After the Connecticut shooting, lots of gun rhetoric was published to Facebook. I'm going to be breaking these into sections for easier reading.
First a disclaimer: Right-wing blogger Lindaman has stated he isn't a gun owner and isn't a big fan of owning them himself. I own three guns. One is a shotgun, one is a handgun that was a gift, and the other is an antique black powder rifle my father gave me ages ago. I am not against certain guns being used for game hunting or home defense, but I am in favor of strict gun control regulations and the total ban of civilians owning assault weapons.
Now, with that being said... shall we begin?
When the Connecticut school shooting happened, the bodies weren't even cold before Lindaman and all the other right-wingers started posting... pictures of guns.
Stay classy, Republicans.
Lindaman and other right-wingers then cranked the pro-gun bullshit up to eleven.
Here we go!
1. Not Guns, It's Mental Health!
Lindaman argues that we shouldn't blame guns, but mental health issues in our country.
Okay, fine.
But there's a problem with that logic: This argument is apparently based on the hypothesis that Americans are a lot more insane than the British, Australians, French and the people of many other developed countries where guns are restricted, and far fewer people die from guns.
And here's the main problem with that logic: 96% of violent crimes are committed by people with no mental health problems.
But hey, it makes sense to deal with that 4%, right? Oh, wait... the GOP is dead-set against increasing funding for mental health care and research, and insurance reforms to mandate mental health coverage.
Or, how about poverty, when the GOP is dead-set against social programs that might help people in poverty in any form, increased minimum wages for underemployed/underpaid employees, or labor organization that might increase wages and benefits entirely in the purview of the private sphere?
Or education, which increases civic awareness, responsibility and marketability/profitability as an employee, when the GOP is dead-set against substantively improving public/compulsory education in any form?
Yeah, I'll believe conservatives and/or the Republican party or any of its iterations care one whit about the actual causes of gun violence, when they do anything but obstruct any public policy that might reduce gun violence in any way whatsoever.
So you have yourselves to blame... again.
Next?
2. Actors' opinions are worthless, except if they are OUR opinions.
Lindaman posts this picture:
Then Lindaman says "Hmmm... and we should listen to these folks why?"
Wow, looks like right-wingers really can't tell fiction from reality.
Ever heard of the MPAA rating system, idiots?
Lindaman, if you're so against listening to actors' opinions, why are you quoting them yourself?
You posted actor quotes right here:
Seems like you're listening to actors, Lindaman!
So which is it? Oh, I see. You only listen to actors who fit in your bubble. I forgot, that's what right-wingers do.
By the way, Sam Jackson is wrong. Tennessee has always had some of the worst rates of gun violence in the nation, including when Sam was a kid. So he's just looking through rose-colored glasses.
It IS funny that you're quoting a civil rights leader, though. Usually you only do that to show how black people are terrible. lol
Here's what Sam Jackson has to say about his smoking and violence in movies:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uMl9oYSVGlo
3. The Journal News... hypocrites!
Lindaman posted a link:
http://www.rocklandtimes.com/2013/01/01/the-journal-news-is-armed-and-dangerous/
Then Lindaman says "The editorial staff is pro-gun control, except when it comes to them? Why that's...completely expected!"
Since when was the Journal News against professionally trained armed security? Find a link that says that. Not seeing any hypocrisy there. In fact, they have published many pro-security articles.
In fact, the newspaper never took the stance that it was wrong to own weapons, period!
Gun owners prove how non-violent they are by making threats against a newspaper that published public records. What's the matter, gun nuts? Ashamed of your guns?
The newspaper did nothing that no one couldn't already look up on their own. But I guess the 2nd Amendment is the only amendment that matters.
Go ahead. Find me one quote from the Journal article with the map that makes any sort of judgement call on the people included in the public records.
Every time you right-wingers open your fat mouths to complain about what the newspaper did, you are implicitly admitting that guns don't make you safe.
4. Guns look different, so allow them all!
Lindaman posts this quote:
"The weapons' menacing looks coupled with the public's confusion over fully automatic machine guns versus semi-automatic assault weapons --- anything that looks like a machine gun is assumed to be a machine gun --- can only increase the chance of public support for restrictions on these weapons." --- from a 1988 report published by the Violence Policy Center
And he also posts this picture:
And this picture:
The "OMG YOU DON'T KNOW ANYTHING ABOUT GUNS" line of argument as an utterly disingenuous way to divert attention away from constructive conversation. The way it plays out is this:
Person A: "We should regulate/ban (something relating to guns)."
Person B: "OMG! That is such a bad idea because because XYZ. You have no idea about how guns work. Did you know that a semiautomatic AR-15 is the exact same thing in every way as a mini-14, because they use the same caliber round? You didn't? Well, you shouldn't be talking about passing laws on subjects that you know nothing about."
This argument is a standard part of the NRA playbook. It is so predictable that one presumes there is a kind of flowchart driving the comments. "Did someone post a message stating the wrong caliber, magazine capacity, or firing rate? Then bury them in hundreds of messages denying their right to speak on the subject because they got one technical detail wrong." Meanwhile, gun advocates vandalize history, quotes from the founders, and statistics about violence in the US and other countries.
Pathetic.
