Look, I’m extremely pro Second Amendment…Extremely… pro Second Amendment. I am, however, pro Second Amendment based upon logical fact and critical thinking and not because I just “want” to be able to own firearms under any circumstances. The problem is, many people don’t care about facts, and in arguing the pro Second Amendment case will just say any damn thing they want and consistently try to argue points that have absolutely no bearing on the actual argument being made. Those people hurt the credibility of every single gun owner in this country. It is my own fault for responding to something on Facebook, however I try the best I can to bring to light any fallacious information I can in the debate…from both sides. What transpired really made me see one of the major problems in the debate, in that some people who are most vocal about their gun rights really probably are mentally deficient, and shouldn’t be speaking for the rest of us. Here is the post and the comments that followed:
Gun Control Kills
Between 1993 and 2011, nonfatal gun crimes plummeted 69%; from 1.5 million to 467,300. Gun-related murders dropped 40%; from 18,253 to 11,101. Gun-related murders for black Americans plummeted by 51%.
The report also shows that the media-created hysteria over school shootings is wildly misleading. Between ’93 and ’11, the murder rate in schools dropped by almost a third; from 29 to 20.
Background checks have also been exposed as another bogus narrative the media’s crafted out of thin air. This report proves beyond any doubt that closing the so-called gun show loophole will accomplish next to nothing. Less than one-percent of state prisoners caught with a gun purchased it at a gun show. Moreover, who knows how many of those criminals might have passed or did pass a background check.
So-called assault weapons are also not a problem, Only “2% of state inmates and 3% of federal inmates were armed with a military-style semiautomatic or fully automatic firearm.”
What this study clearly shows is that Obama, Democrats, and the media don’t give a damn about stopping gun violence. If they did, they would be focused on everything but the one and two-percent problems.
What we have here is a yet-another culture war; nothing more nothing less — and one aimed at the type of law-abiding citizens who attend gun shows and enjoy these so-called assault weapons. In other words, Red State conservatives.
Doug Hawk Unfortunately, this isn’t entirely accurate in regards to the background check comment. Though it is true the prison poll showed that less than one percent of state prisoners purchased firearms at a gun show, gun shows are not where most private party transactions take place AND FFLs already have to do background checks at gun shows. Gun shows do not directly correlate to background checks and those background checks at gun shows by FFLS may be Why felons aren’t getting many guns from gun shows. However, since its inception, background checks have caught something like 1.2 million prohibited people and kept them from purchasing a firearm. Granted a few were probably able to acquire one later anyway through other means, but certainly not all. Therefore, background checks actually have proven to work as intended, keeping firearms out of criminal hands while not restricting law abiding citizens. There is, however, no evidence that registration or waiting periods have any effect whatsoever. If they try to tie registration and waiting periods To the background check, then the whole thing goes out the window again.
The only legitimate argument to be made against background checks on private party transactions (sans any registration or waiting period, and assuming they make the database available to everyone 24 hours a day for checks) is that they will create targets for theft of those attempting to sell firearms in private transactions. Some of the criminals who could have otherwise bought them illegally without the sellers knowledge will just show up to steal the weapon at that point. Not all, but it will happen. Then, of course, they will transition all private party sales through FFLs like in California. Then FFLs will make a killing buying firearms for 40 cents on the dollar because the average person won’t want to go through the trouble of advertising to sell a firearm, having to drive X number of miles to an FFL just to have a buyer try to haggle or decline the purchase having been just a looky-loo to begin with, and figure they have no easy method but to sell the firearm directly to the FFL or get hit with a huge consignment percentage. At the core, the evidence does show that background checks do work as intended…but once you set that chain of events in motion will the repercussions still be worth the benefits or just shift those already illegal purchases (the seller just doesn’t know buyer is prohibited) into becoming a more violent crime?
Xxxx Xxxxx Sr “since it’s inception, background checks have caught something like 1.2 million prohibited people and kept them from purchasing a firearm.” This is blue label bullshit. If it were true then where are all of the arrests, prosecutions and incarcerations for lying on form 4473?
Xxxx Xxxxx Sr “Therefore, background checks actually have proven to work as intended, keeping firearms out of criminal hands while not restricting law abiding citizens…” More unadulterated HORSESHIT. Here is empirical Proof that Background Checks do not stop crime. The following mass murderers PASSED “background checks” and legally purchased firearms they used in their crimes. Seung-Hui Cho (Virginia Tech; 32 killed, 17 wounded) Nidal Malik Hasan (Ft. Hood; 13 killed, 29 wounded), Jared Lee Loughner (Tucson / Gabby Giffords; 6 killed, 12 wounded) James Eagan Holmes (Aurora; 12 killed, 58 wounded). Even Adam Lanza’s (Sandy Hook; 27 killed) mother, the source of his firearms, passed a back ground check.
Doug Hawk Actually, you’re logic is extremely flawed. First, an arrest is not necessary in order for the FFL to have NOT SOLD THE WEAPON TO THE PROHIBITED PERSON. The prohibited person did not get to make the purchase, a following arrest or conviction has no bearing on whether that sale did or did not take place. The sale did not take place, therefore the system worked in STOPPING THE SALE. Not only is a following prosecution irrelevant, the system doesn’t even have to catch 100% of offenders to be effective. Second, just because these people you list who ultimately committed later crimes were not flagged as prohibited at the time of purchase has no bearing on whether background checks have prevented prohibited criminals from acquiring guns. What you are arguing is that background checks don’t stop non criminals from acquiring guns AND THEN committing crimes with them. That is true, but irrelevant to the effectiveness of background checks in keeping them out of the hands of prohibited people…which is the argument being made. But again, background checks don’t have to stop 100% of all crime to be effective. It’s like trying to argue that speed limits don’t work because 100% of speeders aren’t arrested. The probability that you’ll actually get caught for speeding is really rather low. Yet all across the nation, the general flow of traffic is usually right about at the posted speed limit.
