Unemployment Insurance rose by 35,000 last week to 445,000 (last week was also revised up by 1,000, so one could see it as a 36,000 increase). This was much worse than the expected level of 415,000.”

    “The number of Americans filing unemployment claims unexpectedly rose last week, the Labor Department said early Thursday.”

    The proportion of employed Americans is 64.3%, lowest since . . . Hey, reduce the denominator make it better.

    How’s that collective planning working out, Sparkie?

    No!! Wait!!!!

    Catho-tax-funder-abortion-promoter Sibelius’ own Kansas just became the 26th US state suing over ObamaCare.

    I would apologize to suffering Americans.

  • Someone wrote an effective speech that is overdue and Obama delivered it inappropriately in an inappropriate venue several days after he should have. This pagan pep rally billed as a memorial was not only in poor taste, but indicates the high level of irreverence and indifferentism that we engage in as a culture. Additionally, the comaprisons to Clinton’s post OK speech and Bush’s post 9/11 speech is specious – this was a crime committed by a mentally unstable, possibly possessed murderer – OK bombing and 9/11 were acts of terrorism. We are making a national tragedy out of a local crime becuase this is nothing other than propaganda and political theatre.

    As T. Shaw pointed out, Obama is still the single most prominent non-Chinese murderer in the world – who cares if a he delivered a ‘good’ speech? I doubt it matters to God. If not for all the Holy Sacrifices offered everyday and the predominantly Catholic pro-life movement His Wrath would have ended us long before the AZ murderer got off the first shot.

    Charity cannot be given in a compartmentalized manner. Kudos for a mediocre speech DO NOT trump the Charity we owe millions of murdered babies.

  • Better late than never, I say. He said what needed to be said, it’s on the record, and the public will move on to other concerns eventually.

  • Yes, the public will move on, people will congratulate Obama for posing as the peacemaker after doing nothing to call his attack dogs to heel, and the next time the left wants to slander the opposition over some tragedy, they’ll know they can get away with it again as long as their leader follows it with a non-apologetic call for reconciliation. Great.

  • Should we expect Presidents to make speeches when things like this happen?

    It sounds like a good speech.

  • It was a good speech. It was also the classic good cop/bad cop ploy with the left media playing bad cop and the O riding in as the good cop.

On the Transformative Power of Hate

Tuesday, January 11, AD 2011

Midway through college, I found myself (in part, I am sure, through my own fault) sucked into one of those interpersonal dramas of the sort that can only take place in an environment where lots of young adults with much time and little sense are living with each other in a small residential college 24/7. I had a falling out with my roommate, and since the room had become a rather difficult place to live, I arranged with the residence director to move into another room in the dorm. This was almost but not quite the end of it. For a few weeks longer there were random knocks on my door, anything I put on my bulletin board was slashed to ribbons, milkshakes had a way of happening to get spilled on my car, etc. And then all was forgotten.

But during that brief period during which the strife could not be let go, I developed a reflexive reaction to everything about the former roommate. Seeing a car on the highway the same color and model as his would make me angry. Just hearing the roommate’s name would cause a tightening feeling in my stomach. Even if one would be glad to be done with it all, being hated by someone else is something which cannot help but cause significant changes in you. Hatred is never a one-way relationship.

I think of this at the moment because our country looks increasingly like two camps that would really like to be warring, except for the fact that actual civil wars cut into work hours more than blogging does. When Representative Gabrielle Giffords was critically injured, and six bystanders were killed, by a gunman who was seriously disturbed, to say the least, it could have been a moment for the country to pull together in a sense of common sympathy for the dead and injured and outrage that violence had been brought into our civic life, where it has no place.

House Speaker John Boehner stepped forward and delivered standard unifying rhetoric for such occasions, “An attack on one who serves is an attack on all who serve. Acts and threats of violence against public officials have no place in our society… This is a sad day for our country.”

Continue reading...

32 Responses to On the Transformative Power of Hate

  • Who ever you are. I don’t give a rat’s patootie whether you approve of me and my “ranting”.

  • “But either way, there are many who should be ashamed of themselves for trying to paint their fellow citizens with the blood of a crime that they are in fact united in abhorring.”

    Amen Darwin!

  • This is it for me. This event has proven decisively that there will not be, and cannot be, any sort of mutual understanding and reconciliation. The left was waiting for this, the speed at which they pounced was matched only by the audacity of the lies they told.

    This is not going to end well.

