Tuesday, November 07, 2017

Gun Violence is a Women's Issue

Nancy LeTourneau, Washington Montly: While Donald Trump wants to focus on the idea that the Texas shooting was a mental health issue, the reality is that in many ways, gun violence is a woman's issue. For example, here is the data: More than half of the women killed with guns in the U.S. are murdered by their partners. Every month, 50 women are shot and killed in the U.S. by a current or former boyfriend or spouse. We researched mass shootings between January 2009 and December 2016 and found that 54 percent of mass shootings involved a partner or other close family member that was killed. Here are a few more alarming statistics: A woman in the U.S. is fatally shot by her current or former intimate partner every 16 hours. Domestic violence victims are 5 times more likely to be killed if her partner owns a gun. American women are 11 times more likely to be murdered with a firearm than women in any other developed nation.

More

In light of the horrific shooting yesterday in Sutherland Springs and the fact that (the shooter) was court-martialed in 2012 for assaulting his wife and child, this monologue from Samantha Bee last week was amazingly prescient.

Comments

I'd never really thought about the aspect of who much of our gun violence is directed toward as playing a role in our societal inability to reach consensus on meaningful changes in our regulatory process that might lessen shooting events.

In the 2012 book "Sex and World Peace" a team of four researchers (Valerie M. Hudson, Bonnie Ballif-Spanvill, Mary Caprioli, and Chad F. Emmett) present data indicating that the more violent a state and its citizens are toward women, the more violent that state is likely to be over all, both internally and in its dealings with outside world. "In fact, the very best predictor of a state's peacefulness is not its level of wealth, its level of democracy, or its ethno-religious identity; the best predictor of a state's peacefulness is how well its women are treated," Hudson wrote in a piece for Foreign Policy.

It's not coincidental that throughout history the most violently despotic and warlike societies have been those in which violence, or the threat of violence, is used to maintain domination of parent over child and man over woman....

Interesting dynamic and one that should be a large part of any discussion involving both domestic violence and most certainly gun violence between present and former partners.

#1 | Posted by tonyroma at 2017-11-07 07:12 AM

"Mothers Are Responsible for "ONLY" 55% of Child Killings!"

fathersmanifesto.net

I only post that link to demonstrate how foolish women are to claim gun violence as a women's issue. Women claiming gun violence as a women's issue are ridiculous. It is every person's issue, that's taking feminism to a place I just won't go. Jesus cries just as much when a man is shot down as he does when a woman is shot down.

#2 | Posted by danni at 2017-11-07 10:21 AM

#2 but being shot by a partner is a leading cause of death among women. How is that not an issue?

#3 | Posted by BruceBanner at 2017-11-07 10:55 AM

#3
Given the numbers of fatal shootings in a year and accounting for criminal activity/police shootings, suicides... The number of deaths due to shootings in a year is a small percentage.

How can this be a LEADING cause of death?

#4 | Posted by kwrx25 at 2017-11-07 11:16 AM

"gun violence"

I keep telling you morons that guns don't do anything by themselves. It is people violence. I guess that incident in NY was truck violence according to you morons. You people are way beyond help.

#5 | Posted by Sniper at 2017-11-07 11:29 AM

"#2 but being shot by a partner is a leading cause of death among women. How is that not an issue?"

Women who continue to live with a psychopath instead of going to a women's shelter are making a huge mistake. I just don't think this is a problem limited to women, it's a problem for men, children grandparents, women, etc. If there is a gun in the home and if someone in that home is unbalanced then there is a danger to everyone in that home. I would say it is a mental illness problem and a gun problem. But, as Trump said after the recent Texas shooting....this isn't a gun problem, it's a mental illness problem. Thus, what does he suggest, eliminate Obamacare which does pay for psychiatry.

#6 | Posted by danni at 2017-11-07 11:33 AM

I keep telling you morons that guns don't do anything by themselves. It is people violence. I guess that incident in NY was truck violence according to you morons. You people are way beyond help.

Posted by Sniper at 2017-11-07 11:29 AM | Reply

You're the cretin. Without guns many people would still be alive today. What was Paddock going to use to kill all of those people in Las Vegas if no guns were available??? Spitballs???

