PDA

View Full Version : Perhaps the Pink Pistols can educate the West Hollywood News...


AVS
12-18-2012, 1:18 PM
http://www.wehonews.com/z/wehonews/archive/page.php?articleID=7535

No surprise, but talk about vitriol. Yeesh. It'd be easier to ignore if it wasn't an op-ed written by the co-founder.

CEDaytonaRydr
12-18-2012, 1:28 PM
I see the "Pink Pistols" as a force multiplyer. They prove to the community that the 2A is not a Democrat vs Republican issue. It's a civil rights issue.

"Armed gays don't get bashed" :cool:

IVC
12-18-2012, 1:53 PM
"Armed gays don't get bashed" :cool:

Except by Bradys...

WeHo News
12-18-2012, 4:20 PM
I wrote and published one of only half a dozen op-eds with my byline in over seven years of publishing this morning, beginning the piece with accounts of Jessica's (age 6) and James' (age 6) "enthusiasms."
Jessica loved ponies; James loved baseball and eating and singing as loudly as possible. (http://wehonews.com/z/wehonews/archive/page.php?articleID=7535)
I also pointed out that...
1) Gun "enthusiasts" love the Bushmaster (used in the killings at Newtown)
2) The gun uses ammunition designed to “tumble” upon impact, breaking up inside a victim's body and inflicting the maximum amount of damage, tearing apart bone and tissue.
The guns are engines of death, a hallmark of their bearers’ enthusiasm, for they say that the guns issue hunks of flying lead that are less likely to be “wasted” by simply passing through the victim and continuing on their merry way for some distance beyond.
3) Adam Lanza’s mother Nancy was a gun enthusiast who bought the Bushmaster used by her son...
She took him for target practice regularly...
She died of four gunshot wounds to the head, while still in her bed. (This is known as being hoist on one's own petard - another violent phrase based in explosives)
4) Gun enthusiasts assert that too few members of civil society are allowed to pack heat in public spaces... [saying that] no American has the right to safety from gunfire in church or school, only the right to respond in kind to that gunfire.
5) The director of government relations for the locally-headquartered National Shooting Sports Foundation, Patrick Rothwell, led the fight against gun regulations in and around Newtown earlier this year, saying he believed there was a greater danger of swimming accidents.
6) Last Thursday, the day before the Newtown School Massacre, Michigan legislators passed a bill that would allow people to carry concealed firearms in schools and other previously gun-free zones.
7) Ponies are not allowed in any schools, not anywhere in America.
Apparently these observations are considered cruel by gun enthusiasts. GOOD. Send a letter to the editor to disabuse me and my readership of my views that having an enthusiasm for something designed to inflict maximum damage and lethality to human beings compares favorably with a little girl's enthusiasm for ponies.
Ryan Gierach, founding editor and publisher, WeHo News, West Hollywood - editor@wehonews.com - please also send your phone number for verification of your identity - we do not publish any anonymous comments, neither favorable nor unfavorable.

WeHo News
12-18-2012, 4:25 PM
Oh, and Senior member IVC suggests that armed people do not suffer injury... give this a read...
http://www.mercurynews.com/crime-courts/ci_22215400/robber-shoots-california-resident-own-rifle

furyous68
12-18-2012, 5:38 PM
"Bullets designed to tumble & cause the most damage possible"??!!?? The .223 is a high velocity round designed to go in & out. When it was incorporated into the M-16, the US Military didn't want to kill the enemy, they wanted to wound them... making the North Vietnamese waste resources on the injured. That is why M-16 rifle was not a one-shot kill weapon, and North Vietnamese solders were likely to survive multiple wounds (albeit severely wounded).

If you are interested in the truth.. do a little research: http://www.gunsandcrime.org/lethalty.html and: http://www.americanthinker.com/2004/08/the_last_big_lie_of_vietnam_ki.html

Your observations are flawed. Blaming a particular rifle for what happened is like blaming the car when a drunk driver kills someone. It's the defective person controlling the tool. This criminal did not legally purchase the rifle. He stole it from his mom after he murdered her with it. The gun did not tell him to do it.

To counter your story of the guy who got shot with his own rifle: http://www.wistv.com/story/19236842/gun-shop-owner-shoots-kills-man-during-attempted-robbery

More situations have the outcome of the criminal being shot than that of the owner being injured/ killed with his own weapon. I'm sure you remember the Oklahoma girl who shot an intruder to protect herself & her infant. There was also the teenager who protected himself & his sister from a burglar back east. But since an innocent person didn't die, the librals & anti-gunners couldn't use those stories to their advantage, and they got very little media attention.