  • “it was like watching an opening at Walmart, with sweaty hacks in a tug of war over a table of identical, knee jerk assumptions.”

    http://bighollywood.breitbart.com/ggutfeld/2011/01/10/media-ghouls-exploit-tragedy-to-score-political-points/

  • Alas, Man has proven that in 6,000 years of recorded history, hate is a more powerful emotion that love. Satan is winning. Then again, the Bible says he is the “god of this world.” Those of us who are in it, but not of it, send up cries of despair, only to wait for justice to prevail. Some days, like today and most others, I don’t think it will come in my lifetime.

  • This event has proven decisively that there will not be, and cannot be, any sort of mutual understanding and reconciliation.

    Take a pill, Joe. It is Paul Krugman, Michael Moore, Markos Moulitsas, Keith Olbermann, Pinch Sulzberger’s editorial board, and Sheriff Doofus of Pima County, Arizona. The condition of the Democratic Party and affiliated subcultures is parlous but this crew do not comprehend the whole and much of what is done by the people on this list is asinine performance art.

  • Art, if you are referring to me, the only pill I take is Ambien to try to get a good night’s sleep. Thankfully, nightmares aside (a common side effect), sleep brings the only reprieve from the daily drudgery of living. To respond to every silly attack from the Left is simply to feed the beast. Why dignify such tripe? Right now the public square is filled with jabbering idiots. By posting it, however, I risk inclusion. Paradoxically, by speaking out, we are drawn into an argument that will go on for as long as right and wrong divide us.

  • Good point Art. We should keep in mind that there have been some people on the Left who have refused to go along with this attempt to start a witchhunt sans witches. Those who have squandered all their credibility in an attempt to slander and muzzle those they oppose politically, might do well however to recall this quotation: “Ruthless people don’t understand how *mean* good folks can get when their codes are violated.”

    –From “The Prince” by Jerry Pournelle and S.M. Stirling, p. 926.

    Sowing the wind is a dangerous pastime and far too many people on the Left in this country have been doing precisely that for the past decade.

  • Just to put this into context, there were about 16,000 homicides in the U.S. last year and more than 600,000 since 2000. Mass murder is the exception, not the rule. Where are the ‘moments of silence’ and the national headlines for those slain retail? The Columbines, Foot Hoods and Virginia Techs get all the ink, but represent but a handful of the thousands murdered every yearm which averages out to 40 per day in America — or nearly 2 every hour.

    One death a tragedy; a million a statistic, said Joe Stalin. Why suddenly this wringing of hands and national agony about man’s inhumanity to man. Thomas Hobbes said his biggest fear was that anyone might be his murderer. He was right.

  • I agree but as you said “Hatred is never a one-way relationship.” the left reacted to being hated by the right by blaming the right. If it was a Republican who was shot, do you really think the conservative blogosphere would be calm and plead for restraint while the facts come in? Or is it more likely that Joe would write a mirror piece to Krugman’s “Climate of Hate”? Today, it’s the left that is acting irrationally but that is not a credit to the right.

  • If it was a Republican who was shot, do you really think the conservative blogosphere would be calm and plead for restraint while the facts come in? Or is it more likely that Joe would write a mirror piece to Krugman’s “Climate of Hate”?

    Why not review back issues of National Review and op-ed commentary by Wm. F. Buckley, James Jackson Kilpatrick, George Will, William Rusher, and Smith Hempstone? Draw your selections from around about March 1981 and from September 1975. Those are your data points. I do not think you will find anything untoward, even thought the attribution of crimes such as this to anything and everything other than the agency of the perpetrator has a history that antedates those events by half a generation.

  • “Or is it more likely that Joe would write a mirror piece to Krugman’s “Climate of Hate”?”

    To elaborate on something Art Deco hints at: for the most part, conservatives believe in individual responsibility and therefore they are not tempted to think along the lines of blaming society or the political climate in general, not before any real facts are even inm as the likes of Kos and Krugman did.

    Now, that doesn’t mean that conservatives shy from blaming the left for violence — “ideas having consequences” and all that. But take one example of lefty violence that conservatives have made some ideological hay on — the Unabomber. They waited until the guy had his manifesto actually published and then was arrested (shortly after, as I recall) before claiming any link between the bombing and the environmentalist movement. Once you read the manifesto, however, it IS rather obvious — Kaczynski was an intelligent, lucid man who was acting out on the basis of ideas widely held if not-so-widely acted on this way.