5. Pay attention only to Doug Ross graphs!
Lindaman posts this link:
http://directorblue.blogspot.com/2012/12/the-top-5-gun-control-graphs-their.html
Ah, yes. Doug Ross! Remember him? He's the guy that deliberately left a ton of information out of the BP Spill timeline. When Lindaman couldn't figure out how to blame the government for private company BP causing the spill, he ignored all the real timelines and used the right-wing Doug Ross incomplete timelines instead to argue that there wasn't enough government hands on deck. Major fail on his and Doug's part. lol
To determine if allowance to carry weapons has an effect on crime rate and have a control for cultural issues, you need to find states that either loosened or tightened their restrictions on carrying weapons and run a pre/post analysis–preferably one that spans several years on either side of the change in restrictions.
But Doug Ross, as usual, "forgot" to do that.
There's no hard evidence that such things makes states safer.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/fact-checker/post/do-concealed-weapon-laws-result-in-less-crime/2012/12/16/e80a5d7e-47c9-11e2-ad54-580638ede391_blog.html
Robbery Victims chart? Hmmm... that doesn't seem right, either:
http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cri_rob-crime-robberies
UN Homicide Rates? Also not right.
Doug Ross also had to remove major cities like New York City in order to pull USA's homicide rates down. lol
Honestly, when you have to lie and/or remove crucial data to make a point (like what anti-Global Warming statisticians do), you really need to rethink your position on a matter.
A pro-gun person does not sound stupid when they argue for personal freedom and responsibility versus gun control and reduced gun violence in society.
A pro-gun person does sound stupid, however, when they argue that gun control won't reduce gun violence in society.
6. Hammers, Cars, Hands, Feet, and Gravity... more deadly than guns! Really!
Lindaman posts this link:
http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2011/crime-in-the-u.s.-2011/tables/expanded-homicide-data-table-11
And this picture:
Actually, total firearms were 8,583. And it wasn't just "hammers", it includes all blunt objects like bats, clubs,etc.
This whole argument is a logical fallacy. False equivalence. Hammers and all blunt objects combined makes that a huge category of weapons, while rifles are a very small category of guns. It is like saying Ford Focuses are green far less often than all trucks of any kind.
Sorry you were so easily fooled by such a silly argument, Lindaman. People believe what they want anyways, but logically this argument would never would up in an actual moderated debate.
Salon tore this ignorant right-wing argument to shreds... easily:
http://www.salon.com/2013/01/07/conservatives_demand_hammer_control/
Since you guys seem to think hammers are as effective at killing as assault rifles, why not turn in your assault rifles and just have a hammer to overthrow the government?
Yeah, that's what I thought. lol
Also, Facebook poster Troy Smith: You're a retard.
Lindaman also posted this picture:
A commenter on this picture said something awesome about this:
Sara Geiken: "Not trying to be argumentative here, but the first thought that popped into my head was that there are ADA regulations and recommendations for preventing and reducing things like falls. This includes ramps so that the effect of gravity is spread over a longer path, and accessible bathrooms with railings and wide areas, so that if gravity is likely to be an issue in the function many protections are in place so that it can be navigated safely. So in a way congress has already acted on that lethal threat."
Oh, snap! lol
Next!
7. Spending Control... look the other way!
Lindaman posts this picture:
Hmm... then why haven't you been praising Obama's Spending Control?
The silence is deafening, folks.
8. Carolyn Gudger
Lindaman posted this picture:
Not only was that old story all over the "lame stream media," but Carolyn Gudger was a professionally trained deputy. And she would have died if the other police didn't shoot the deranged gun nut.
So what's your point?
9. How dare they talk to the NRA!
Lindaman posts this link:
http://townhall.com/tipsheet/katiepavlich/2013/01/08/joe-biden-to-meet-with-the-nra-n1484855
So the White House invited the NRA to talk with them regarding guns, and this is a bad thing?
Would you prefer the White House not talk with the NRA before discussing guns?
10. Zombies are like gun control or something!
Lindaman posts this picture:
Uh, no. It's nothing like that. Just because right-wingers have the mentality of zombies, doesn't mean Zombie law applies to them. lol
11. Gun Free Zone Hurrr!
Right-wingers posted this picture:
Um... Bush Sr. passed the school gun free zone law, right-wingers.
12. Rightard Coward Watch - Year NINE!
Lindaman posts this ridiculous Mike Lester comic:
I find it hilariously funny that Lindaman would post this, since we're now on YEAR NINE of the Rightard Coward Watch. I'm still waiting on that "pimp-slapping"!
It's also funny because the artist of that comic, Mike Lester, is a cowardly spousal abuser:
http://www.editorandpublisher.com/Archive/Editorial-Cartoonist-Mike-Lester-Arrested-After-Domestic-Incident
I'm sure Lindaman's new girl appreciates Lindaman's advocating of such cowards as Mike Lester.
That picture is backwards. The kids need someone like Obama to protect them. God knows kids are fucked if right-wingers are in charge.
Obama pushing through measures to protect children, that’s evil according to Republicans.
Though it is funny watching you guys exploit Obama's own children to further your own retarded goals.
You're worthless little cowards, the entire lot of you. And you don't give two flying fucks about children.
