Tying Bernie Sanders to Dylann Roof, Vester Flanagan & The Islamic Train Terrorist - How Stupid Is Stupid?

If I hadn't seen it with my own eyes, I'd never have believed some desperate media halfwit could ever have written a piece tying three of the biggest, murderous crazies of the past three months with Bernie Sanders. But that's exactly what David Mastio - USAToday's deputy editorial page editor did in one forlorn, abysmally stupid article: 'What Ties TV Killings To Church Train Killings' (USA Today, Aug, 28, p. 7A)''

We learn, first off, that Dylan Roof and Vester Flanagan, as well as the Muslim train shooter, Ayoub El-Khazzani, were all losers mired in their own sense of victimhood and grievance. No argument there and one didn't have to be a Therp or even taken Psych 101 to appreciate that. One only had to read of their sad and sordid personal histories.

But had Mastio stuck to that thread, he'd have done himself and all readers a favor, instead of going off on a hare-brained tangent to drag in Bernie Sanders. WTF?! Is this guy that bad off that he can't develop a story without bogus BS?

We learn from Mastio that:

"If you read the biographies of all three, there is a thread of failure to thrive in a complicated world, of being run over by the 21st century. The trio thought of themselves as victims. And they reached back to a comforting tribalism in an imaginary world more to their liking."

Then he jumps off the deep end:

"You can see the imaginary past in the quaint, happy faced socialism offered by Bernie Sanders. Just as race and nationalism have combined to create bloody disaster, most recently in the Balkans and Central Africa, the empty promises of socialism have turned into economic chaos time after time as in Greece and Venezuela"

But, of course, note that what this fuckwit doesn't reference is the form of socialism (democratic) that Sanders is all about, and as currently practiced - successfully I might add - in Sweden, Norway and Denmark.   But hey, what do facts and history - not to mention subtle differences - matter to a media rat who probably can't distinguish his brain from his ass?

To top it off, this idiot then has the audacity to assert "we've already been where Sanders and Putin would lead us. In each case, we know how the story ends. "

But in fact, not. We've NEVER been where Bernie Sanders would lead us! Ok, let me correct that: I have been there when I lived in Milwaukee during the years of Socialist Mayor Frank Zeidler. And believe me those years and the benefits to the Milwaukee citizenry were a damned sight better than the dog eat dog world seen in most of the country today.

Before he writes about Sanders again, maybe Mastio needs to extract his cranium from where the Sun doesn't shine.  Better, get himself an online crash course on the different forms of socialism, and also how democratic socialism differs from Leninist -Marxist socialism.  Doing that would make us wonder far less on how this dolt ever got to be deputy editor of USA Today's editorial page, especially when he writes dreck like "Sanders happy-faced socialism".

OK, Let's Take It From The Top - One More Time On Guns Vs. Knives

Mr. Pro Gun blogger didn't waste any time getting back - and claiming he didn't do anything "dishonest" as far as quoting me - but again, leaving out a key segment,  referencing Vester Flanagan with a knife - isn't exactly kosher so let's agree he was at least borderline dishonest in portraying my quote.

Anyway, after delivering a full seminar on the lethality of military and other knives (including reaction times)  he at least finally DID accept my hypothetical, based on a knife (intended generic, but ok, I didn't clarify that so we let him have his way with all these exotic knives, reaction times etc.) He comes away then concluding that Flanagan "sure as shit" could have killed those two reporters - Alison Parker and Adam Ward. Ok, I will be generous and grant the outside chance that might have happened, using one of his exotic knives and assuming  Flanagan at that time possessed the skill and dexterity he assumes. (Which I doubt because Flanagan wasn't in an intact state of mind - but let's not quibble.)

The question remains: Is there a case for mass shootings or killings (he cites a mass killing in China using knives that took out 29), in the U.S. context where knives would prove as deadly as high powered weapons?  This is the key question and let's also admit that Vester Flanagan's act only barely meets the standards of a mass shooting - which hitherto had been defined as four or more victims shot. Hence, we need to find a better example (not marginal) to prove the point that guns are more lethal than knives - even big ones!

I submit that only one case is needed to disprove his contention, and that would be the Aurora movie theater massacre from July, 2012. There, James Eagan Holmes, using assorted high power rifles and a Glock, killed 12 and badly injured 59.  Now, had Holmes ONLY been armed with knives - even lethal ones like Mr. Pro Gun displays - could he have done as much damage? I argue absolutely not!

For one thing, the theater was dark. Holmes' wound and death toll occurred because he was firing blindly into a crowd and given the semi-automatic and automatic  nature of his weapons was sure to kill more than a handful of people and devastatingly wound many others. Unlike with a knife, he didn't need to take careful aim to rack up a death toll - a point many of these gun guys forget. (Sure there will be exceptions like in China, but in the U.S. those perps would likely have been taken out by ex -military or others, while the Chinese remain largely a passive people in their belief systems.)

Even wielding two big knives there is NO damned way in hell James Holmes could have done an equal amount of damage. Even thrusting as fast as Pro Gun argues, he'd have been taken down before he got very much past  the first row (a number of military guys were in the crowd).  The darkness would also have impeded accuracy and obviously, lethality. Hell, you can't very well kill what you can't see! (Though a gun surely can - even firing it wildly- as in a dark cinema.)