You, Mr. Xxxxx, are why the pro gun control people think gun owners are idiots due to your HORSESHIT logic expressed above and you’re the reason I may lose my 2nd Amendment rights because people like you are tarnishing valid pro 2nd Amendment arguments with fallacious logic. You’re doing more harm than good…and it is a shame for all of us that you don’t have the slightest clue why and probably don’t comprehend a single f***ing thing I just said.
Xxxx Xxxxx Sr More Bullshit. Right out of the box… to whit; “… First, an arrest is not necessary in order for the FFL to have NOT SOLD THE WEAPON TO THE PROHIBITED PERSON…” How would the FFL know the buyer was prohibited? This determination is made by conducting the NICS check, which occurs AFTER FORM 4473 IS COMPLETED. It is a felony to lie on a 4473. If a prohibited person attempts a buy under false pretenses he s subject to prosecution. PERIOD. So where are your 1.2 million arrests? Clearly, you have no idea what you are talking about and have never worked in the Firearms Retail Trade. STFU and go home.
Doug Hawk So I was correct in knowing you wouldn’t have the mental capacity to comprehend a single f***ing thing I just said… And you’re picking a fight with someone who is extremely pro second amendment, and all you’ve done is make me wish you weren’t allowed to have a firearm. You’re ignorance, and arrogance in thinking you’re not, is hurting your own cause.
The problem is, many people make the same mistakes as Mr Xxxxx in his response. What is worse, you’ll never be able to show these people how the arguments they are making are not sound. You can’t even debate with someone who doesn’t have the cognitive ability for critical thinking…and he and I are on the Same Side of the debate. This man will most likely go to his grave without ever understanding the validity of background checks in keeping guns out of prohibited people’s hands has absolutely no bearing on what happens AFTER that sale is prevented. The sale was prevented and the prohibited person did not get the firearm…period. You can argue that these people don’t get prosecuted for the felony they committed lying on the form, but that is an entirely different argument to be made about the lack of effort of enforcement. You can argue that the prohibited person will go somewhere else where there is not a background check and still acquire the weapon. Again, a totally separate argument…and possibly a good argument For extending the background checks. The sale did not take place and the person was prohibited from purchasing a firearm at that time. There need not be any arrests to prove those sales didn’t take place, the record of the person being flagged and the sale not taking place is all the proof required.
It is the same issue with the mass murders he mentions. Nobody suggests that background checks will prevent all crime, but that is the argument he is trying to dispute. He thinks that by disputing that argument, he has disputed mine. I can’t even suggest that is an entire straw man, maybe more like just a straw colon or straw rectum. What a non prohibited person ultimately does with a firearm has no bearing on the validity of background checks keeping guns from prohibited people. Nobody suggests that background checks are psychic as to who will ‘become’ prohibited. If he therefore is suggesting that background checks can’t stop Any crime, he’s making an argument for the opposition that even more needs to be done, premeditatedly, to stop gun crimes….his opposition’s argument. He continues to follow up asking where all the arrests are to prove the weapons weren’t sold to prohibited people.
If this man can’t understand basic Logic, what the hell is he going to do when he needs to make a decision with his firearm in his hand? Though it terrifies me to think of this man having a gun, I have to support his Second Amendment right to possess one if he is not a prohibited person (though I think he is clearly mentally deficient) and I have to stand by my fact based evaluation in favor of the Second Amendment hoping that most gun owners are more educated than what I see in that thread. This man does not speak for me in the Second Amendment debate!
And this is the problem I see; 1) the pro gun control people are correct when suggesting that some gun owners are fanatics who should probably not own weapons, however they are not correct in assuming this man is representative of gun owners overall, 2) the pro gun people who are “fanatics” will even aggressively attack people who are on their side in the overall debate, 3) these types of people destroy the foundation on which the rest of the pro Second Amendment advocates stand, and are therefore also an enemy to our cause.
SUBSEQUENT ADDENDUM TO THAT POST:
I think what you’re not understanding is that I’m not necessarily for background checks overall, but I have to concede they do stop the actual sale of the weapon to prohibited people. Is that benefit to society worth the residual costs to society…I’m just not convinced. I also don’t suggest we pass some new laws in addition to the old. What I suggest is that we focus on things that do tend to work for the intended purpose, and actually GET RID of all the rest of the laws on the books that don’t, such as bans on specific weapons and magazine capacities, get rid of any registration requirements, get rid of any cooling off periods, get rid of Diane Feinstein and Michael Bloomberg…wouldn’t hurt to get rid of Obama too (I guess I should clarify I mean by Vote on those last three.) We’re only going to remove these useless laws IF we make rock solid arguments people can’t tear apart and stop clinging to things we “wish” were true because they support our opinion. I’m trying to strengthen your argument, and people like Xxxx Xxxxx Sr respond in an attacking way as though I’m trying to take his guns away. You can’t see the forest for the trees.
