Washington Post editorial distortions

Today's WP gun grabbing editorial includes the following assertions: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2011/01/09/AR2011010904133.html

"But metaphors don't kill people - guns kill people....Saturday's rampage does illustrate the need for tighter control of semiautomatic weapons and ammunition.... It is a sad irony that last year Arizona joined Alaska and Vermont in permitting anyone over 21 to carry a concealed weapon without a background check."

Guns kill people? What does the gun do, magically jump up on its own and start shooting? No, the gun does not kill anyone, the person pulling the trigger does the killing.

While it is technically true that one could carry w/out a background check by purchasing in a private sale (not from an ffl), the shooter of the Congresswoman and the others did purchase his weapon from an ffl and passed the background check. It is not just Arizona, Alaska and Vermont that allow purchase through private sale w/out a background check, but 33 states allow such. Apparently the WP thinks we should all lose our 2nd amendment rights because of a seriously disturbed individual. I am glad that they are not the ones who get to decide this issue.

AZ does not "[permit] anyone over 21 to carry a concealed weapon without a background check." The law still prohibits crazies from possessing firearms. The change was to end the requirement for people who could already otherwise lawfully possess weapons to obtain a permit to conceal that lawfully possessed firearm.

Based on the facts at hand now, what the Post proposes would not have altered what happened one iota. It would just make life more difficult for those of use who don't intend to ever shoot a congressman. No upside. Downside is further restricting Liberty, which, no doubt, is what the Post really wants.

Unfortunately, I don't see anyway of legally or constitutionally preventing this guy from having obtained a firearm. I guess we will have to chalk this incident up to "the cost of freedom". A tragedy.

beebobby said:

Unfortunately, I don't see anyway of legally or constitutionally preventing this guy from having obtained a firearm. I guess we will have to chalk this incident up to "the cost of freedom". A tragedy.

Click to expand...

I wonder, this guy was exhibiting alot of signs of being mentally disturbed, it has been alleged that he posted something online about killing a police officer among his other rantings, and he was thrown out of college for crazy rantings. While I don't want to start down the slippery slope of allowing a governemnt official having the discretion to remove someone's 2nd amendment rights due to the persons' views (i.e., he doesn't like this issue or argued with this elected official), I wonder if there is some way to investigate such troubled individuals as this guy and the Virginia Tech shooter, both of whom showed outward signs of severe mental issues, to see if something should be done.

beebobby said:

Unfortunately, I don't see anyway of legally or constitutionally preventing this guy from having obtained a firearm. I guess we will have to chalk this incident up to "the cost of freedom". A tragedy.

Click to expand...

Or chalk this up to the reality that people are going to choose to be violent or choose to not be violent. When any of us are sitting at a lunch in a public place, at home, or anywhere, we can choose to be violent or not to be violent; and we don't have to have a firearm for this to be the case--it could be a butcher knife, baseball bat, pick axe, etc.

The cost of freedom is that we all will choose to do things that others do not agree with or that affect others around us.

Opinion piece from Karl Denninger's Market Ticker with links to a local blogger/reporter

http://market-ticker.org/akcs-www?post=176947

riverrat10k said:

Opinion piece from Karl Denninger's Market Ticker with links to a local blogger/reporter

http://market-ticker.org/akcs-www?post=176947

Click to expand...

Wow, thanks for the link. If this punk really made numerous death threats and the sheriff did nothing that is mind blowing.

Jonesy said:

I wonder, this guy was exhibiting alot of signs of being mentally disturbed, it has been alleged that he posted something online about killing a police officer among his other rantings, and he was thrown out of college for crazy rantings. While I don't want to start down the slippery slope of allowing a governemnt official having the discretion to remove someone's 2nd amendment rights due to the persons' views (i.e., he doesn't like this issue or argued with this elected official), I wonder if there is some way to investigate such troubled individuals as this guy and the Virginia Tech shooter, both of whom showed outward signs of severe mental issues, to see if something should be done.

Click to expand...

IIRC, federal law requires an adjudication of someone's mental incapacity before they would fail the instant check and be barred from possession of a firearm. This guy could be totally looney tunes, but unless a judge said he was, as far as federal law is concerned, he is sane.

eye95 said:

IIRC, federal law requires an adjudication of someone's mental incapacity before they would fail the instant check and be barred from possession of a firearm. This guy could be totally looney tunes, but unless a judge said he was, as far as federal law is concerned, he is sane.