#7 | Posted by LauraMohr at 2017-11-07 11:45 AM

#7 IEDs, Truck, IEDs in a truck... etc

#8 | Posted by kwrx25 at 2017-11-07 11:49 AM

I keep telling you morons that guns don't do anything by themselves. It is people violence. I guess that incident in NY was truck violence according to you morons. You people are way beyond help.
#5 | POSTED BY SNIPER AT 2017-11-07 11:29 AM
____________________________________________

What's funny is that if someone were to invent a little black box with a red button on it that if pressed, would blow a person's head clean off, it'd be so regulated that only a few people in the government (and industry tycoons) could legally own it.

#9 | Posted by madscientist at 2017-11-07 01:53 PM

How many people's lives are saved by guns each years? I know of three in the past year in my own neighborhood. And they are not part of any statistical survey.

#10 | Posted by bogey1355 at 2017-11-07 02:46 PM

How many people's lives are saved by guns each years? I know of three in the past year in my own neighborhood. And they are not part of any statistical survey.

#11 | Posted by bogey1355 at 2017-11-07 02:46 PM

This reminds me of the claim that homelessness is a "women's issue" bc 42% of homeless are women.

Do we really need identity politics nonsense further dumbing down our already asinine national discussion about guns?

#12 | Posted by Sully at 2017-11-07 03:07 PM

#7 IEDs, Truck, IEDs in a truck... etc

#8 | POSTED BY KWRX25

Exactly. Stuff that is a lot harder to use.

Hence why countries with very strict gun laws don't see many mass killings.

Thanks for proving the point.

#13 | Posted by Sycophant at 2017-11-07 03:08 PM

How many people's lives are saved by guns each years? I know of three in the past year in my own neighborhood. And they are not part of any statistical survey.

#11 | POSTED BY BOGEY1355

And how do you know they were saved?

I think most people literally know of NO ONE that has been saved by a gun.

#14 | Posted by Sycophant at 2017-11-07 03:09 PM

Hence why countries with very strict gun laws don't see many mass killings.

#13 | POSTED BY SYCOPHANT AT 2017-11-07 03:08 PM | FLAG:

Works great in France & England. Just don't publish anything offensive. Don't go to concerts either. Don't walk on bridges while you're at it.

#15 | Posted by sitzkrieg at 2017-11-07 03:25 PM

I think most people literally know of NO ONE that has been saved by a gun.
#14 | Posted by Sycophant at 2017-11-07 03:09 PM

What you think is irrelevant. The facts are more innocent people are saved by guns than are killed by guns.

#16 | Posted by road_runner at 2017-11-07 03:26 PM

If guns are not a deterrent to bad actors, why do the police and military have them?

#17 | Posted by visitor_ at 2017-11-07 03:31 PM

"If guns are not a deterrent to bad actors, why do the police and military have them"

If guns are indeed a deterrent to bad actors, why do we have so much more gun violence than the rest of the modern world?

#18 | Posted by snoofy at 2017-11-07 03:35 PM

If guns are not a deterrent to bad actors, why do the police and military have them?

There are so many bad stage-actors in Hollywood that the audience should at least be allowed to bring in high-powered water pistols and soak the cast.

#19 | Posted by AndreaMackris at 2017-11-07 03:35 PM

The facts are more innocent people are saved by guns than are killed by guns.
#16 | POSTED BY ROAD_RUNNER

That's like being thankful for the existence of snakes so you can make antivenin for snake bites.

If guns are not a deterrent to bad actors, why do the police and military have them?
#17 | POSTED BY VISITOR

Hmmm, the police in England don't carry firearms.

the audience should at least be allowed to bring in high-powered water pistols and soak the cast.
#19 | POSTED BY ANDREAMACKRIS

I see Apple's squirt gun emoji is having Tim's desired effect.

#20 | Posted by IndianaJones at 2017-11-07 03:38 PM

"The facts are more innocent people are saved by guns than are killed by guns."

Are suicides innocent people?

How about gang violence, are the victims innocent people?

Is it okay if guilty Americans get shot at a much higher rate than anyone else in the modern world?