  • “Or is it more likely that Joe would write a mirror piece to Krugman’s “Climate of Hate”?”

    Comparing me to Krugman? What have I ever done to deserve that?

  • Art, I don’t have to go go back to the pre-culture-war days. In 2009, Joe blamed Planned Parenthood and the pro-abort left for the murder of Jim Pouillon. Kudos to DarwinCatholic for a more measured reaction at the time. He can credibly say that he wouldn’t act as irrationally as Krugman and others have. Joe, on the other hand…

  • Austin Ruse,

    Who ever you are. I don’t give a rat’s patootie whether you approve of me and my “ranting”.

    Bully for you. Have fun with that.

    Joe,

    This is it for me. This event has proven decisively that there will not be, and cannot be, any sort of mutual understanding and reconciliation. The left was waiting for this, the speed at which they pounced was matched only by the audacity of the lies they told.

    I would tend to see it not so much that the left was waiting for us, but rather that during the Bush administration they learned to hate us so totally that nothing seemed below us, and with Obama’s victory they became convinced that conservatives would simply go away and they could proceed into the brave new world which would be allowed by total progressive rule. When the Amercian people handed them a thorough drubbing at the mid-terms, the only explanation was that it was because we had lied and cheated and stolen the country from them. Because, you know, we could never win on the issues. Only through lies.

    So when this happened, right after they’d lost so badly, in part because of the Tea Party folks, they instinctively leaped to the attack. At last, this would prove the tea party was evil.

    RR,

    I agree but as you said “Hatred is never a one-way relationship.” the left reacted to being hated by the right by blaming the right.

    I was more thinking along the lines of: Given the loud and excessive extent to which the Left has hated the Right over the last ten years, they will eventually succeed in inspiring return hatred. Though one can always take it back further. The right rather unhinged under Clinton. The left was certainly very unhinged under Reagan. (I still know people who will only refer to him as “That alzheimer’s patient you elected”.) I’m not sure anyone could muster enough feeling through the malaise to hate Carter, but certainly people absolutely hated Nixon — despite the fact he looks more like a modern day Democrat than Republican. I’m not really sure where it stops.

    If it was a Republican who was shot, do you really think the conservative blogosphere would be calm and plead for restraint while the facts come in?

    I think it would mostly be a more passive aggressive form of attack: “If we were the left, we would blame leftist rhetoric, and then how would they feel. Here are ten examples. But as it is, we’ll wait for the trail and hang ‘im high.”

  • Oh please. When did I “blame the left”? I pointed out that a Planned Parenthood director called pro-life protesters “terrorists.”

    But the left does promote a Culture of Death, this is indisputable.

    I haven’t said anything that is “irrational.” I challenge you to define that word and show how it applies to me. Put up or shut up.

  • …speaking of passive-aggressive, item one: RR.

  • RR:

    1. You said, when a ‘Republican gets shot’. The late Mr. Pouillion was not an elected official or a public figure of any kind. He may not have been registered to vote, for all we know. Your parameters, not mine.

    2. No clue how you got the idea that struggles over cultural questions post-date 1981.

    3. The offending passage consists of just two sentences and is as follows:

    Jim Pouillon may well be the victim of “pro-choice”, anti-abortion rhetoric, not only of the kind one would find in a street protest but by in the outrageous public statements made by supposed professionals and leaders in the abortion industry. A vigilante, obsessed with the idea of ridding America of a pro-life “terrorist”, inspired by the hateful rhetoric of the abortionists, decided to strike a pre-emptive blow against domestic terrorism.

    No cigar, really. He uses the subjunctive, does not defame any discrete individual, and suggests no vague or occult causal pathways. He does say when you call ordinary and inoffensive people ‘terrorists’ (and, keep in mind, the usage was not metaphorical), you encourage others with motives congruent with your own to view them that way.

    4. When our friend Hargrave gets rent-free space at the New York Times op-ed page, get back to me.

  • “If it was a Republican who was shot . . . ” IF?!

    The Federal Judge that is DEAD, DEAD, DEAD was a Republican appointed by President George H. W. Bush. At least they never made a movie nor wrote a book about assassinating the elder Bush, like they did his son.

    left-Liberals are truly [fill in the blank] . . .

    Here are more incitements to violence which need to be addressed by the Thought Police.

    “Some times peace comes at too high a price.” Ben Franklin

    Psalm:
    “Do I not hate them, Lord, that hate thee.
    Am I not aggrieved with those that rise up against thee.”