I don’t even know what country I live in anymore. Is it Italy, because we appear to cater to the Roman Catholic Church in spite of the Constitution’s prohibition on enacting laws respecting a specific establishment of religion? Is it Mexico, because we seem to cater to Mexicans over Americans in spite of existing U.S. Federal Immigration Laws? Is it France, because we seem to cater to an apathetic Socialist ideology over Capitalism and the motivation to better one’s life? Is it England, because we appear to cater to abolishing guns while accepting high crime rates in spite of the 2nd Amendment? Is it North Korea, because we seem to taunt the rest of the world with threats of violence? Is it Ireland, because people in this country seem to consume a lot of alcohol to mask the state of their lives instead of changing their lives? (The Irish at least still tried to change their lives) Is it China, because they own a high percentage of our future economic output? Is it Cuba, because it sure feels like we are on the fast track to becoming a military dictatorship while merely claiming to be a Republic?
This country was founded because people of various nations wanted to escape what they felt were government oppressions in their native countries. We fought to be a sovereign nation and adopted a Constitution attempting to prevent this country from making the same government mistakes that enticed those immigrants to leave those various countries to begin with. Now we appear to embrace the very government qualities that this country was founded to oppose. Over the years, instead of allowing the immigration of foreign people fleeing a government ideology, we have allowed the immigration of the foreign government’s ideology itself. We’ve tried to rule the world by collecting the world’s ideologies in the United States intending to strengthening ties with foreign nations (allowing immigrants who no longer want to melt in the pot and acclimate but instead maintain their foreign allegiances) and what we’ve done is allow the world to slowly rule the United States through our own system of Democracy by subsequently allowing foreign interests to have a vote.
I like foreign countries, I like foreign people. I also like our neighbors who live next door…but I don’t allow them to come into my house unsupervised, move my furniture, piss in my pool, scold my offspring, screw with my livelihood or manipulate my finances. I’d be destitute in no time, and be ostracized by my family for allowing it. The United States, however, has appeared to embrace this ideology…and yet we wonder why we’re broke. Don’t get me wrong, I’m definitely pro-United States of America…I just wonder where the hell it went. It appears we momentarily set it down somewhere in the late 1920’s, and then forgot where we left it.
Without a distinct sense of Nationality for this nation, it will cease to be a nation.
I can’t help but take note with this article “Guns, God and Background Checks” by Susan Estrich. It seems like someone who just wants to talk about gun control because it is a hot topic, and not because they have anything tangible or knowledgeable to add to the debate.
It gets tiring having to repeat this when people bring ‘God’ into gun debates. The belief that some deity controls the events and outcomes in your life is the exact same delusion that makes a mass killer believe that a particular group of people somehow control the events and outcomes in their life, thus seeking retribution by exterminating others for the wrongs the killer believes others have brought upon them. Religion has done the same thing over and over for thousands of years, exterminating infidels and non believers. If someone is trying to kill you and all you can do is pray to a deity, you’re a victim…plain and simple. You have a choice. You could choose to risk your life to stop the killer. Yes, possibly losing your own life to attempt to save your life or others, but would that not be a more noble death than cowering on the ground waiting for someone (or some unproven deity) to save you or hoping that ‘God’ makes the killer miss you while killing someone else? And if you truly believe in a ‘God’ and you might die trying to save yourself or others, what the hell are you afraid of that stops you from doing it? Wouldn’t that be an action that got you into heaven or whatever afterlife you believe in? That is a choice you have the ability to make. Or maybe you don’t truly believe in ‘God’ when it really gets down to the fear of death? Instead, you could certainly choose to get own your hands and knees and pray to a deity, making a great fixed target for a shooter. However, that was also your choice, not the deity’s. Believe in a deity if you want, but don’t try to make it the solution to everyone else’s problem. I’m not suggesting young children have much of a choice as far as not being victims in such a situation, but if a child is praying to ‘God’ at that age to save them then they’ve been programmed by someone else to believe in such a solution to their problems and fears. Most kids would be terrified and desire what they are familiar with to help them…mom, dad, maybe a favorite teacher they are starting to look up to. Mostly they’ll just be scared and confused. You could teach your kids options of things to do in such an event, just like they do for fire drills and tornado drills. Kids learn fast, and they can be pretty damn smart with a little information. I’m not sure why Susan Estrich thinks it is sad that she has thought about what she would do if there were a crazy person in her building…it’s about the only sensible thing she said in the whole article. Sad that she has to acknowledge it happens, maybe, but certainly prudent and taking personal responsibility that she has tried to think through actions to take should the scenario arise. It is a hell of a lot more effective than getting on your knees and praying. If your deity is both omniscient and omnipotent, then it knows you are there, it created the scenario and it might want you dead. Such a deity would not lack control over the initiation of the event, and yet have total control over the outcome…believing that would be insane. It is merely the difference between an individual delusion and mass delusion. At the end of the day, reaching for a deity during such an event is just replacing one delusion that is more accepted in society (religion) as a solution to another delusion which is not (I should kill the people who ruined my life.)