As a further note on the original story, Holmes' weapons' lethality basically halted when the clip jammed from his last semi-automatic rifle. Many people by that point were diving behind the rows of seats. To have used a big knife instead, Holmes would've had to ferret out each victim row by row and stab to hit a vital organ. Again, this wouldn't have been a piece of cake as it would've for powerful weapons which can easily rip through seats and find their targets.

The crux of the argument then rests on just one case where knives would not be able to do the damage of guns, and that case is the Aurora theater massacre.

Mr. 'Pro Gun' can now parse this any way he wants, or portray his own takes - i.e. invoking "magic" knives that automatically find their way to vital organs even in a darkened theater.  Or bestowing super x-ray vision on the perp. But I'd say 'case closed.'

If people could only get knives there'd be significantly less than 90 plus killings a day in this country and thirty thousand suicides a year. We'd enjoy similar low gun death stats to the sane world. It's a lot easier mentally to put that barrel up to your noggin and pull the trigger than to put that blade to your jugular and thrust it.

If You're Going To Quote My Blog - Do It HONESTLY!

I have no problem, none at all, with other bloggers quoting my words from one or more blog posts. If they want to use them to try to show I have a "lame" argument, fine. Just do me one favor and make sure the quote is: a) correct and complete, and b) unchanged from the context intended.  If either or both of those isn't done then I don't consider the tactics used to be "cricket"  and I don't regard the counter arguments as valid. Instead, they are egregious and based upon a distortion of the original.

A case in point concerns a post of mine on gun insanity from several days ago, in which I argued that had the Roanoke killer Vester Flanagan  ONLY been armed with a knife, he'd never have been able to inflict the level of damage he did with his Glock 9mm. Evidently, a pro-gun enthusiast blogger didn't cotton to my take and tried to use my own quote against me - to show my argument was "lame".

Problem is, his method was dishonest. For while he correctly quoted the first segment, i.e. "If gun sales were as limited in this country as in others, Flanagan might not have been able to carry out his foul deed", he totally left out the context and the specific hypothetical condition: i.e. that Flanagan was armed only with a KNIFE.  That was the hypothetical I applied, not that he could get a "bomb" or do anything else, like "getting a gun from a ghetto" (?!) Hence, it wasn't kosher or cricket to change the conditions to try and shoot down the argument in a more facile way! (Resorting to the "straw man" fallacy.)

It's tempting, of course, to interject red herrings like "bombs" - gun types do it all the time.  But they either take the rest of us for lacking common sense, or they lack it. A bomb, after all, has to be carefully assembled and one screw up and kA-BOOM. The guy is blown to bits without completing his goal. In the end, given the complexities, it'd always be easier to choose a knife than a bomb. So, it's a red herring to drag a bomb into the mix when the hypothetical condition sets out a knife.  Obviously, Mr. Pro Gun couldn't squirm out of the given hypothetical so dragged in a bomb. (And compounding the original offense even more egregiously, dragged in a "gun from the ghetto" in the next breath!)

As I noted, given THAT hypothetical condition - which the gun blogger carefully excluded- it is doubtful Flanagan would be able to kill two people and severely wound a third. The time factor, as well as the inconvenience of having to use a manual weapon up close and personal - as opposed to neatly discharging a powerful firearm from a distance -would likely have prevented it. And I stand by that.

As I noted in my corollary to the pet chant: "Guns don't kill people. People kill people"

Yes, BUT IF guns didn't make killing so easy then people wouldn't kill so many people.

And, like it or not, Mr. Pro Gun was not able to disprove that, again using the hypothetical given and without resorting to 'add ins' that I never cited.

The hard, logical fact that gun aficionados refuse to accept is that guns DO make killing easier. Expeditious is probably the best word. Also, from the stats I cited, 70 percent of gun murders happen in the home, not outside it. - or done by nuts. The persons doing the killing were always originally in the proper state of mind but "lost it" in a fiery argument. Then turned the gun on one or more loved ones. These are stats the gun guy has yet to refute, and also, whether HE personally would do such a thing or not is immaterial. He is one guy - I am writing of thousands of documented, actual cases from  2009-2014.

Again, I don't mind anyone contradicting me, or arguing in an opposite way - but I do expect if you use any quotes from my blog you do so honestly, and not twist them around - or omit sections- to try and make your own arguments less onerous.

I don't believe that's asking too much!

Time To Get Control Of The Gun Insanity

"There is evidence that if guns weren't so widely available.... if  we could just put some space - a time out - between the person that's upset  because he got fired, or after the domestic abuse or whatever other motivation may be working on someone who does this...maybe we could prevent this kind of carnage." - Hillary Clinton yesterday

Alison Parker (24)  and Adam Ward  (27)) were two up and coming stars, reporters for their Roanoke, VA station  WDBJ- 7. They were in the middle of an interview of the head of the Chamber of Commerce when an unhinged nut, Vester Flanagan, opened fire at 6:45 a.m. with 14 shots, killing both. Yet another tragedy,  now after Charleston, Newtown, Aurora and Virginia Tech. When does this insanity end?