Dr Rockso
12-18-2012, 6:24 PM
Hi Ryan,

1) Gun "enthusiasts" love the Bushmaster (used in the killings at Newtown)
I don't disagree that AR rifles are very popular, if that's what you mean. Functionally, they're no different from any other semi-auto rifle (of which there are squillions). They're popular because they're lightweight, accurate, reliable, ergonomic, and considered to be a good value. The irony is that millions of gunowners have been introduced to the AR platform precisely because ARs are consistently the target of gun ban proposals, and the perceived future scarcity drives up the demand. If it weren't for the annual gun ban proposals, I'm convinced that most gunowners would look down on anything that wasn't made of blued steel and walnut.
2) The gun uses ammunition designed to “tumble” upon impact, breaking up inside a victim's body and inflicting the maximum amount of damage, tearing apart bone and tissue.
Nothing you just mentioned is inherent to the AR platform or .223 caliber cartridges. Ammunition technology hasn't really changed much in a hundred years.
The guns are engines of death, a hallmark of their bearers’ enthusiasm, for they say that the guns issue hunks of flying lead that are less likely to be “wasted” by simply passing through the victim and continuing on their merry way for some distance beyond.
Oooh, can I play? "Unlike more powerful cartridges that possess so much energy they sail effortlessly through their first victim to kill again, the relatively anemic .223 does not overpenetrate the target. This quality has made it exceedingly popular with police departments and homeowners in an attempt to minimize the risks to innocent lives."
3) Adam Lanza’s mother Nancy was a gun enthusiast who bought the Bushmaster used by her son...
She took him for target practice regularly...
She died of four gunshot wounds to the head, while still in her bed. (This is known as being hoist on one's own petard - another violent phrase based in explosives)
Every gunowner that I know is very serious about storing his or her firearms safely. Perhaps expenditures on gun safes should be tax deductible to encourage safe storage practices?
4) Gun enthusiasts assert that too few members of civil society are allowed to pack heat in public spaces... [saying that] no American has the right to safety from gunfire in church or school, only the right to respond in kind to that gunfire.
Let's make a distinction here between different types of "gun free" public spaces. On the one hand you have areas with true enforcement (courthouses, airport terminals, etc). There is a security presence, and people who attempt to violate the law run a serious risk of being caught and confronted by law enforcement. No gunowner that I know personally has a problem with that. The other type of "gun free" zone is the unenforced type. Your comment refuses to acknowledge that a sign saying "no guns" provides absolutely no deterrent to someone with evil intent, it only deters those who are inclined to abide by unenforced laws. In most states people who meet a set of baseline requirements (no criminal history, some level of training, etc) have the legal ability to carry a firearm for their own defense. Telling them they can't carry into a courthouse is perfectly reasonable. Telling them they can't carry into a church or a restaurant that sells beer is just dumb.

5) The director of government relations for the locally-headquartered National Shooting Sports Foundation, Patrick Rothwell, led the fight against gun regulations in and around Newtown earlier this year, saying he believed there was a greater danger of swimming accidents.
Obviously this was a tragedy of unimaginable proportions, but when children drown in swimming pools it's not international news. Why? Because that event occurs so frequently that it's not newsworthy.
6) Last Thursday, the day before the Newtown School Massacre, Michigan legislators passed a bill that would allow people to carry concealed firearms in schools and other previously gun-free zones.
Good. I stand by my opinion that unsecured "gun free" zones are bad public policy and provide no deterrent effect to people with malicious intent.

nicki
12-18-2012, 7:41 PM
Guys,

This article was pretty bad, never the less I decided to send a letter to the editor, don't know if he will read it, but you never know.

If you guys have comments on my letter, let me know. Bear in mind I wrote it figuring the guy was ultra left.

If you happen to like the letter, feel free to use my points. Should any of you need help with my points, drop me a PM.

Our rights are under serious attack, that being said, this isn't 1989 or 1994 because this time we can communicate and watch each other's backs.

As long as we don't stab each other in the back or throw some guns or gun owners under the bus, we not only will survive, we will thrive.

In the winter of 1944 in Europe the Germans launched what today we refer as the battle of the bulge, this is where our opponents are today.

Ultimately we won the war in Europe shortly thereafter.



Dear Ryan,

I read your editoral, "enthusiasts of death" and certainly I can understand your pain, the pain of the parents of those dead children and the fear of all parents all across our country.

It is easy to attack "assault rifles", after all, what possible purpose could civilian ownership of these weapons of war possilby serve.
Most responsible people feel that they want to do something, after all, we have 20 dead kids, they could be anyone's kids.

Needless to say it pains me to have to write to you because while I believe your editoral was well intentioned, when it comes to fundamental rights, the bar I set to infringe on any of those rights is very high and if those rights must be burdened, that they are done in the least intrusive manner possible.

We have a Bill of Rights, not a Bill of needs and the rights that our government is supposed to recognize in the bill of rights deserve more protection than a majority vote.

Demonizing a group or object is easy. Those of us who were around in the 1980's probably remember the 80's and the AIDS pandemic.

When AIDS first came along in the 1980's there were many people who wanted gay men rounded up and put in internment camps. Some medical "professionals" refused to treat anyone who was HIV positive, they were afraid of gettin infected.

Right wing bigots were claiming that AIDS was a the Gay Plague sent by God as punishment for the "sexual revolution".

You and I will disagree on guns, but I will lay out my core reason anyway because even though we probably will disagree on guns, it is my hope that after I lay out my gun position, that I will put things out that we could agree on and we move forward on things we can agree on.