    Iliad, Book XXI, “Strong hatred , defender of peoples.”

  • We are a house divided and we will become all one thing, or all the other…all left, or all right. There is no bridging the gap – one side or the other will have to prevail. Does this mean, for certain, a violent civil war? No, but the stakes are just as high and it is possible.

  • I am reminded of this passage from the Screwtape Letters concerning the demonic strategy at different times in human history:

    “Some ages are lukewarm and complacent, and it is our task to soothe them yet faster asleep. Other ages such as the present one (World War II) are unbalanced and prone to faction, and it is our task to inflame them…. The trick is to have them (humans) all running about with fire extinguishers when there is a flood, and all crowding to that side of the boat which is nearly gunwale under.”

  • Pingback: WEDNESDAY MORNING EDITION | ThePulp.it
  • Joe,

    People can note when there are unstable opponents and point out that, with a continued rhetoric which leads to desperation and talks revolution, something will happen. To be able to see it will happen, and warn people to stop before it does, now makes them to be at fault?

    Just remember, Joe. YOU ARE THE ONE who has a history of praising the DEATH of people. The reason it does not end good is because YOU don’t want it to end good. You are a part of the problem.

  • It does seem like liberals went off the rails with hate during the GWB presidency, and have never come back. They’ve dehumanized the right to the point where they feel no need to engage with it, but only to deride and destroy it. In fact, engaging with it would legitimize it to an extent they can’t accept. If you really believe someone is a hateful killer of the poor and sick and an earth-destroyer, you don’t negotiate with him and look for areas of compromise; you try to end him. That’s where the left’s view of the right is today.

    Yes, some on the right got pretty loopy during the Clinton presidency. But they tended to be on the fringe, people running conspiracy web sites and the like, not the well-known spokesman of the movement. There was no equivalent of the NY Times/Olbermann/Krugman responding like those organs of the left have in this case. In this case, the few exceptions on the left who didn’t jump on the hate bandwagon only prove the rule.

    The claim that the same thing would happen in the other direction is simply a lie. A conservative judge in Arizona was shot by a guy with Communist sympathies, and will now be replaced by an Obama appointee. So why haven’t we seen all the major figures of the right claiming this was all setup by Obama’s people, and the congresswoman was shot for cover? (Note that I’m not claiming that, because it’s stupid; but that’s the sort of thing we get from the left now.) When Reagan was shot, did the right immediately blame the entire left? There’s no equivalence here, not matter how above-the-fray it makes people feel to say there is.

  • Henry,

    In the spirit of the post, allow me to point out that when you accuse people (indeed ALL IN CAPS) of praising the death of others, and say that they are “part of the problem” when it comes to random mass killings in this country, you are bringing more hate to the table than anyone else has shown in this thread. This is a perfect example of allowing your strong dislike for a person’s views and tone turn into a dislike for the person which is so strong that it apparantly interferes with your ability to construct coherant sentences.

    If you really care about reducing the violence of political rhetoric, ceasing to accuse your opponents of advocating for death would be a really good start.

  • Mark,

    We are a house divided and we will become all one thing, or all the other…all left, or all right. There is no bridging the gap – one side or the other will have to prevail.

    I’m not aware of any other periods in our history where one side of the political debate has simply vanished and the other has completely prevailed. Even the civil war did not result in that — far from it, indeed. Why should we expect to see that now?

  • The Tories come closest to being a side that completely lost a political debate in this country during the Revolution. Many of them left the country and went to Canada where they were known as United Empire Loyalists. A fair number of them eventually did return to the US. Other than that I agree with you Darwin that complete victories in US politics are almost non-existent. We see even apparently defeated political factions like the Federalists emerging later under new guises.

  • T.Shaw I would pay to see you debate Karlson! No sharp items would be allowed in the room however.

  • Be thankful that no one side wins completely. Balance can be a great thing. I think the compromise of the Federalists and Anti-Federalists serves as a premier example of how it can make for a better product. Of course, both parties were very forward thinking and concerned about ensuring that their decisions would not lead to tyranny generations down the road. Can’t really say that these days.

  • All this noise is hurting my ears!

  • testing, testing

  • Mac, 8:19AM:

    Never happen. I become viscerally ill when I come in close proximity to pure evil. In fact in 1992, I walked past Bryant Park when Clinton was bloviating there and I nearly had a seizure.