#21 | Posted by snoofy at 2017-11-07 03:39 PM

#21 | Posted by snoofy Actually the numbers are not equal. Asians are much lees apt to kill or be killed than the average American. White Americans have a homicide rate about equal to Western Europe or Canada. Being a black young male gets you a homicide rate 20 times that of a white man of the same age. Hispanics have a homicide rate twice that white people. This should be a reason to concentrate law enforcement resources where it needed, but some would rater see black and brown people die than acknowledge that the problem exists. Suicide is where white people dominate the numbers. Call it "White Privilege".

#22 | Posted by docnjo at 2017-11-07 04:05 PM

"This should be a reason to concentrate law enforcement resources where it needed"

You saying they aren't already concentrated in poor black areas?

LOL!

#23 | Posted by snoofy at 2017-11-07 04:10 PM

Since the Texas killer was apparently looking for his mother-in-law in order to shoot her, I see this topic as very germane far beyond any claim of "identity." Mindlessly labeling actual fact-patterns to deride what they tell us is ignorant in my opinion. And I don't see this as "women" claiming anything per see. I recognize the patterns of violence prevalent in our society and the role relationship dynamics mixed with access to firearms plays as it pertains to the shooting and killing of women often by the very men they have already left and separated themselves and their children from, again as was it tangentially the case in Texas.

And no one anywhere within this article and commentary stated that "gun violence IS ONLY a women's issue." The lede is that it is one of the myriad issues related to the gun violence of mass shootings where the majority of them are related to partners and close family members, likely the very definition of passion killings at many points. The larger point lies in the fact that women are not shooting and killing men in their lives at the rate men shoot and kill women in their lives. It's obvious that access to firearms during times of emotional turmoil real or perceived is a greater danger to women than to men statistically. Recognizing this fact isn't mitigating any others, it's simply identifying a cause that many may not realize is as prevalent as it is.

#24 | Posted by tonyroma at 2017-11-07 04:10 PM

If guns are not a deterrent to bad actors, why do the police and military have them?

#17 | POSTED BY VISITOR_

Tanks and nuclear bombs are also deterrents. So are vials of anthrax. Why don't we give everyone such things?

#25 | Posted by Sycophant at 2017-11-07 04:12 PM

I think most people literally know of NO ONE that has been saved by a gun.
#14 | Posted by Sycophant at 2017-11-07 03:09 PM
What you think is irrelevant. The facts are more innocent people are saved by guns than are killed by guns.
#16 | POSTED BY ROAD_RUNNER

That's what you THINK. And literally every single scientific study on the subject proves the exact opposite.

#26 | Posted by Sycophant at 2017-11-07 04:13 PM

I'm calling total BS on #16.

There is no way anyone is going to post any legitimate information that comes even close to substantiating that.

Everything I've seen indicated the exact opposite. As does common sense.

#27 | Posted by Sully at 2017-11-07 04:35 PM

That's what you THINK. And literally every single scientific study on the subject proves the exact opposite.

The National Academies needs you assistance because their 2013 survey of the literature found the studies to be the opposite of what you think.

Almost all national survey estimates indicate that defensive gun uses by victims are at least as common as offensive uses by criminals ... A different issue is whether defensive uses of guns, however numerous or rare they may be, are effective in preventing injury to the gunwielding crime victim. Studies that directly assessed the effect of actual defensive uses of guns (i.e., incidents in which a gun was "used" by the crime victim in the sense of attacking or threatening an offender) have found consistently lower injury rates among gun-using crime victims compared with victims who used other self-protective strategies ... Effectiveness of defensive tactics, however, is likely to vary across types of victims, types of offenders, and circumstances of the crime, so further research is needed both to explore these contingencies and to confirm or discount earlier findings. www.nap.edu (pdf page #s 26-27, citations omitted, emphasis added)

#28 | Posted by et_al at 2017-11-07 04:43 PM

I quite possibly owe my life to my father having a gun and stopping an enraged friend who had already killed another innocent bystander who tried to help the killer's wife as their fight went from inside their house, into and down the street, and ultimately ended with his death right outside my bedroom after he had wounded my father when I was an 8 year old boy. So obviously guns can protect the innocent. But even in this case two people died and another was wounded by the actions started by a deranged, enraged physician with a gun, pistol-whipping his wife with every intent to kill her based on his own words to my father who protected the wife and my mother who was bathing in the tub when all hell broke loose.