Working together on things we agree on ultimately will save many lives.

My position on the second amendment is pretty straight forward, I believe that the second amendment not only recognizes a right for law abiding citizens to own arms that are well suited for self-defense, but I also believe that the second amendment imposes a collective duty on the American people to own, train and maintain arms so that if needed, that they can perform their "militia duty" to protect our country from enemies both foreign and domestic.

The people who wrote the Constitution and the Bill of Rights just finished a bloody revolution where many people were killed on both sides and they wanted to create a country were the government operated under the consent of the governed and that the people would control the government.

It is pretty obvious that the Declaration of Independence provided the framework for both the first and second amendments of the bill of rights. The first amendment recognized and created peaceful means for us to redress grievances with our government and the second amendment was put in to give us violent means to maintain a just government should our government turn on the people.

The people who founded our country viewed standing armies and select militias as dangerous to liberty which is why if you read the original constitution, the ability of the government to raise a army was supposed to be only for emegencies. The people were supposed to be the bulk of our national defense, just like modern day Switzerland.

Of course we have shredded the bill of rights, the Patriot Act, the War on Drugs, the War on Terror and our law enforcement agencies have become modern day versions of the select militias our founding fathers feared.

I look at the people of Libya and Syria because right now they are fighting for their freedoms for tyrants. The Chinese people tried in 1989 to bring Deomcracy to their country, look how that turned out for them.

Gun bans are off the table and I know that the gun rights folks are going to fight tooth and nail both politically and in the courts to stop infringements on what they percieve as their constitutional rights.

That being said, there are many areas where most people could agree on and with this tragedy comes the opportunity to fix many things that should have been dealt with a long time ago. Let me throw out a few items.

1. Many of these mass murderers were on various psych medications that we know can produce altered mental states. Our mental health system needs serious overhaul because for every school shooting, how many other acts of violence are happening as a side effect from these psych medications. Are there alternative treatments that don't cause people to become homicidal and suicidal?

For example, the medical marijuana folks claim that pot helps with depression, some forms of autism and PSTD. I have yet to run into people who are high or stoned who are violent. They may be dumb, they may act stupid, but generally not violent.

2. Many of these individuals who commited these crimes had low self worth, they saw themselves as losers, insignificant. Humans have an emotional need for significance and if you can't achieve significance peacefully, resorting to violence will get you significance. If you bomb a school, you make the local news, but if you do a shooting, you get national coverage and your face and all your info gets blasted all over the world because the news likes to give us "Dirty Laundry".

Perhaps if the news would just report the victims and give NO COVERAGE to the killer, make them a BLANK, then we would remove a significant motivator for mass shootings.

3. Gun prohibition will work as well as our drug war, a ban on semi auto weapons will immediately create a black market where the new guns will be full auto. Black markets work simply, deliver the product/service that has highest profit potential. This is why the Columbians switched from boatloads of marijuana in the late 1970's to boatloads of cocaine in the 1980's and that led to a blizzard of snow that eventually lead to crack, meth and other synthetic drugs flooding our country.

Black market guns would probably be full automatics, probably Mac 11s, Tec 9s and AK47s since they can either be smuggled in or easily manufactured in machine shops. In short, prohibition has a historical record of creating more problems than it solves.

Of course we can improve the backgound checks, put pressure on states to report prohibited people so that they can't just walk in and buy a gun in a gun shop.

Most gun owners are reasonable, they have kids too, but when you point fingers and demonize them, guess how they react?

I could go on and on, I figure that you will either tune me out or you would be open to serious discussion and work to see what people across the political, social and cultural divide can agree on and go from there.

Nicole "Nicki" Stallard
San Jose Pink Pistols
*** *** 3275 cell

blackbox
12-18-2012, 8:43 PM
4) Gun enthusiasts assert that too few members of civil society are allowed to pack heat in public spaces... [saying that] no American has the right to safety from gunfire in church or school, only the right to respond in kind to that gunfire.


The key logical fallacy here is thinking that laws preventing lawful carry in any way ensure "safety from gunfire in church or school". What those advocating more laws miss is that it is currently illegal to carry a gun even near a school. Somehow, that law doesn't stop people out for mayhem (but is mighty effective at stopping the law-abiding from being armed).

-an 8 year weho resident

AVS
12-18-2012, 11:02 PM
Credit where it's due. Kudos to Ryan Gierach for coming here and stating his case. That took balls, which we don't usually see around here from news writers.

IVC
12-18-2012, 11:41 PM
Oh, and Senior member IVC suggests that armed people do not suffer injury... give this a read...
http://www.mercurynews.com/crime-courts/ci_22215400/robber-shoots-california-resident-own-rifle

Not even close. If armed people didn't suffer injury, we would arm everybody and all the gun violence would be gone. Nobody in their right mind would imply that being armed is some sort of a magic shield :nuts:.

Just because you hate the concept of armed populace doesn't mean you can make up your own facts. With this level of dishonesty we cannot even begin to have a meaningful conversation.