Or IS killing accepted in society? If all killers are mentally ill, then what does that make of the millions of people in the United States military? All trained to kill should the need arise. Are they mentally ill? Probably not. Susceptible to programming, sure, but mentally ill, no. And that is necessary to defend this country to some degree. You cannot suggest that all killers, or people willing to kill, are mentally ill. Some killers certainly are, there’s no doubt about that. Other killers have just reached the point where they feel murder is justified. Maybe it is a poor grade on an essay, or adultery, or flying two planes into the World Trade Center. Most of the world has a line that can be crossed that justifies killing. The debate then becomes, who’s line is acceptable? On one side of the line we say people are mentally ill, the other side of the line we call them Patriots, Heroes, Saviors. If you are classifying everyone who ultimately decides to kill as mentally ill, you’re missing much of the motivation people have for doing so, and therefore missing much of the solution for stopping it. The bottom line is, most people don’t want to accept the fact that many killers are ordinary people who have reached and crossed that dividing line, and it just isn’t the same line as yours…so we classify them as mentally ill in order to deal with it. Most people don’t want to acknowledge that their line may be deemed mentally ill by others, even though they have not reached a point of crossing their own line. I think the problem stems from fear of one’s self as much as it does a fear of guns…or in the case referenced in the cited article, a knife.
So, why would a law-abiding, mentally healthy person oppose background checks? Well, for starters it would mean that a person’s mental health, or possibly false evaluation of their health, would have to be made somewhat publicly available. Otherwise it is true that background checks would not stop mentally ill people from buying guns, only felons. It also opens up subjectivity in the ideology of what is “mentally deficient” when deciding who can or cannot possess a weapon. Do you have to have been committed to an institution? Do you have to have a history of seeing a therapist? Could you have merely had a drunken moment which turned into a 5150 violation? Maybe you’re deemed mentally deficient if you’re currently going through a divorce (confiscate all your weapons), or maybe a death in the family since that is traumatic (confiscate all your weapons) or maybe you’ve just lost your job (confiscate all your weapons)..the list of events that could possibly make someone ‘temporarily’ mentally unstable and commit a crime is endless. Maybe loners should be segregated and denied gun rights as mentally deficient, or maybe people susceptible to joining groups like cults and religions should have their gun rights denied. (I don’t know how many times I’ve heard religious people say non-religious people should not be allowed to have guns…I’ve honestly lost count) If you follow sports teams fanatically which have no impact or bearing on your personal life, maybe you are mentally deficient. Drink beer, wine, whiskey…there’s a potential to become mentally deficient a few glasses in. Someone has threatened to kill you? My, that is stressful (confiscate all your weapons.) At some point, someone could very well deem you mentally deficient when you aren’t…I’ve seen it happen to someone first hand. At that point, yes they will actively take your guns away…I’ve seen that happen as well. If a law or contract allows an action, even if you don’t think it could ever be taken, at some point it will. Second, another problem with background checks on private party transactions will be that criminals will most likely start targeting private party sales for thefts…most likely armed thefts…since they can no longer get the guns through private party transactions otherwise. It creates a great prospect for a criminal…always has, but in the past they could merely purchase the gun and avoid committing greater crimes. I will be shocked if background checks on private party sales don’t lead to more crimes committed during the ‘sale’ itself, with the criminal ultimately still getting a gun. Or worse, people selling guns will be so paranoid they’ll have loaded guns at the sale, possibly the gun for sale, and accidental deaths and bad shootings of innocent people will rise in those scenarios. Overall, I support extending the background checks to private party sales under certain conditions, but you can be certain it is not going to be a solution that does not create an entirely new problem to some degree. Private party transactions will become much less safe to conduct. It is not merely a ‘non-controversial’ issue.
Here is the part of her article I love most:
Meanwhile, back in Washington, a minor miracle was unfolding. Two NRA stalwarts in the Senate, one a Republican and one a Democrat, had reached a compromise that would allow a bill to expand background checks for gun purchases to move toward a vote. It is a ways from becoming law, but it is the first such bill in years that has not been “killed” before even getting to the point of consideration by the Senate.
A ‘minor miracle’ that background checks can move towards a vote. Huh? As if everybody in the world wants what she wants, except the NRA, and ‘God’ has performed a minor miracle to make it happen? If the majority of people want that legislation, it’s called Democracy, not a miracle. If they don’t…well, it’s still called Democracy. Maybe it just isn’t sound legislation being proposed. I also love how she puts “killed” in quotes to suggest that those who oppose the present incarnations of background checks are KILLERS. She might think it is cute, but it is a passive/aggressive way of blaming these Senators for the deaths created by actual killers. Susan Estrich appears to see things from only an emotional perspective and wants to suggest anyone who opposes current gun control legislation as it stands are killers (or I guess either mentally ill or not law-abiding citizens.) It is an extremely uninformed article which places a lot of blame for not adopting a specific solution (background checks), yet she can’t explain how that specific solution would solve anything while herself showing how it won’t, and then asking the same old question as to HOW to make HER solution work. It’s like saying “I know praying doesn’t work, but I want praying to be the solution so everyone should stop arguing about the lack of effectiveness of praying and figure out how to make praying work.” Frankly, I think she may be mentally ill as evidenced by the fact that she only has a limited capacity to understand the full scope of the problem at hand, along with understanding the chain of events each solution will logically create down the road. If a theory is disproved you can’t just keep adding exceptions to the theory in order to not admit it no longer holds water, you need to start testing new theories. I would expect more logic from a lawyer, a more educated perspective from a professor and certainly a better overall argument from a Harvard grad. But then again, maybe this is nothing more than well thought out political propaganda designed merely to distract people from the facts and not really address any issues at all…just place blame.