I watched the Texas heroes both emotionally say they only did what they thought needed to be done even though they were both scared. No one wants to take protective firearms from people unless in the future they no longer feel the need to have them if/when they are far less a threat and public perceptions or regulations bring about such a change.

Pardon the pun, but there are no magic bullets and any change will come with a price until the new normal in whatever form it might take emerges. But the current status quo needs to change. Talking about regulation after another horrid mass shooting event is not about looking back for a way to have stopped the past. That's wholly irrelevant. The conversation needs to occur in order to hopefully stop the next ones - or at least take tangible steps in that direction - so that their numbers and frequency diminish.

#29 | Posted by tonyroma at 2017-11-07 04:57 PM

#24 | Posted by tonyroma, The recent Texas killer had more than a few motivations. He was an outspoken atheist with a deep hatred for Christians in general and Baptist in particular. He was a hard core leftist in a very Red State area, (on his voter registration card it lists UAF as party affiliation). He was kicked out of the Air Force after doing a year in confinement for domestic violence, He fractured his kid's skull, he was a violent individual by any standard. The government screwed up and did not ban him from acquiring a firearm as required by law. He was a loser who couldn't elude a couple of rednecks in an old pickup.

#30 | Posted by docnjo at 2017-11-07 05:13 PM

#13 How the f is a truck hard to use?

#31 | Posted by kwrx25 at 2017-11-07 05:21 PM

The government screwed up and did not ban him from acquiring a firearm as required by law.

The government also screwed up by creating a situation where guns are so readily available. But that screw-up took place in 1793 so people tend to forget about it.

If they hadn't made that screw-up, it wouldn't have mattered that they made this one. Since this policy is an attempt to offset the negative ramifications of that policy.

#32 | Posted by snoofy at 2017-11-07 05:27 PM

That's like being thankful for the existence of snakes so you can make antivenin for snake bites.
#20 | Posted by IndianaJones at 2017-11-07 03:38 PM

That's like saying since we can't eradicate snakes let's eradicate antivenin instead.

#33 | Posted by road_runner at 2017-11-07 05:27 PM

"Almost all national survey estimates indicate that defensive gun uses by victims are at least as common as offensive uses by criminals"

In other words, gun volence makes its own gravy, by justifying defensive uses of guns to counter offensive uses of guns.

More formally, this is a tautology. Guns solve the problems guns themselves create.

And to see the net effect, that's why we compare gun crime rates between America and other modern counties.

#34 | Posted by snoofy at 2017-11-07 05:31 PM

#32 | Posted by snoofy, If your argument is with our constitution, you know how to change that, or should. Good luck with that.

#35 | Posted by docnjo at 2017-11-07 05:47 PM

#34 | Posted by snoofy The problem is bad guys always have access to firearms. Even in countries where it is illegal. As Stalin said, "A man with a gun can control one hundred men without guns". You might remember something about the terror about that time.

#36 | Posted by docnjo at 2017-11-07 05:50 PM

The recent Texas killer had more than a few motivations. He was an outspoken atheist with a deep hatred for Christians in general and Baptist in particular. He was a hard core leftist in a very Red State area, (on his voter registration card it lists UAF as party affiliation).

You are one gullible smuck. Does your mommy dress you in the mornings?

The Texas Shooter Was Called A Liberal, Antifa Communist Working With ISIS -- Before Anyone Knew Anything

I truly can't believe that you bought any of the horsecrap you just spewed in your post.

#37 | Posted by tonyroma at 2017-11-07 06:09 PM

UAF is Colorado's designation for unaffiliated.

SMH....

#38 | Posted by tonyroma at 2017-11-07 06:11 PM

"The problem is bad guys always have access to firearms."

So then. The problem is there are 20x more bad guys here, targeting black males, compared to Canada.