IVC
12-18-2012, 11:57 PM
4) Gun enthusiasts assert that too few members of civil society are allowed to pack heat in public spaces... [saying that] no American has the right to safety from gunfire in church or school, only the right to respond in kind to that gunfire.

You have the right to safety from gunfire in church or school. So does everybody else. Carrying a concealed weapon for self defense is one way for an individual to increase that safety without affecting your preferred method to handle your own safety.

A weapon carried for self defense does not interfere with you rolling over, calling 911, running away or doing whatever you think is appropriate if confronted by an armed maniac. Weapons deployed during self defense scenarios virtually never hurt any bystanders or innocents because those who defend themselves use it only as the very last resort and only if they can have a clear shot.


5) The director of government relations for the locally-headquartered National Shooting Sports Foundation, Patrick Rothwell, led the fight against gun regulations in and around Newtown earlier this year, saying he believed there was a greater danger of swimming accidents.

Are you calling him a liar? Kids lost to drowning are still the same kids who love ponies and singing. Their lives are valuable too. If you want to play statistics, you actually have to use numbers.

Send a letter to the editor to disabuse me and my readership of my views that having an enthusiasm for something designed to inflict maximum damage and lethality to human beings compares favorably with a little girl's enthusiasm for ponies.

Something "designed to inflict maximum damage and lethality to human beings" deployed against the crazed maniac who burst into school and started killing innocent kids compares extremely favorably with "a little girl's enthusiasm for ponies" - it would ENABLE HER TO ENJOY THEM TODAY!

On the other hand, deploying nothing, or something that only gives the high moral ground to the person deploying it, compares very poorly with "a little girl's enthusiasm for ponies" as we witnessed in CT. If you have a better way, we are all listening. The scenario is: "an armed crazed gunman is facing you and a bunch of innocent kids."

wjc
12-19-2012, 12:00 AM
Well put, nicki!

Damn True
12-19-2012, 12:14 AM
Bravo Nikki!

mrdd
12-19-2012, 12:30 AM
5) The director of government relations for the locally-headquartered National Shooting Sports Foundation, Patrick Rothwell, led the fight against gun regulations in and around Newtown earlier this year, saying he believed there was a greater danger of swimming accidents.

The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in a 2012 report on pool and spa submersion in the United States gives us some perspective on this.

For the years 2007-2009, on average per year, 390 children younger than age 15 died due to pool and spa submersion accidents. These numbers are based on reported incidents and should be considered minimum counts.

Page 10:

http://www.cpsc.gov/library/foia/foia12/os/poolsub2012.pdf

WeHo News
12-19-2012, 2:20 PM
Thanks for all of your excellent replies. I will be publishing Nicki's letter as a stand-alone counterpoint op-ed in tomorrow's edition of our publication.
I still think the world would be a far better place if people's enthusiasms were more of the pony variety than of the gun variety - safety issues, killings accidental and purposeful and death rates from gun fire would be a lot lower. Ponies don't kill people - not even people riding ponies kill people (as often as people wielding firearms).
All the best...

CCWFacts
12-19-2012, 2:23 PM
I think it's cool that WeHo News has joined our conversation here. Sincere welcome to them, even if we disagree. WeHo News, I would be happy to give you a hands-on tour of the AR-15, including shooting it. Contact me by PM if you're interested.

Mitch
12-19-2012, 2:24 PM
Thanks for all of your excellent replies. I will be publishing Nicki's letter as a stand-alone counterpoint op-ed in tomorrow's edition of our publication.

Ryan, there's no active Pink Pistols chapter in LA that I know of, but I used to be part of one ten years ago and I'd be happy to host you at a monthly fun shoot I put on at Burro Canyon above Azusa.

PM me if you are interested.

furyous68
12-19-2012, 2:28 PM
Good deal WeHo.

The vast majority of the gun-owning population are not neanderthals hell-bent on mass destruction. We value our civil rights the same as anyone else who has had theirs infringed upon. We don't expect you to change your personal feelings towards firearms in general... if you do not want to own one, that is your business. We do hope that you will respect our viewpoint. Gun rights do equal civil rights. The right to protect one's self isn't just for protection in the home or against the common criminal. It also includes protection from oppressive & tyrannical authorities, which was the basis on which this country was formed.

The Wingnut
12-19-2012, 2:42 PM
I still think the world would be a far better place if people's enthusiasms were more of the pony variety than of the gun variety - safety issues, killings accidental and purposeful and death rates from gun fire would be a lot lower. Ponies don't kill people - not even people riding ponies kill people...

Agreed, however, there's still a considerable risk involved in riding a horse (or pony, as the case may be, and it can be argued that riding a young pony is far more dangerous than riding a broken-in horse that's accustomed to being ridden) - there is no reliable way to remove all risks involved in life, but one can mitigate them, and one should be familiar with and accept the concept of acceptable risk.

...but this isn't about an analogy.

It's not a perfect world, we cannot expect it to be, and we cannot realistically hope to turn it into one.