Okay, I typically don’t write about these topics but having watched the lunacy and lack of logic with which this has unfolded, I can’t help but comment on the idiocy that is California Assembly Bill 332 (AB 332). The bill is basically an extension of Measure B in the county of Los Angeles which would require the use of condoms in all adult films made in California, thus requiring CalOSHA or some offshoot of that agency to actively police porn production sets. I don’t work in porn and am not a part of the industry. I do, however, have friends, family and acquaintances that presently or previously worked in the industry and have seen some aspects of its workings first hand. On occasion I have to do a little research to see what these people are referring to, so I have a necessity to keep moderate tabs on it.
Protecting Free Speech seems like a worthy cause to fight over, but AB 332 doesn’t really appear to be a free speech issue at its core. Some might support the bill as an ultimate end to pornography, so I guess there are some free speech aspects inherent in fighting the bill, but it doesn’t appear to be the main goal of those pushing the bill. Protecting sex workers health and working environment seems a worthy cause, but this really doesn’t appear to be about that either. In fact, I know of very few performers who are actually in favor of mandatory condom use. I do know a few, but it is because they ‘choose’ to use condoms and want to have a better chance of getting work amongst those who are willing to work without one instead of being declined work due to their condom requirements, and not because they feel it makes for a safer industry. Many appear to be pro choice on the matter, but this bill does not address or guarantee the freedom of choice among performers. There are adult performers who are married and only have sex with their partner, but would still be required by law to wear a condom. Worse, mandatory condom requirements diminish the successful system of mandatory testing already in place. It appears more than anything to be about the underlying financial interests of those pushing the bill. Aids Healthcare Foundation suggests that condom use is already mandated by existing OSHA regulations. Theoretically, that may be correct. However, theoretically it might also be a sexual harassment violation for my male gynecologist friend to ask his female assistant’s second opinion on the condition of a patient’s vagina or clitoris. Theoretically, it might be an OSHA violation of some type for firearm manufacturers to have loaded weapons in the workplace environment. In specific and otherwise legal industries, some modifications to existing laws and standards must be made in order for the legal business to actually be able to DO their legal business. The statistics I find suggest that there hasn’t been an HIV outbreak in the ‘mainstream’ adult film industry in California in 9 years, and that all other diseases are found in the porn industry at the exact same percentages as the general population. So what exactly are the proponents of AB 332 trying to accomplish? It is an interesting question to ask, but first there needs to be some clarification of the facts in the situation.
The main group pushing for AB 332 is AIDS Healthcare Foundation (AHF), headed by President Michael Weinstein. The main opponents to the bill appear to be the Free Speech Coalition and its Executive Director, Diane Duke…along with an endless list of people actually working in the industry. First, an ideology of extreme importance seems to need to be clarified for the battlefield, but appears that it never is for fear of being accused of “gay bashing.” The argument usually gets divided up into the straight segment of the industry and the gay segment of the industry. To point out anything with the gay industry as any sort of defense, you’re suddenly deemed anti gay or homophobic. The truth is, that is not an accurate dividing line between those two industries. There is the mainstream adult industry, which encompasses straight, bi and lesbian performers and then there is the virtually unaffiliated ‘male only’ industry. Not gay porn, but male only porn… gay (or gay for pay) is more of a necessity in ‘male only’ than an accurate description of the industry. There are PLENTY of lesbians (or gay for pay women) in the mainstream adult industry. Every now and then a male actor might work in both industries but would be required to get a clean test before working in the mainstream adult industry. The male only industry has its own set of procedures, its own set of priorities and thus an entirely different agenda than the mainstream adult industry. If fact, to the best of my knowledge, those leading the charge on both sides, Michael Weinstein and Diane Duke, are openly gay… so again this is not a gay vs. straight issue. Here is where it starts to go way off logical track. The ‘male only’ industry allows HIV infected performers to perform. The mainstream adult industry does not. That is not a negligible difference in ideology between the two industries, it is enormous. In an industry where HIV infection is already accepted among your co-workers, condoms become the optimum preventative measure…but only under those terms. Testing becomes irrelevant if you aren’t concerned with the results of the test. In mainstream porn, there was an outbreak of HIV 9 years ago. It is widely known now that Darren James went outside of the mainstream adult industry in California, worked in Brazil where he contracted HIV and then came back into the mainstream adult industry and worked prior to being retested since his previous test was still “technically” valid for him to work. He did NOT acquire HIV from the mainstream adult industry, but instead negligently brought the infection in. In fact, I have been told that mandatory testing procedures were immediately altered to prevent this from ever happening again. There was another HIV occurrence in 2010 when Derek Burts tested positive for HIV. He contracted the disease while working in the ‘male only’ industry and was thus prohibited from working in the mainstream adult industry due to the mandatory testing flagging him for an HIV infection. Again, the HIV infection did not come from the mainstream adult industry, but in this case was prevented from being brought into those circles. These are Michael Weinstein’s and AHF’s only two examples when arguing for mandatory condoms in the mainstream adult industry. Doesn’t make much sense does it? The two examples in support of mandatory condoms are both people who worked outside of the mainstream adult industry, one negligently bringing the virus into the mainstream industry and the other being an instance of prevention by the mainstream adult industry from allowing HIV to spread FROM the ‘male only’ industry due to their existing standards of mandatory testing. Two infections from outside the mainstream adult industry where testing wasn’t mandatory, where condoms were either not used or ineffective at preventing the infection. In trying to argue that there is a problem in the mainstream adult industry that needs to be addressed, Weinstein and AHF offer the solution that is used in the ‘male only’ industry? That is pure idiocy. The ‘male only’ industry allows HIV performers. CONDOMS ARE A MEANS OF ACCOMMODATING HIV PERFORMERS IN THE ‘MALE ONLY’ INDUSTRY, NOT A MEANS OF PREVENTING HIV IN THE INDUSTRY!!! Seriously, Weinstein and AHF are pushing for a preventative measure adopted to allow HIV infected performers to continue working and wants to make that system mandatory for a group of performers who have virtually eliminated the risks of HIV in their industry already. How is this even a debate, or worth wasting California legislator’s time? Why would anyone push an agenda like this? Does Weinstein make money from the existence and threat of HIV? Might he make money from condoms in some manner? Does he just hate straight and lesbian performers who work in an industry with a low probability of contracting HIV? Is there still an AIDS Healthcare Foundation President without the fear of the spread of AIDS?