Click to expand...

Yes, but the above link indicates that he was making numerous death threats, but was not charged. Charged and convicted of felony, and he would not pass background check.

Jonesy said:

Yes, but the above link indicates that he was making numerous death threats, but was not charged. Charged and convicted of felony, and he would not pass background check.

Click to expand...

There are "death threats," and there are death threats. Some are crimes. Some are not.

And it is an extremely slippery slope. Fiance of a girl I work with has had trouble getting on a police force because of charges brought by a nutty ex-girlfriend. Ask a vet about getting a CHP with a psych eval on their record. Should any psych counseling preclude firearm ownership? Is psychology as a discipline proven accurate and effective at all? To the last question, I answer yes in some respects, a resounding no in others. Very difficult question.

When do you pull your fathers drivers license and access to guns and who decides? Brought this question up to a 72 year old friend of mine tonight. He did not like it, looked thoughtful, and did not answer.

riverrat10k said:

SNIP Is psychology as a discipline proven accurate and effective at all? To the last question, I answer yes in some respects, a resounding no in others. Very difficult question.

Click to expand...

I agree with the "resounding no."

Its actually a fairly easy question to answer. You just have to look at the right things.

The biggest thing to consider is effectiveness.

For example, if a number of trips to your mechanic yielded no results, you would say he was not an effective mechanic. Now, this could be from misapplication of theory. Or, it could be bad theory in the first place. But, he's ineffective in either case.

If your mechanic had the same track record as your average psychiatrist at actually permanently solving someone's mental difficulty, you would fire the mechanic.

For comparison, lets consider a couple other disciplines.

Physicists. Those boys get results (effective) all over the place. We can argue whether The Bomb was a good thing or a bad thing all day, but the fact remains they made a Bomb. I sent this message via fiber optic cable (Bell Labs physicists?). Effective.

Physicians. They can actually cure diseases. Not all of them. The one's they can't, they go looking for the agent. They can repair torn ligaments, replace heart valves, install new hip joints, keep preemies alive. Effective.

Then just look for a few things that demonstrate whether psychs are effective.

Remember a few years ago when states started putting asylum patients out on the street? Wait a minute. If a person was in the asylum, why wasn't he cured? And, if he was cured, why wasn't he released earlier (obviously because he wasn't cured.) This is the one of the biggest indicators of all time. People go in; but don't come out cured.

Huh? No cure. Look in psych literature. They "treat" all day long. Sometimes for life. But, no cures. If your mechanic continually "treated" your car, but didn't actually fix any problems, would you continue thinking he knew what he was doing?

Lets dig a little deeper. Psych's explain and promote an imbalance in brain chemistry as the cause for a long list of mental problems. However, there is no test to determine chemical imbalance. Its just a circular diagnosis. If you have the symptom, the imbalance exists. How did they figure out the imbalance angle? Cadavers wouldn't be in a position to sit up and say, "Ahh. I feel better now." There have been no studies to my knowledge of live people having their brains "biopsied" and the tissue tested for chemical imbalance. And, even if there were, whose brains were biopsied and tested to determine the correct chemical balance?

But, the clue is that people taking psych drugs for imbalances don't get cured. People can stay on these things for years. Are the drugs effective? Well, yes. But, what exactly are they effective at? Masking the negative emotions? Yep. The drugs don't cure them; otherwise people would not be taking the drugs for years. Hell, people used to achieve the same freaking results with alcohol. The psych's won't say this, but it would seem that at the best all they have achieved is to replace alcohol with other chemicals that do not make you drunk. Although some have some really nasty side-effects, and at least one has serious withdrawal problems.

Does any of that sound anywhere in the vicinity of genuinely effective? No cure. Just mask. No cure for asylum patients.

Look into the history of psychiatry. Some of their so-called treatments were just torture.

Hunt up pre-frontal lobotomies--an ice-pick through an eye socket waved back and forth shredding the brain and making the patient a vegetable. That was one of their cures forty or fifty years ago.