Thank you for posting, thanks for the consideration, and thanks for providing an opportunity for a counterpoint to be heard from the firearms community in your paper.

CEDaytonaRydr
12-19-2012, 3:01 PM
I still think the world would be a far better place if people's enthusiasms were more of the pony variety than of the gun variety - safety issues, killings accidental and purposeful and death rates from gun fire would be a lot lower. Ponies don't kill people - not even people riding ponies kill people (as often as people wielding firearms).
All the best...

I don't think anyone on this forum would disagree with your genuine desire to make the world a safer place. We believe that safety comes in numbers, and that the faster that a threat can be nutralized, the safer we are as a society. Our "enthusiasm" for guns stems directly from our desire to survive incident similar to Shady Brook, if we happen to find ourselves in that situation.

Home invasion robberies are a common occurance in Southern California; search the major news outlets in LA and you can read all about them. Sometimes they simply tie you up while they take what they want, sometimes they rape the victims, and sometimes they kill them. I don't want my family to have to endure that type of trauma either, if it is in my power to prevent it.

I also think you should let your readers know about the "Pink Pistols"; our gay 2nd Amendment group, who's motto is "Armed Gays Don't Get Bashed". I don't know about you but personally, I'd rather see a skinhead get taken down, as opposed to assaulting a law-abiding citizen. This is not a "left vs right" issue; this is a "civil rights" issue. ;)

dave_cg
12-19-2012, 4:36 PM
Thanks for all of your excellent replies. I will be publishing Nicki's letter as a stand-alone counterpoint op-ed in tomorrow's edition of our publication.

Thank you for enabling reasoned debate. I've had my fill of one-sided, knee-jerk demagoguery.

I have to say, though, the whole "pony" analogy is stretching a little thin for me. Just guessing, but I'd say you are what we farm boys call a "townie". I say that because you don't seem to understand either firearms or horses.

Where I grew up, a varmint gun is a tool. Sure, a lot of people hunt, too. But everybody also has to deal with a family of opposum that takes up residence under the feed shed. To which the townie says: "live trap!" -- of course, you don't want a rotting carcass under the feed shed either. But you have to ask yourself what to do with a cage full of live animals that reproduce as fast as mice. Releasing them is an exercise in futility, so you need a humane way to dispatch them.

Where I grew up, most kids had horses. One more animal was a trivial extra expense, so parents traded horses around as their kids got to be horse riding age. Guess what -- kids got hurt on horses, broken bones and such. Horses are not as safe to be around as most townies would think. Especially if you have no horse-sense and do things to put yourself in danger. Getting hurt by their own sheer stupidity in terms of animal sense common among townies.

And, interestingly enough, the area where I grew up is going Amish. Guess what? The oldest boy in the family drives the buggy to school, typically. So... horses in school? Yes, I can show you many schools with horses on campus. Big, dangerous cart horses that can break limbs if mishandled and can cause deadly buggy accidents if poorly driven.

I think a key reason attitudes about guns have changed is that the USA has transitioned away from a rural society. Prior to WW II, about 48% of the population lived on farms. When I was growing up, about 3% lived on farms. Now it is less than 1%. So the number of people who grow up with familiarity with firearms has declined drastically.

Speaking of school tragedies... one of those Amish schools where I grew up had a major trajedy. A buggy with 8 kids from age 6-12 was going home after school. Some jack-*** in an 18-wheeler decided he wanted to pass going up a blind hill on a two lane highway with full buggy lanes on either side. He didn't want to violate the double-yellow by passing in the lane for oncoming traffic. Instead, he used the buggy lane, came over the hill, and turned the buggy into matchsticks and killed every child instantly. OH NOOOOO!!! LET'S BAN 18-WHEELERS!!!! Nobody needs an 18-wheeler to bring their groceries home from the store!!! THINK OF THE CHILDREN!!! --- said nobody after that incedent. The jackass was convicted of 8 counts of vehicular manslaughter, which seems about right.

nicki
12-20-2012, 12:46 AM
I could have written a "snarky letter" and get in a "pissing contest", but what would that get us.

I don't know how well my comments will be recieved by the readers of the West Hollywood News, but I'm the type of person who jumps out of planes and does "firewalks", so we shall see.

I was actually surprised that Ryan got back with me and although we do have differences, perhaps we can grow a relationship to where we can at least have dialogue.

The truth is we will find things that we can agree on and working together on things we agree on ultimately will build bridges.

Violence reduction is something we all should work toward because the less violence there is, the safer all of our rights will be and that improves the quality of all of our lives.

Nicki

furyous68
12-20-2012, 6:46 AM
Violence reduction is something we all should work toward because the less violence there is, the safer all of our rights will be and that improves the quality of all of our lives.

Nicki

That is the truth of it right there. Banning guns will not reduce the violence. We have to look at the problem through another pair of glasses.