Trying to change an industry with a great preventative track record, in order to adopt a solution designed to accommodate HIV within an industry seems pretty ridiculous to me…and frankly pretty fucked up and irresponsible. Weinstein’s and AHF’s example of HIV infection come from outside the mainstream adult industry and their solution is to adopt measures that accommodate HIV performers instead of prohibiting infected performers from working. Does bill AB 332 really offer to help all adult performers? Well, maybe if you have HIV and want to work in both ‘male only’ and mainstream adult, but otherwise it would seem the answer is no. It appears to put most mainstream adult performers at higher risk than they historically have been. It doesn’t appear to offer those performers who prefer condoms the ‘choice’ to use them, and the legal stability to demand that choice, which might be a sensible bill to propose for worker’s rights. It merely gives those who require condoms an economic advantage in the industry as compared to those women who have allergic reactions to condoms or dislike using them for the length of time it takes to film a scene. Nothing will really change for the ‘male only’ industry, they still won’t have to test negative for an HIV infection or other diseases in order to work.
Maybe it’s just me, and I hope it isn’t a choice I ever have to make, but if I had to choose between getting fucked in the ass by a guy with HIV and a condom, or a guy who tested negative for HIV entirely…I think I’d opt for the one with the negative test. There’s no doubt the condom will probably break while I’m trying to kill the guy before I get sodomized anyway. I would think any sane person who enjoys getting sodomized would come to the same conclusion. If you’re one of those people who is afraid porn performers in California are going to spread disease to the rest of the general population: 1) Do more research because that is statistically fallacious, and; 2) Then don’t have sex with an adult performer, or at least not without seeing a clean test first.
It is scary that a former Navy Captain and American astronaut can be so f’n ignorant:
1) 5.56 NATO (.223) was adopted to be LESS lethal than the prior .30-06 of an M1 Garand.
2) Tactically, 5.56 NATO being LESS lethal requires the enemy to expend resources evacuating the wounded during battle. Being a much smaller round you can carry more ammo in battle.
3) In trying to buy the AR-15 apparently to show how easy it is to acquire one during this most recent debacle; He was previously declined because he still had Texas ID and was trying to buy a weapon in Arizona AND now that he has been able to make the purchase (with Arizona ID?) he has a 20 day grace period before he can pick it up. I guess it isn’t so easy after all…thanks for proving that Mr. Kelly.
4) A 10 round magazine isn’t designed for sport and a 30 round magazine designed to kill. They are both designed to feed ammo into the weapon…period. The time it takes a trained individual to fire three 10 round magazines and one 30 round magazine is virtually insignificant.
5) Though I think it is sad his wife was shot; she was shot with a pistol, with a cumbersome high capacity (in this case extended is not a misnomer) magazine by a psychotic idiot who didn’t know how to do an out of battery reload….no matter what size magazine he was using. It was not a high capacity magazine originally designed by the manufacturer for the pistol, such as a 15 round magazine for a Sig Sauer P226.
6) Not doing background checks on private party sales at gun shows and private party sales in other places is not a ‘loophole’ in the law….IT ISN’T THE LAW! AND If BATFE really wanted to monitor the legality of any sales, it would be substantially easier to do it at one place such as a gun show instead of each individual home where a private party transaction might otherwise occur. Also, once you require private party sales to do background checks, criminals are going to target those sales for thefts knowing from the start there is a weapon there to be acquired and posing as a buyer to gain access to it.
7) The false logic that makes you blame a gun, a magazine, a type of bullet etc. for a crime is the same false logic that makes a mass killer blame other people for their problems. Both are placing blame on something other than the actual source of the problem.
You know what’s easier than buying an ‘assault weapon’? Apparently passing laws based on emotion instead of logic and statistical fact.