Is that about right?

#39 | Posted by snoofy at 2017-11-07 06:16 PM

"The problem is bad guys always have access to firearms."

So the problem isn't so much that existing laws aren't being enforced, then...

#40 | Posted by snoofy at 2017-11-07 07:36 PM

"If guns are indeed a deterrent to bad actors, why do we have so much more gun violence than the rest of the modern world?"

Do we?

Doesn't Mexico ban guns? I think they do, yet the number of gun deaths in that country far exceeds that of the US.

#41 | Posted by madbomber at 2017-11-07 10:39 PM

And I'm guessing that Progressive Icon Harvey Weinstein was groping Elizabeth Hasselbeck, and definitely not Miranda Lambert...

I think he was well aware of who might put a round or two through his junk. And maybe more importantly...who wouldn't.

#42 | Posted by madbomber at 2017-11-07 10:43 PM

Doesn't Mexico ban guns? I think they do, yet the number of gun deaths in that country far exceeds that of the US.

Mexico is not in the modern world. The vast majority of those gun deaths are outside the walls of the resorts.

#43 | Posted by REDIAL at 2017-11-07 10:48 PM

"Mexico is not in the modern world."

It's not? Why?

Is it because they're not all white? Maybe because they don't speak English?

It's still 2017 in Mexico, right?

#44 | Posted by madbomber at 2017-11-07 10:59 PM

I'm not sure how anyone can say that comments like those in #43 aren't terribly racist. If true, isn't that just about all Trump would need to justify building his wall?

#45 | Posted by madbomber at 2017-11-07 11:01 PM

Why would you construe that as racist? Did you become a liberal recently?

#46 | Posted by 101Chairborne at 2017-11-07 11:04 PM

It's not? Why?

Don't play stupid, you're not.

The vast majority of gun deaths in Mexico are drug gangs killing each other for turf and cash, and bystanders caught up in the cross fire.

That's not exactly the modern world. There is no rule of law in the jungles and mountains.

Kinda like Chicago in reverse... gang wars are not so isolated.

#47 | Posted by REDIAL at 2017-11-07 11:10 PM

"The vast majority of gun deaths in Mexico are drug gangs killing each other for turf and cash, and bystanders caught up in the cross fire."

So it is like Chicago then...

#48 | Posted by madbomber at 2017-11-07 11:27 PM

So it is like Chicago then...

In reverse, as I said. In the US it's isolated to places like parts of Chicago and Baltimore and places like that, but not the country as a whole.

In Mexico, the majority of the country is part of a drug war and crippling poverty while the "modern world" is behind the walls of the tourist resorts guarded by private security and Mexican Marines.

#49 | Posted by REDIAL at 2017-11-07 11:36 PM

The vast majority of US shooters seem to have women problems. Men that can't keep a woman happy should not have guns.

#50 | Posted by bored at 2017-11-08 01:02 AM

#37 | Posted by tonyroma, Public records- IE, Voter registration are public records accessible by anyone, how do you think they get your address about election time and send you all that campaign literature. His chosen party affiliation was, UAF, United Ageist Fascism.

#51 | Posted by docnjo at 2017-11-08 09:04 AM

Mexico is not in the modern world.

#43 | POSTED BY REDIAL AT 2017-11-07 10:48 PM | FLAG:

That's incredibly racist.

#52 | Posted by sitzkrieg at 2017-11-08 10:19 AM

Voter registration are public records accessible by anyone, how do you think they get your address about election time and send you all that campaign literature. His chosen party affiliation was, UAF, United Ageist Fascism.

#51 | POSTED BY DOCNJO

If you bothered to read my link, Colorado was the state Kelly's voter registration came from, NOT Texas. Colorado DOES NOT HAVE a United Against Fascism party registered in their state. None, zero.

UAF in Colorado voter registration forms stands for UNAFFILIATED VOTER!

I posted the information and yet you chose to ignore it and again post something totally without merit and purely invented in the right wing fever swamps you like to frequent. Why are you making yourself look so incredibly imbecilic?

#53 | Posted by tonyroma at 2017-11-08 10:27 AM

...United Ageist Fascism...

a/k/a the AARP.