WeHo News
12-20-2012, 5:41 PM
Hi all - Nicki's op-ed is up now.
I also ran across this in today's NY Times.
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/12/20/opinion/kristof-looking-for-lessons-in-newtown.html?ref=nicholasdkristof&_r=0
All the best

aklover_91
12-20-2012, 6:07 PM
Hi all - Nicki's op-ed is up now.
I also ran across this in today's NY Times.
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/12/20/opinion/kristof-looking-for-lessons-in-newtown.html?ref=nicholasdkristof&_r=0
All the best

It's worth noting that according to the FBI Unified Crime Report for 2011, that 323 we murdered by someone wielding a rifle, 356 were murdered by someone with a shotgun, and 728 people were murdered barehanded.

That means in total, 679 people were victim to unlawful homicide where any kind of long arm was involved, which still clocks in at less than the number of people simply beat to death.

http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2011/crime-in-the-u.s.-2011/tables/table-20

I don't mean to take anything away from these tragedies, but this clearly isn't a weapon related issue. Sandy Hook was indeed a tragedy, and there are things that could potentially be done to help prevent such tragedies in the future, but it and similar incidents are anomalies. Vilifying the most popular model of rifle in the country and the people who own them clearly isn't productive, it's an intellectually and morally lazy way to feel like you're doing something.

Time would be better spent examining why anyone would do something so horrible, and how we could increase the security of our schools and public places to prevent more of them in the future.

Clearly, a sign that says 'PLEASE DON'T DO BAD THINGS HERE' isn't terribly effective.

As to where my enthusiasm should lie, myself and close to every other gun owner aren't destructive or violent and I'm personally insulted by the assertion that we're more likely to be. I sincerely doubt you'd make the same claim of people who are into fencing, archery, or martial arts.

If you really want to effect positive change, you need to examine the underlying causes of the problem and work to fix those, not treat the symptoms. If you have a broken bone you want to fix, do you take pain killers and pretend everything is fine, or do you set it and splint it?

MOA1
12-20-2012, 6:14 PM
Thanks for all of your excellent replies. I will be publishing Nicki's letter as a stand-alone counterpoint op-ed in tomorrow's edition of our publication.
I still think the world would be a far better place if people's enthusiasms were more of the pony variety than of the gun variety - safety issues, killings accidental and purposeful and death rates from gun fire would be a lot lower. Ponies don't kill people - not even people riding ponies kill people (as often as people wielding firearms).
All the best...


Tell that to Christopher Reeves. His fall killed him, eventually, a long, slow, impotent death.

I own horses BTW. I thought about ole Christopher the other day when my pony was screaming down the road because she had too much energy........ I also have Big bad pit bulls too, they all get along just fine. And we are safe at night while we are sleeping. So are the dogs.

MOA1
12-20-2012, 6:31 PM
Hi all - Nicki's op-ed is up now.
I also ran across this in today's NY Times.
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/12/20/opinion/kristof-looking-for-lessons-in-newtown.html?ref=nicholasdkristof&_r=0
All the best

I hope you're not endorsing that piece of junk.

Answer this question: Q: What do the last three mass shootings have in common?




















A: Gun free zone.


All the best and more sugar britches. :D


add: Investigate the Oregon mall shooting, the shooter was in the process of clearing a jam when he had a citizen with a CCW draw down on him, he saw it and ate the next round. Two were killed. The CCW holder was in violation of mall policy, thankfully so.

Bhobbs
12-20-2012, 6:37 PM
WeHo News (Ryan), how can you write an article on something you are clearly so clueless about? You think someone with some journalistic integrity would write articles about subjects they thoroughly understand.

DarkSoul
12-20-2012, 7:24 PM
Well, the way I see it, since so many children die each year from drownings (more than from firearms) I guess since everyone is hellbent on banning firearms, I guess it is only logical to also ban water, I mean just think, we would actually save MORE children's lives that way.

I understand that there is great concern for the welfare of children, who would disagree with that, but to ban firearms to do so, is the very definition of insanity, the only thing you WILL see, is MORE senseless deaths, since by the very definition of a criminal, is someone that does not follow laws, and if you and others that want all guns banned get their way, well guess what, now only criminals will have guns, and now the risks involved in being a criminal go away since there is no worry that LAW ABIDING citizens, that are now disarmed, have no way to defend themselves against an armed intruder, mugger, rapist, and so on.

CEDaytonaRydr
12-20-2012, 10:31 PM
Hi all - Nicki's op-ed is up now.
I also ran across this in today's NY Times.
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/12/20/opinion/kristof-looking-for-lessons-in-newtown.html?ref=nicholasdkristof&_r=0
All the best

Taken from the article:

More than twice as many preschoolers die annually from gun violence in America as law enforcement officers are killed in the line of duty.

The validity of those stats is questionable but even with that said, why do you think the preschoolers are getting killed in greater numbers than cops? It's because they are defenseless, and the cops have guns! This does more to prove our point than it does to refute it. People with guns seem to be more likely to survive, do they not? ;)

motorhead
12-21-2012, 8:49 AM
using a tragedy like this to push an anti gun agenda makes me want to vomit.

