Jump to content
You come across as remarkably thin skinned, with all due respect. You seem to be unclear regarding the purpose of the Pilot's "Our View" pieces. You might consider looking up the definition of 'editorial' and reacquaint yourself with its meaning.
If you believe Mr. Rummel's proposal to be "worthy of legitimate consideration", then defend it on its merits. Make an effort to illustrate how the Pilot's position is off base. All you've done is complain that anyone would presume to criticize Mr. Rummel's ridiculous imitative.
What does being a small town have to do with anything? Is there a population threshold that would make it permissible to report the news, and beneath which a media blackout should be imposed? If our own recent marathon had been bombed, would it have been inappropriate to report on it because we're a "small town"? There are pros and cons to living in a free society. One of the cons may be that horrific tragedies like this one are newsworthy.
On the one hand, one can argue that tools like Rummel should be exposed to public ridicule and derision. On the other, shining a light on their antics may only embolden their buffoonery by furnishing publicity they would otherwise never be granted.
It's now 55 - Grand County's Rodney Johnson has joined the party. 86%, if you're keeping score.
If one ever needed an illustration of Big Brother and nanny-state over reach, you can't do better HB 1224 and 1229. Thanks for publishing the lawsuit.
Just when you thought it couldn't get more asinine: School says deaf boy's name sign looks too much like a gun
Interesting. Cesar Milan's mantra whenever he meets a dog for the 1st time is: no touch, no talk, no eye contact.
As a DP proponent, it has no deterrent value for those the media lavishes the most attention on: DC snipers, marathon bombers, Columbine, Aurora, Sandy Hook, Ft Hood, Va Tech shooters, etc. Whackjobs and zealots are gonna to what they do. All the more reason for the rest of us to armed.
Given Robert's belief in who women are likely to be vulnerable to, and his rhetorical “So, what do the law abiding people need guns in their house for?”, one wonders which of these two women he believes behaved inappropriately.
911 caller unarmed
911 caller armed
Worth noting that Mrs. Jackson (caller #2) is on the phone for 10 minutes pleading with the dispatcher to send help so she wouldn't have to do the unthinkable. But when seconds count, the police are minutes away. In the end, the authorities couldn't help. Her son the cop was powerless. Her big protective dogs didn't deter the intruder. If you & yours choose to live as prey, knock yourselves out. If you wish to impose that choice upon me, I have a two-syllable reply which decorum prevents me from disclosing to you here. And if this demonstration doesn't answer Robert's rhetorical, it cannot be explained.
You write: “...the pro gun crowd hangs onto the 2nd amendment as if it is a real threat that "the British are coming" or "Obama is coming". That argument doesn't hold water at all...” Another ridiculous canard. It's clear you believe in some of the principles enshrined in the Bill of Rights, but not all of them. More power to you. But painting people like me as right wing militia whackjobs only underscores how ignorant you are of (or how little you regard) the values spelled out in the Second Amendment and Federalist 46 – which explains, I suppose, your derisive characterization of people like me.
You write: “So, what do the law abiding people need guns in their house for?” You can find that answer in the Bill of Rights; specifically the Second Amendment. Further, your assertion that “...80% of the people that are killed know their killer...” is misleading in terms of self/home defense. As Wiki points out: “”Few statistics are available on the crime of home invasion as such, because it is not defined as a crime in its own right in most jurisdictions. Statistics about home invasion found on the Internet are often false or misleading. Persons arrested for what the police or media may refer to as "home invasion" are actually charged with crimes such as robbery, kidnapping, homicide, rape, or assault.”
Additionally, there are no reliable stats available on defensive gun use (DGU) in general. The estimates range from 100,000 annually (according to the NCVS) to 2.5 million (according to researcher John Lott). Lott asserts that 98% of DGU are instances in which the gun is brandished but not fired, and no one is injured as a result (I have been personally involved in 2 such episodes). Those instances are frequently not reported, are not included in official statistical analyses, & receive no media coverage. But let's assume the low-end NCVS number is accurate. Would you have preferred that the victims (including me) in those 100,000 incidents had been been unarmed? If so, why?
Last login: Sunday, January 25, 2015
Contents of this site are © Copyright 2015 Steamboat Pilot & Today. All rights reserved.