Word to the wise: don't get between an elderly person and a bowl of boiled cabbage. You'll discover what the real purpose is for the metal walking cane.

#54 | Posted by madscientist at 2017-11-08 10:36 AM

Mexico is considered a Developing Country. It used to be referred to as being part of the "Third World," but the nomenclature became outdated and changed due to the fact that the First, Second and Third Worlds represented Capitalist, Communist, and "Other" Developing economic systems, respectively. It has nothing to do with race, since Japan, South Korea, and Turkey were considered "First World" countries along with most of Europe, North America (except Mexico and Central America), and Australasia.

www.nationsonline.org

#55 | Posted by madscientist at 2017-11-08 10:57 AM

Even if guns are used defensively as often as offensively, when you factor in accidents there is no way they "save more lives than they take".

#56 | Posted by Sully at 2017-11-08 11:31 AM

Sully,

Did you factor in the accidents that take the lives of criminals as well? Of course not; you pick and choose what to factor in to prove your opinion. An opinion not borne out by the facts: firearms do save more lives than they take.

#57 | Posted by road_runner at 2017-11-08 12:03 PM

It would be impossible to calculate the number of lives saved.
For example...if the guy didn't engage him at the church, would he have gone on to kill 1 more, 5 more, 100 more?
Another example...you shoot and kill teenaged hitler, yet you don't get credited with saving millions of lives because nobody knew who hitler was or what he was going to do.
FACT!
#mathishard

#58 | Posted by 101Chairborne at 2017-11-08 12:05 PM

57
I don't understand your point. I'm not dismissing it I just don't get it.

What kind of accident did the criminal have that took a life, and what column does go in?

#59 | Posted by 101Chairborne at 2017-11-08 12:10 PM

"I don't understand your point. I'm not dismissing it I just don't get it."

Because he really doesn't have a point, he has an alternative fact.

#60 | Posted by danni at 2017-11-08 12:14 PM

#57 - accidents involving criminals are irrelevant to the claim that was made. You are unintelligent.

Also, most of these defensive use of guns are in cases where the "offender" doesn't have a gun. To pretend that lives are "saved" when they were not all that threatened to begin with is dishonest. Confrontations between two people with guns are very rare.

#61 | Posted by Sully at 2017-11-08 12:28 PM

"Mexico is considered a Developing Country."

OK, but if you look at peer countries with similar economies, they're pretty much the equivalent of a Poland or Lithuania.

Are those developing countries as well?

#62 | Posted by madbomber at 2017-11-08 12:32 PM

Also if a killer shoots and kills five people and is then shot by police before he can kill ten more, the net loss of lives innocent by gun is still five.

Doesn't make sense to give Saint Gun credit for saving people who were in danger because of Saint Gun.

Saint Gun does not "save" people by preventing them from being shot by Saint Gun.

#63 | Posted by Sully at 2017-11-08 12:35 PM

Basically the claim that a tool designed to kill somehow saves lives defies common sense and falls apart under basic logical scrutiny.

#64 | Posted by Sully at 2017-11-08 12:37 PM

"Basically the claim that a tool designed to kill somehow saves lives defies common sense and falls apart under basic logical scrutiny."

It's like calling the Department of War the Department of Defense.

#65 | Posted by snoofy at 2017-11-08 12:39 PM

Did the Vegas shooter save 20 lives by offing himself? Certainly he had time to rack up more kills if he was willing to risk being captured.

Saint Gun comes through again!

#66 | Posted by Sully at 2017-11-08 12:57 PM

Basically the claim that a tool designed to kill somehow saves lives defies common sense and falls apart under basic logical scrutiny.
POSTED BY SULLY

It's like my wife telling me how much she saved by buying so much...

(to make it about women again...)

#67 | Posted by schifferbrains at 2017-11-08 12:57 PM

I never met a gun grabber that wasn't a coward. They are afraid to defend themselves against aggression, and afraid of the tools used to do so. Indeed, to compensate for this, they make up a fantasy world in an attempt to take away that ability from others; making the world less safe for everyone.