WeHo News
12-21-2012, 6:05 PM
WeHo News (Ryan), how can you write an article on something you are clearly so clueless about? You think someone with some journalistic integrity would write articles about subjects they thoroughly understand.
Derision suits you. Your retort speaks volumes about your character. Are you a journalist yourself? What would be the baseline extent of knowledge about a subject you would require before writing an article? Would it be a week's worth of full time study, maybe a month's? Perhaps a year's worth? Or are you suggesting that only people with direct experience with a subject and a bias that agrees with your own ought to write for news organizations?
What we do not do is disparage the people about whom we write - we quote them; we provide alternative quotes.
In opinion pieces we give our opinions, to which we're entitled, so far as I am aware - it's called the First Amendment.
But of course, that same amendment entitles *******s to make fools of themselves, too.

Foulball
12-21-2012, 6:15 PM
Amazing that the First Amendment means so much to you, but not the Second. Which other amendments do you not like?

TheDeej
12-21-2012, 6:44 PM
Derision suits you. Your retort speaks volumes about your character. Are you a journalist yourself? What would be the baseline extent of knowledge about a subject you would require before writing an article? Would it be a week's worth of full time study, maybe a month's? Perhaps a year's worth? Or are you suggesting that only people with direct experience with a subject and a bias that agrees with your own ought to write for news organizations?
What we do not do is disparage the people about whom we write - we quote them; we provide alternative quotes.
In opinion pieces we give our opinions, to which we're entitled, so far as I am aware - it's called the First Amendment.
But of course, that same amendment entitles *******s to make fools of themselves, too.

I understand your need to defend your position, but I would hope you could see how ridiculous and disgusting some portions of the article are.

"The guns are engines of death, a hallmark of their bearers’ enthusiasm"

Really? The popularity of the AR platform is a collection of things, most commonly it's accuracy, ergonomics, and ease of shooting (soft-recoil). It most prominent use in the civilian sector is competition. To cast a blanket-statement like that over a community and label anyone who owns one as someone who is enthusiastic about death is terrible.
You go on to make statements about children falling victim to enthusiast's favorite weapon. Those children were killed by a psychopath on prescription drugs, responsibility does not fall on the gun itself.
Then there's the section referring to ranges as "haunts" and a place where gun enthusiasts go to "practice dealing death in large doses" and "rapid fire of ammo calamitous to the human body."
Last time I was at the range I distinctly remember enjoying myself as I focused my efforts on getting the tightest 5-shot group I could in a piece of cardboard, dealing death in large doses however was NOT something that crossed my mind. You also may be surprised to find that outside of certain competition parameters, most ranges don't allow rapid fire as it creates an unsafe environment if a novice shooter were to attempt such a thing. I don't pick any guns based on it's ability to harm anything. I'm the person who catches and relocated spiders in my home, I don't have the heart to kill anything (that's a lie, I despise mosquitos).
Truth is, I'm part of the often attacked gun-owning community and I'm truly offended by the article and kind of person it portrays me to be. Like Nicki I urge to to frequent our forums and embrace open dialogue. No one can argue facts but as someone familiar with guns it's hard for me to find anything factual in there.
Thank you for taking to time to respond here, you have taken a much more open approach to our community and that does not go unappreciated. We would just like to see an article somewhere out there that doesn't demonize us for once and shows us to be the everyday people we are, not the evil murderers the media seems so hell-bent on making us out to be.

CEDaytonaRydr
12-21-2012, 8:33 PM
Derision suits you. Your retort speaks volumes about your character. Are you a journalist yourself? What would be the baseline extent of knowledge about a subject you would require before writing an article? Would it be a week's worth of full time study, maybe a month's? Perhaps a year's worth? Or are you suggesting that only people with direct experience with a subject and a bias that agrees with your own ought to write for news organizations?
What we do not do is disparage the people about whom we write - we quote them; we provide alternative quotes.
In opinion pieces we give our opinions, to which we're entitled, so far as I am aware - it's called the First Amendment.
But of course, that same amendment entitles *******s to make fools of themselves, too.

Journalists are supposed to write the story objectively. You have not!

The article you wrote has the same failure in logic that those who would legislate away our constitutional rights have when they draft legislation. Its not your fault; you probably mean well but you are completely ignorant when it comes to firearms and the consequences of banning them.

Don't take my word for it! Take the ATF's. They have gone on record saying that the Brady Campaign's statistics are bogus:

http://www.post-gazette.com/stories/local/uncategorized/assault-weapon-bans-effectiveness-debated-532064/

Despite what the Brady Center describes as industry attempts to sidestep the law, the study shows a drop in the use of assault-style weapons in crimes, based on figures obtained through the Freedom of Information Act from the U.S. Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives...
...An ATF spokesman, Andrew Lluberes, said Friday, however, that the agency can "in no way vouch for the validity'' of the report.