Electro-shock therapy. Oh, yes. Hunt up that one. Fry the brain. No scientific explanation from the psych's at how that works in terms of mental chemistry. No explanation of cause and effect at the molecular level, or chemically speaking. Of course, you wouldn't expect there to be one, anyway. Just a general voltage across the brain, hitting all sorts of areas of the brain at the same time. Yet, electro-shock therapy, although discredited, is still practiced today as a "treatment."

Just ask "is it effective?" and "how does it work, exactly?" and "if it seems to be effective, is that effect really a desirable one, meaning is there a cure that returns a person to full health and capacity permanently?"

What would suck is for people to have problems brought on by some action, some physical or mental trauma like a head wound or maybe a post traumatic disorder or depression and grief due to a tragic loss and need help from a psych to get through it. In doing so and seeking and receiving a diagnosis and a treatment, would they now be catagorized as a threat for the rest of their lives despite the fact that some people actually heal from these things while others don't?

MK said:

SNIP...seeking and receiving a diagnosis and a treatment, would they now be catagorized as a threat for the rest of their lives despite the fact that some people actually heal from these things while others don't?

Click to expand...

They're working on it. By "they", I mean anti-gunners and misgovernment.

Psychiatry has a long history of being used as a political tool.

One of our members has already reported his VA psych counselor has stated she would never sign off on a gun permit waiver, ever, for anybody.

Basically, it would be a betrayal. You seek help, then are forever labeled and denied. This is just another example of the failure of psychiatry. If they could actually cure people, nobody would have to worry about being labeled. Cured would mean the problem was solved. Yet, we all know instinctively that this sort of thing is not really cured by psychiatry. Same for criminals. We have to rely on "he paid his debt to society", then let him out, then let the 69% or whatever recidivists do it again. Whereas, if psychiatry actually worked, they could permanently cure the criminal and return him to society with no fear of recidivism--a working contributing member of society.

Beretta92FSLady said:

The cost of freedom is that we all will choose to do things that others do not agree with or that affect others around us.

Click to expand...

A couple of years ago, I had a doctor who would have soundly disagreed with my being released under my own volition.

He was a tool, bar none, and I'm far more sane than he ever was. Should I ever meet him on the street, I'd invite him to one of our meets, where he'd get his skull full of reality, period, bar none.

So, if he's watching, I heartily thank his staff for taking the appropriate action over the years.

Vince, you're the man! Call me any time. Doc, you're a royal dick. Thank GOD you didn't make 06. You should have fallen by the wayside back during the charges brought on you in Hawaii.

Citezen and MK have done a great job arguing my "sometimes effective" statement. Serious mental illness is not very curable. On the other hand, support and counseling for grief, etc, that is often helpful, should not brand one as permanently disabled.
Well done guys!

Quote WaPo: "Saturday's rampage does illustrate the need for tighter control of semiautomatic weapons and ammunition.... It is a sad irony that last year Arizona joined Alaska and Vermont in permitting anyone over 21 to carry a concealed weapon without a background check."


The author is most likely a DC or MD resident. The author uses 'semi-automatic' w/o any sort of familiarity... and most likely has no knowledge of gun mechanics. What constitutes 'tighter control'? SCotUS has already defined 'Arms'. The author has the common regional assumption that the only way weapons are carried is concealed and confuses purchase with this same CCW mentality. Sad irony indeed that Arizona would recognize RKBA IAW the USC and the AzC as a civil right. The horror! I have begun to take anything written or uttered by a DC/MD based so-called journalist with the same credibility of something coming from the old DDR.

If an airplane crashes and kills people do we ban airplanes? This is not about anything but the self-imposed mindsert of 'control'. Oh... if we (the government) could control things... this would never happen. Of course this is pure fallacy. No law will ever control abnormal human behavior. No human behavior will ever be pre-determined to be dangerous until such is actually manifested in some act and diagnosed / adjudicated by legal authority.

Life in a free society involves certain risk. It's the nature of the beast. There is no Nirvana... or Utopia... or Workers Paradise either.

Sonora Rebel said:

If an airplane crashes and kills people do we ban airplanes?

Click to expand...

Accidental deaths due to motor vehicles are 28 times more likely to kill a member of the general public than accidental deaths due to firearms. If we're going to ban anything, we ought to start there.

I know - it'll never happen. But then I'd argue if it's not happening with cars it shouldn't happen with firearms.

Terric post, by the way! +1.