#68 | Posted by road_runner at 2017-11-08 03:10 PM

Ok, but can you clear up 57?

#69 | Posted by 101Chairborne at 2017-11-08 03:12 PM

"...firearms do save more lives than they take." - #57 | Posted by road_runner at 2017-11-08 12:03 PM

Something you cannot prove.

#70 | Posted by Hans at 2017-11-08 03:14 PM

I never met a gun grabber

"This is my rifle, this is my gun.
This is for fighting, this is for fun."

#71 | Posted by JeffJ at 2017-11-08 03:15 PM

"I never met a gun grabber that wasn't a coward." - #68 | Posted by road_runner at 2017-11-08 03:10 PM

Then perhaps you need to get out of your mom's basement and mingle with real people for a change.

Just sayin'.

#72 | Posted by Hans at 2017-11-08 03:16 PM

"firearms do save more lives than they take."

Really. Those 50 suicides a day would be higher if people had to jump off buildings or in front of trains to kill themselves.

We should issue every suicidal person a gun.
You know, to save lives.

#73 | Posted by snoofy at 2017-11-08 03:23 PM

He drops 68 and then "Neep Neep!"....

#74 | Posted by 101Chairborne at 2017-11-08 03:24 PM

Has anyone ever watched "the rifleman" with chuck connor?
I was laying around one rainy Saturday afternoon and it was on in the background. It was like a marathon of them. I was reading, napping, and watching. The, I couldn't stop watching.
When I finally came to my senses, I realized I was hoping his son would have an accident with a gun laying around the house. That kid screws up more crap and leaves his mess for everyone to fix.
I hate that kid...

#75 | Posted by 101Chairborne at 2017-11-08 03:40 PM

OK, but if you look at peer countries with similar economies, they're pretty much the equivalent of a Poland or Lithuania. Are those developing countries as well?
--MadB

It depends on how much the Lithuanians and Poles like chili peppers. Now, in Hungary, they prefer paprika, which is simply dried red bell pepper with no heat. But in Lithuania, Poland, and most other former Soviet satellite countries, they prefer hot mustard and/or horseradish. Not to be confused with cowradish, which is renowned for its especially piquant heat and is known to the rest of the world as wasabi. And except for Latvia, Estonia, and certain Russian enclaves in and around St Petersburg, they eat nothing but the dried, preserved remains of Peter the Great...which is known as Peter Piper's Pickled ------ and is famous for the rhyme: Peter Piper Picked a Peck of Pickled -------. Which was changed to the more family-friendly Peter Piper Picked a Peck of Pickled Peppers for obvious reasons.

I hope this answers your question, MadB.

#76 | Posted by madscientist at 2017-11-08 03:45 PM

If you want to know where our "representatives" really stand the general public isn't allowed to carry guns in the US capitol and they all have universal healthcare..

#77 | Posted by MrSilenceDogood at 2017-11-08 05:01 PM

You know the largest Texas massacre was the responsibility of Bill Clinton and Janet Reno.

#78 | Posted by Federalist at 2017-11-08 09:59 PM

No, it was the responsibility of the Davidians who set the fire.... the tape of them talking as they did so was played in open court.

#79 | Posted by Corky at 2017-11-08 10:00 PM

Federalist can Clinton deflect from anything.

#80 | Posted by REDIAL at 2017-11-08 10:03 PM

#79 | Posted by Corky
So it wasn't guns?

#81 | Posted by Federalist at 2017-11-08 10:29 PM

#80 | Posted by REDIAL
About as much as Trump can.

#82 | Posted by Federalist at 2017-11-08 10:30 PM

Something you cannot prove.

#70 | Posted by Hans
Something you can't disprove.

#83 | Posted by Federalist at 2017-11-08 10:31 PM

#81

Most of the Davidians died of smoke inhalation after the fire they set began.

#84 | Posted by Corky at 2017-11-08 10:33 PM

"Basically the claim that a tool designed to kill somehow saves lives defies common sense and falls apart under basic logical scrutiny."

#65 | Posted by snoofy
You do realize they shoot firearms in the Olympics as a sport?
A pencil is designed to kill someone.
So is a pen.
With the pointy end or the words they write.