Diane Feinstein doesn’t appear to understand the lack of logic in virtually everything she says. If she does though, then she certainly understands manipulating people’s perceptions with misdirection and irrelevant statements through an intentional use of fallacious logic. Looking at statistical evidence, I would have to conclude she is either ignorant or manipulative, it has to be one or the other. Neither is an admirable quality in a public servant. Let’s see, as a back of the napkin calculation, in the United States since 2004 we’ve averaged about 30,000 gun deaths per year. From 2004 to 2011 that would give us roughly 240,000 gun deaths. This would mean that the 350 ‘assault weapons’ deaths she mentions would account for 0.16% of all gun related deaths. That’s right, sixteen hundredths of one percent. Exactly what effect is an ‘assault weapons’ ban supposed to have this time, when it has been documented to have had no effect the first time, especially when they are rarely used in gun homicides to begin with? What was it Einstein called it when people do the same thing over and over and expect different results? That’s right…Insanity. How she determines that the weapons are more lethal today than in 2004, I can’t even speculate the statement is so ludicrous. Even with the bump fire stock, which seems really f’n stupid to begin with, it is an ignorant argument. Full auto machine guns aren’t very accurate during multi round fire anyway. Watch the video of the guy shooting the AR-15 in semi auto (though much slower than he really could) and then watch that muzzle jump all over the place when he’s trying to fire it with the bump fire stock. It is NOT more lethal, it is LESS accurate. Rate of fire is not directly correlated to lethality!!!
Feinstein states that the assault weapons ban in California has kept people from acquiring them. This comment really doesn’t seem to make a whole lot of sense overall. What is she calling an ‘assault weapon’ at this point? You can still legally buy an AR-15, for instance, in California. You can still also buy the items that would make that AR-15 an ‘assault weapon’ by definition, if you add too many of those features. Remember, this isn’t an argument about machine guns any more, or even converting an AR-15 to full auto fire. Granted, you can’t buy machine guns or suppressors with an NFA stamp in California, nor can you buy or sell large capacity magazines, but what does that have to do with ‘assault weapons’ by their California definition? How can she really say the law has kept people from legally acquiring ‘assault weapons’ then? In California, many people can accidentally build an ‘assault weapon’ version of an AR-15 (by CA definition) and not even realize it. That’s how fine the line is. Maybe she’s talking about the real definition of an assault weapon in this capacity, one that has select fire between full auto and semi auto? Or maybe she’s just referring to certain ‘assault weapons’ like a Mac 10…which is probably more likely. All in all, it is a very deceiving and ambiguous statement.
She goes on to say that 9% of all crime guns in Chicago could be traced to Mississippi. First, this is a direct result of Chicago having a virtual ban on guns to begin with…of course they are acquiring them somewhere else. In fact, McDonald v. City of Chicago and Moore v. Madigan both held that Chicago and Illinois laws were unconstitutional respectively. Second, most Chicago crime guns are handguns, specifically protected by the Second Amendment after the Heller decision. In 2011, the state of Illinois had ONE ‘assault weapons’ death for the year….that’s right, ONE. Crime guns in Illinois (and subsequently Chicago) are not ‘assault weapons’ and her bringing up crime guns from Mississippi is irrrelevant to an ‘assault weapons’ ban or a large capacity magazine ban. She’s intentionally trying to mind fu@% you here, it is a straw man argument.
She also says that ‘assault weapons’ were designed to kill people. That isn’t entirely true either. The 5.56 (.223) round that many of these assault weapons fire was adopted by NATO as a humanitarian means of limiting death in war since it was a less lethal round than prior rifle rounds in previous wars. I don’t want to get shot with a 5.56 round, but I’d rather be shot with that than a .308 from a hunting rifle.
She mentions Gabby Giffords who was shot with a pistol. Granted it had a large capacity magazine in it and Loughner apparently didn’t know how to reload a magazine quickly, but Giffords herself only appears to promote the background checks during her super PAC ad. Coincidentally, I didn’t hear Feinstein mention background checks even once…which is the only gun control measure that has been documented as being effective.
Here is another slight of hand in her presentation. The previous ‘assault weapons’ ban designated a specific list of weapons which were banned, and then a set of features for any other non listed weapons. That means many new weapons could be introduced after the fact which were legal, and many could be legally customized. AND NOW FOR THE REALLY IMPORTANT PART OF HER NEW PROPOSAL: She said that the acceptable hunting and sporting firearms would be specifically enumerated in a list this time (not the prohibited firearms as before.) This would effectively ban any new (non-handgun) weapons which could be subsequently developed and manufactured because they would not be on the ‘allowed’ list at the time of any passing of this bill. It might also restrict any pre-existing firearms that don’t specifically make the list but are made with parts of weapons on the list, such as any version of a rifle that uses a Remington 700 receiver but is modified and sold under a different model name. Examples might be a Robar SR90 or maybe a custom hunting rifle built by Darrel Holland. Does a Remington 700 receiver in a McMillan stock with an aftermarket barrel make the list, or only an uncustomized factory model Remington 700?
Feinstein also tries to show how cases prior to Heller upheld the previous assault weapons ban, which is mostly irrelevant now. Then she attempts to suggest that Heller protects such a ban as well because it allows restrictions of ‘dangerous and unusual weapons.” Well, an AR-15 certainly isn’t unusual and in fact is quite common and based on the knowledge as to why NATO adopted the 5.56 round it appears to be less dangerous than the hunting rifles she claims to want to protect.
At the end of the day, she probably knows her goal of banning weapons is not supported with any type of evidence. However, she wants what she wants anyway, and will apparently present whatever irrelevant information she feels will support her personal desires. At present time, there is also a bill proposed in California, SB-374, which will dramatically expand the definition of ‘assault weapon’ on a state level. What I honestly think she is, is desperate. She knows state gun control laws are being shot down consistently now by the Supreme Court. Just like Obama and Illinois, if Feinstein can’t get a Federal ban, she’s likely to lose the level of gun control she has been able to create in her home state of California.