Of course you can expect the usual chant from the NRA gun lobby and its assorted followers, to wit:

"Guns don't kill people. People kill people".

But they totally ignore the corollary:

"People wouldn't kill as many people if killing with guns wasn't so easy"


That's the core of it: the ease of killing another with a weapon that doesn't even require you get up close and personal, like using a machete or knife.  If gun sales and distributions were as limited in this country as they are in others, Flanagan might not have been able to carry out his foul deed - say if he only had access to a knife. Yes, he'd likely have inflicted damage but there would at least have been time for the two others shot to react - if only to dodge the knife thrust  which, let's face it, is a lot slower than a bullet traveling at hundreds of feet per second.

All this is firmly supported by a new study from the American Sociological Association just out this week which shows:

- Despite only having 5 percent of the world's population the U.S. has had 31 percent of all mass shootings since 1966

- The U.S. is also first in the world for civilian gun ownership with 88.8 firearms per 100 people. (The next highest rate is Yemen at 54.8 per 100 people)

The other canard that the gun nuts will offer  is that well, it's nuts doing most of the shooting and hence all the gun laws in the world won't stop it but will stop law abiding citizens from the freedom to own Glocks, AK-47s and AR-15s as well as Bushmaster .223s.  But this is false.  The unholy truth is that most shootings are  NOT ideological or random but rather domestic (in people's homes) - either suicides or one spouse (usually male) killing the other after a fiery argument.  Again, the availability of guns makes it easier to solve disagreements in the most expedient and catastrophic way.

This was documented last night on Chris Hayes' All In. Melissa Jeltsen of the HuffPo affirmed we are missing the big picture, especially on mass shootings, but also regular shootings.  She noted the reason our perceptions are distorted is because most mass shootings we hear about happen in public. Hence, we believe the greatest risk is in public spaces - whether schools, theaters or malls. But this is false.

Assaying all mass shootings between 2009 and 2015, she found that 70 percent occurred in the home. Of these, 57 percent involved a family member or current or former intimate partner. 81 percent of the victims were women and children. These killings were not done by 'crazies' but usually normal people who simply lost it in the midst of a heated argument and reached for the weapon nearest and dearest - a gun. Maybe the perp was a gun collector or maybe he just owned one for "protection" - but ultimately it was turned not on an intruder but on his own loved one.

This is the lie we need to expunge - that shootings are only 'random' and done by psychos - in order to pass more rigorous gun control laws including demanding a fully 30 day waiting period for detailed NSA, FBI background checks. If we can do it for terrorists, we can do it for potential gun owners whose killings now vastly outnumber those of terrorists.

Apart from these sociological findings, a historical perspective on the 2nd amendment and gun ownership is also useful.  In a worthwhile book entitled 'Gunfight: The Battle Over the Right To Bear Arms in America', a professor of constitutional law at UCLA - Adam Winkler- has masterfully documented how guns were regulated from the earliest days of our Republic. As an example: laws that banned the carrying of concealed weapons were passed in Kentucky and Louisiana in 1813, in Indiana in 1820 and in Tennessee and Virginia in 1838. Similar laws were later also passed in Texas, Florida and Oklahoma.

The then governor of Texas in 1893 was heard to proclaim:

"The mission of the concealed weapon is murder. To check it is the duty of every self-respecting, law abiding man".

WOW! How times have changed!

Meanwhile, Winkler showed that congress passed the first set of laws regulating, licensing and taxing guns in 1934. Though the law was challenged and wound up in the Supreme Court, in 1939, the crazies lost. FDR's Solicitor General framed the argument correctly to the Court:

"The Second Amendment grants people a right that is not one which may be utilized for private purposes but only exists where the arms are borne in a militia or some other military organization provided by law and intended for protection of the State."

The SC decision was unanimous.

While this sane and sober take prevailed for several more decades, it started to unravel by the 1970s as various Right wing (wouldn't you know?) groups coalesced to challenge gun control based on spurious "private gun ownership" interpretations, and successively overturned laws in state legislatures - much like the abortion opponents are now doing (as in Virginia, where its AG Cuchinelli 'read the riot act' to state health clinic administrators ordering them to cooperate with a new state edict to limit safe abortions, "or else"). But we need to know this is how these vipers succeed.

Undissuaded by the gun crazies' arguments, especially that the 2nd amendment granted every man the right to keep and bear arms on his own, Chief Justice Warren Burger responded that this interpretation was "one of the greatest pieces of fraud on the American public by special interest groups that I have ever seen in my lifetime."

Well, it's good Justice Burger didn't live long enough as to see the arrival of automatic weapons and the claim that the 2nd amendment provided for the ownership of those too!


Finally, kudos to Walmart for formally ending sales of all military-style assault rifles in U.S. stores. You don't need a damned assault rifle to hunt, and if you do need one - you shouldn't be out hunting but strapped down in a psycho ward, on thorazine and lithium.

See also:

http://www.smirkingchimp.com/thread/jaime-oneill/63595/no-more-bullshit-about-shooting-deaths