Meanwhile, you are responsible for reporting the news to one of California's largest gay communities. They should know that they have a 2nd Amendment advocacy group, and you have given them NO PRESS WHATSOEVER!!! That is not objective reporting. You need to cover both sides, and let the reader decide where they stand. Have you been to the Pride Parade in Weho? Have you seen the Pink Pistols marching? I have. They didn't get any press from you then either. :rolleyes:

wurger
12-21-2012, 8:46 PM
Based on the "pony" example, I spent a few minutes on the web and came up with some numbers that make it seem that a person is at greater risk from horesback riding than being a victim on a mass shooting.

http://www.riders4helmets.com/equestrians/

Approx 100 deaths per year, as stated in the above link

http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2012/12/14/1337221/a-timeline-of-mass-shootings-in-the-us-since-columbine/?mobile=nc

Fewer deaths in mass shootings than horseback riding? Granted, horseback riding is a voluntary activity, but when you remove emotion from a discussion and focus on facts things can quickly begin to look less cut and dry.

IVC
12-21-2012, 8:48 PM
What we do not do is disparage the people about whom we write - we quote them; we provide alternative quotes.
In opinion pieces we give our opinions, to which we're entitled, so far as I am aware - it's called the First Amendment.

Cherry picking quotes is the preferred method of manipulating the message in the day and age when anyone can check the source. It gives it that air of legitimacy that correlational statistics gives to those who don't understand mathematics.

Your message was that there is a blame to be put on the legal gun owners for what happened and you insinuated a very emotional relationship between gun owners and guns. That is just propaganda hiding behind the improperly applied journalistic method.

Also, the First Amendment doesn't protect your opinion. Much like any other amendment, it only prevents government from restricting your writing based on the content, as long as it doesn't cross the line of causing injury to someone else. You are very close to that line with the way you paint a group of people.

Bhobbs
12-21-2012, 8:52 PM
Derision suits you. Your retort speaks volumes about your character. Are you a journalist yourself? What would be the baseline extent of knowledge about a subject you would require before writing an article? Would it be a week's worth of full time study, maybe a month's? Perhaps a year's worth? Or are you suggesting that only people with direct experience with a subject and a bias that agrees with your own ought to write for news organizations?
What we do not do is disparage the people about whom we write - we quote them; we provide alternative quotes.
In opinion pieces we give our opinions, to which we're entitled, so far as I am aware - it's called the First Amendment.
But of course, that same amendment entitles *******s to make fools of themselves, too.

No, I am studying mechanical engineering. Writing has never been my strong point.

I think basic understanding, and by understanding I mean real knowledge and experience. Taking talking points from groups that support your position does not qualify. Honestly, I couldn't care less if you liked the AR15, AK47, M1 Garand or some other semi auto rifle, but at least use factual arguments in your article.

I find it offensive that you think I'm some blood thirsty lunatic because I have an AR in my safe. How is that not " disparaging those about whom you write"?

Yes your article is protected by the First Amendment and even though you are wrong, I am not trying to stop you. If you demand I respect your right to write factually misleading articles, then I demand you respect my right to own weapons that you don't understand. It's guaranteed by the Second Amendment. Just below the one you cherish so much.

CEDaytonaRydr
12-21-2012, 11:57 PM
Yes your article is protected by the First Amendment and even though you are wrong, I am not trying to stop you. If you demand I respect your right to write factually misleading articles, then I demand you respect my right to own weapons that you don't understand. It's guaranteed by the Second Amendment. Just below the one you cherish so much.

^^ This!

...or if not, don't "pretend" to be a legitimate news agency. Just tell everyone the truth; that you're a tabloid with no responsibility to report actual facts. Then, you can just report on bigfoot sightings, or something and leave real issues out of your publication.

The only thing that makes "The Brady Bunch's" statistics valid is the fact that they get regurgitated by every news outlet who is too lazy to do their own research. Run the numbers yourself! You'll find that statistically, the number of victims in mass shootings, when the police are relied upon to stop the shooter, is 18.25, on average. When citizens stop the shooter, that number is an average of 2.2 victims.

When seconds count, the police are only minutes away. I'd rather have a fighting chance than no chance...

Bhobbs
12-22-2012, 2:12 PM
They claim that no American has the right to safety from gunfire in church or school, only the right to respond in kind to that gunfire.

I was reading through your article again and wanted to address this part specifically. Schools are gun free zones. It is illegal to carry a gun on campus unless you are a cop. People like you made it a gun free zone meaning the only person that was armed was the killer. What do you expect everyone else to do? Ask him nicely to stop?

Sakiri
12-22-2012, 4:03 PM
I'm also amused by religious pacifism.

According to the Torah, Jews are required by God's law to protect themselves and defend God's gift of life to them.

Much of the statues in the Torah are also observed by Christian religions. So if God tells us that we are obligated to protect ourselves and others by any means necessary, why the Hate are we trying to ban the tool to do just that?

epilepticninja
12-22-2012, 4:43 PM
I'm also amused by religious pacifism.

According to the Torah, Jews are required by God's law to protect themselves and defend God's gift of life to them.

Much of the statues in the Torah are also observed by Christian religions. So if God tells us that we are obligated to protect ourselves and others by any means necessary, why the Hate are we trying to ban the tool to do just that?

Because humans, for the most part, are ****ing idiots.