Is it not somewhat ironic that the Harvey Milk shooting, which seems to have set Feinstein on her anti-gun agenda regarding civilian use, was committed by a man who was; ex-military, ex-law enforcement….and a politician? By the way, Dan White used his police issued revolver in the shooting.
8,775 firearm related Murders. [FBI]
31,672 total firearm related deaths. [CDC] (Includes the 8,775 above)
61% of those were suicides (19,392). There were 12,280 non-suicide related firearm deaths.
38,329 total drug overdose deaths. (CDC statistics from Associated Press)
22,134 were prescription drugs. (opioids like OxyContin and Vicodin contributed in 3 out of 4 cases, anti-anxiety drugs like Valium in roughly 30 percent)
17% of prescription drug deaths were suicides. That’s roughly 18,370 non-suicide related prescription drug deaths.
Total drug related deaths are higher than total firearm deaths. Prescription drug deaths are higher than firearm Murders. Non-suicide prescription drug deaths are higher than non-suicide gun deaths.
Yet the government is trying to force healthcare upon the people while trying to ban firearms from the people for the overall good of society???
Suggesting something else is more of a problem is not a Logical argument against gun control, but that is not the argument I’m making. My argument is that the Legislative and Exectuive branches of our government are not consistent in their evaluations of what is good for society overall. Violent crimes have dropped consistently since at least 1992, while drug overdoses have continued to rise the past 11 years, yet they denounce weapon ownership and promote mandatory health care insurance. Weapons have as much of a self preservation purpose as does healthcare, only from a different threat to loss of life. While healthcare insurance might reduce the costs to society overall from those who cannot afford it, an increase in civilian weapon ownership statistically leads to lower robbery levels with no overall increase in other crimes, and might not only reduce the number of police required but also the size of our standing army to fight invasion…both also lowering the costs to society.
The contradition shown above seems to suggest that deaths are okay in a desire for complacency, but deaths are not okay when they arise from a lack of complacency.
If Obama is so worried about Illinois and guns, why doesn’t he point out that in 2011 only 0.2% of all Illinois murders (452) involved a rifle of any kind when he’s pushing for a new ‘assault weapons’ ban? (the total number for the year being 1) Only 2.6% of all U.S. murders in 2011 (12,664) involved a rifle of Any Kind (323).
In 2011, Illinois is tied for the #1 state (with Louisiana) with the highest number of murders with a firearm at 83% (377 of 452). The national average was 68% (8,583). Illinois’ handgun to murder ratio is 81% and #1 in handgun/murders by a good margin (4% higher than #2 Louisiana).
That’s why he keeps pushing Illinois, it is the most offending state for handguns per murder! (not an average state) Seems to me Obama is admitting Illinois is even more of a problem than firearms. If you think Obama is merely going after ‘assault rifles’ after seeing these statistics, you’ve lost your f’n mind. You know which Supreme Court case extends your 2nd Amendment right to the state level? McDonald V. The City of Chicago. Moore v. Madigan (2012) which ruled that people have a right to carry firearms in public is also Illinois. The court stayed the mandate for 180 days (should be about June) to allow Illinois time to draft new legislation. This is why he now has to try to produce stricter federal legislation in order to protect his home state.
From Obama; “Gabby Giffords deserves a vote. The families of Newtown deserve a vote. The families of Aurora deserve a vote…They deserve a vote.”
That’s like 150 votes and they already have the right to cast that vote. In fact, the Giffords even created a Super PAC to lobby for gun control…that’s more than just a vote. I guess he thinks they deserve ‘extra’ votes outside of the democratic process because they are a minority of victims? Do all minorities then deserve extra votes? That is the antithesis of DEMOCRACY! If people had jobs maybe they wouldn’t be compelled to commit crimes, especially the rare anomaly of mass murder.
There is a reason we pick impartial people for a jury. We try to avoid a personal connection to the crime and a judgment made purely on emotional reaction instead of a presentation of the facts. Laws should be constructed no differently. Why should those who are most likely to be biased on the situation be the ones who deserve the ‘strongest’ vote? I sympathize with all the people who have been effected by any type of violence, but circumventing democracy is not one of the legal recourses available to them for relief.
I feel bad for her, but you shouldn’t fall for this. First, the statement “We have a problem where we shop, where we pray, where our children go to school” is mostly fear mongering. Statistics have always shown these events are anomalies (read any reputable book by Gary Kleck or pull up the crime stats yourself for verification) In vact, violent crimes have continuously dropped since at least 1992 before the first ‘assault weapons’ ban every took place. Second, look how vague this ad is, it doesn’t mention any type of gun control except one in an on screen image, that 9 out of 10 people support universal background checks. No mention of assault weapons ban, no mention of large capacity magazine ban…but yet an overwhelming theme “let’s get this done.” Get what done exactly? In fact, background checks have already been the law for dealers since 1993. Only private party transactions don’t legally require background checks, which is all they have really proposed here. Background checks are the single gun control measure that has held up to scrutiny and is worthy of implementation, and it does Not require registration or tracking of individual ownership. Don’t be confused that this provides any validity or support for any other type of gun control measures currently being proposed in Congress, except an extention of the background checks to private party transactions. The question then is, why is the ad so vague?