Thursday, September 3, 2015

How Did I Miss This?

I have always known the gun control movement has some marginaaly sane fanatics.  This column from October 2, 2014 National Review is a reminder of how many there are:
A cursory trawl through those sites reveals that Owens is correct in his assessment. The lion’s share of the commenters are innocuous and cordial — nothing more than law-abiding Americans participating in civil society. There are peaceful promises not to shop at Target or Kroger or Chili’s unless those businesses explicitly prohibit customers from bringing their firearms in with them; there are vehement-but-idle suggestions that anybody who wishes to carry a gun in public must have something seriously wrong with him; and there are the usual ignorant claims that shootings in America are on the increase (in fact, the opposite is true). But, every 20 comments or so, one sees exactly what Owens describes. Reacting to a photograph of a man standing at a checkout with a handgun holstered upon his hip, mom-who-demands-action Joyce Ward asks, “Why weren’t the police called immediately?” And “why,” Ward continues, “wasn’t he shot by the police for having a weapon”? Fellow poster Lisa McLogan Shaheen has a similar inquiry, wondering, “Why hasn’t someone called 911 so the cops can gun him down?” Others go a little further, proposing that they might help their cause along if they were actively to bring about an altercation. “Every time I see someone with a gun in a store I will call 911,” Jennifer Decker vows, “they’ll get tired of that right quick!!!” Even that plan is too limited for Ann Marie. “Just call the police every time you see someone with one,” she counsels, “the police will get sick of it eventually or have a run in with one of these clowns and then things will change.”

Read more at: http://www.nationalreview.com/article/389441/moms-demand-swatting-charles-c-w-cooke
There is an example of one of the gun control crazies causing a death falsely describing the circumstances to 911:
The “black man holding a toy air rifle” to whom Senftner refers was named John Crawford III, and he was killed because, to borrow a phrase from Lisa McLogan Shaheen, a fellow shopper “called 911 so the cops could gun him down.” “If you sync the phone call to the footage,” Bob Owens tells me, “you’ll notice that Ronald Ritchie, the caller, makes claims that are not true.” Among those claims, the Guardian records, were that “Crawford was pointing the air rifle at customers,” that he threatened “two children,” and that he was recklessly “waving it around.” This does not appear to have been the case. Indeed, when the lattermost statement was made, Owens notes, “the gun’s muzzle was pointed to the ground.” So pronounced are the discrepancies between Ritchie’s story and the surveillance footage that John Crawford’s family is hoping to take legal action. “He’s basically lying with the dispatchers,” the family’s attorney, Michael Wright argues. “He’s making up the story. So should he be prosecuted? Yes, I believe so.”

Read more at: http://www.nationalreview.com/article/389441/moms-demand-swatting-charles-c-w-cooke
 This iis an argument for not openly carrying and making sure your concealed carry is truly concealed.

2 comments:

keathwarlick said...

The big irony of this so-called "swatting" tactic, of course, is that so many of the hoplophobes in society decry the alleged gun violence (that often isn't true, or at least is mischaracterized or overblown) such that their solution is naturally to enlist state agents (i.e., the police) to act as proxies in wielding somehow different gun violence against non-violent people. It's like assuming someone is an arsonist simply because you notice he's holding a lighter, and then calling in the fire department to burn him to death because he didn't leave his lighter at home. Seems legit. The lack of logic that underpins these people's failure to recognize that agents of the state with guns are historically far worse for public safety than individual citizens with guns is astounding to me. It is the appeal to tradition fallacy in full effect, and it's scary because it's really quite prevalent. At least with violent criminals, you have a fighting chance and they have some skin directly in the game, so to speak. I have more respect for the street thugs of the world than people like this who don't even have the courage to try and violently implement their will on others themselves.

Clayton Cramer said...

Tragically, the underlying issue is many of these people will not admit their terror of black criminals and find it easier to be terrified of guns.