#85 | Posted by Federalist at 2017-11-08 10:35 PM

" Most of the Davidians "

#84 | Posted by Corky
The purple koolaid is strong in this one.

#86 | Posted by Federalist at 2017-11-08 10:36 PM

#86

The lack of any argument to the facts is obvious in this one... most of the Davidians who died did so of smoke inhalation when the fire they said they had stored fuel especially for was set by them.

#87 | Posted by Corky at 2017-11-09 12:29 AM

Pay no attention to the tank pumping in flammable tear gas. It's not an armored vehicle, it's an all terrain love wagon.

#88 | Posted by sitzkrieg at 2017-11-09 06:49 AM

Pay no attention to the tank pumping in flammable tear gas. It's not an armored vehicle, it's an all terrain love wagon.

#88 | POSTED BY SITZKRIEG

But they're the good guys when they're rounding up "illegals", I'll bet.

#89 | Posted by WhoDaMan at 2017-11-09 10:35 AM

It's not coincidental that throughout history the most violently despotic and warlike societies have been those in which violence, or the threat of violence, is used to maintain domination of parent over child and man over woman....

What does that tell you about Islamic countries?

#90 | Posted by boaz at 2017-11-09 11:29 AM

But they're the good guys when they're rounding up "illegals", I'll bet.

#89 | POSTED BY WHODAMAN AT 2017-11-09 10:35 AM | FLAG:

The ATF doesn't round up illegals. The tanks belonged to the FBI. The whole incident is a case study in botched law enforcement.

I know the alphabet soup of militarized US government agencies is tricky to keep up with, but at least make an effort.

#91 | Posted by sitzkrieg at 2017-11-09 01:33 PM

You do realize they shoot firearms in the Olympics as a sport?
A pencil is designed to kill someone.
So is a pen.
With the pointy end or the words they write.

#85 | POSTED BY FEDERALIST AT 2017-11-08 10:35 PM | REPLY | FLAG:

Why tell obvious and stupid lies that nobody would possibly believe?

#92 | Posted by Sully at 2017-11-09 02:26 PM

I know the alphabet soup of militarized US government agencies is tricky to keep up with, but at least make an effort.

#91 | POSTED BY SITZKRIEG

In my experience, righties are always suspicious of the government. After all, isn't that who you need the 2nd Amendment to protect you from? Isn't that who's coming to take your guns away?

Except when an unarmed black guy gets killed by the police; then, they get the "benefit of the doubt".

#93 | Posted by WhoDaMan at 2017-11-09 02:51 PM

"The ATF doesn't round up illegals."

Didnt four ATF guys die at Waco trying to serve a warrant? Which is "rounding up illegals." Just not illegal due to immigration status. ;)

#94 | Posted by snoofy at 2017-11-09 03:20 PM

In my experience ...

You should expand your experience.

[I]sn't [suspicion of government] who you need the 2nd Amendment to protect you from?

I think you have a fundamental misconception of the Second Amendment.

[Cops] get the "benefit of the doubt".

Yeah, they do. Sad.

#95 | Posted by et_al at 2017-11-10 05:10 AM

In my experience, righties are always suspicious of the government.

#93 | POSTED BY WHODAMAN AT 2017-11-09 02:51 PM | FLAG:

Then you slept through Bush's invasion of Iraq.

and any discussion about money in politics.

#96 | Posted by sitzkrieg at 2017-11-10 07:32 AM

Drudge Retort Headlines

Bloomberg: Food Stamps Should Be Spent on Food (178 comments)

California Bullet Train Cost $2.8 Billion (75 comments)

Trump Tweet Blows Up GOP Strategy to Avoid Shutdown (54 comments)

$100,000 to Charity If Trump Steps on Accurate Scale (46 comments)

Feds Plot Massive NoCal Immigration Sweep (38 comments)

World's Belief in U.S. Leadership Hits New Low (37 comments)

Bannon Thinks He Can Defy Congress (36 comments)

Trump's Year 1 Approval 18% Below Obama's (30 comments)

Wisconsin's FoxConn Bribe Rises to $4.5 Billion (29 comments)