Anti-Gun Politics Inconsistent

When the question of personal security arises, they choose to make the rational decision for themselves to take the one step that has real meaning in their self defense.

Liberals reflexively decry gun violence and call "to end the proliferation of guns".  But then Texas Democratic Executive Committee Member John Cobarruvias tweets "Can we now shoot the #NRA and everyone who defends them? #PrayForNewton— John Cobarruvias (@BayAreaHouston) December 14, 2012". Perhaps its time to question the sincerity of some?

In a speech I recently heard by Steve Sutton, he was analyzing liberals and conservatives. The first part of that speech was:

There are two types of liberals, first, those who really want to help people.  And they believe the way to do that is to do it through the liberal policies that they believe in.  If you talk with them about it and say "all you want to do is redistribute wealth", they say "well yeah, thats exactly what I want to do".
They are sincere, they mean well, but they are wrong on virtually every public policy issue, but thats' their motivation, to help people.
There are other liberals who know better. They know their policies do not work. But they work politically. So they are not about helping people, they are about winning elections, acquiring power and telling you what to do. And there is no discussing with them, they are just evil and you must defeat them. There is no compromise, there is no debate, there is no sincerity.
Evidence of that insincerity, and political use of policies they know do not work, is no where better seen than in their autonomic response to a tragedy.  They follow a "good for me but not for thee" approach. As can be seen in some of the actions vs talk of some of the biggest proponents of gun control, Dianne Feinstein, Chuck Schumer and Barbara Boxer.

Chuck Schumer has recently been extremely vocal about gun control and attacking the NRA and others who support conceal carry. But yet he felt the need for a conceal carry permit, which is denied to most.
Also, a check of Pistol License records shows that Senator Schumer possesses an "unrestricted" pistol permit, a rarity in New York City. Licenses are distributed in different categories in the Big Apple: Target Permits allow only use of a firearm at a licensed firing range; Premises Permits allow weapons to be kept in a home or apartment; Restricted Permits allow the gunowner to carry their firearms concealed but only within the purview of their job (security, jewelers, armored car guards, etc.). So it's evident that Senator Schumer has two sets of rules -- one for Americans and one for himself.
Dianne Feinstein in 1995
"Less than 20 years ago, I was the target of a terrorist group. It was the New World Liberation Front. They blew up power stations and put a bomb at my home when my husband was dying of cancer and the bomb was set to detonate around 2 ‘o clock in the morning, but it was a construction explosive that doesn’t detonate when it drops below freezing. It doesn’t usually freeze in San Francisco, but on this night it dropped below freezing and the bomb didn’t detonate.
"I was very lucky, but I thought of what might have happened. Later the same group shot out all the windows of my home and I know the sense of helplessness that people feel. I know the urge to arm yourself, because that’s what I did. I was trained in firearms. When I walked to the hospital when my husband was sick, I carried a concealed weapon. I made the determination that if somebody was going to try to take me out I was going to take them with me. Now having said all of that, that was period of time ago and I’ve watched through these 20 years as terrorism has increased both on the far extremist left and the far extremist right in this country."
Mitch Berg added to that description:
And throughout that time, her line has been the same:  her life is vital and worth protecting; yours is mundane and can wait your turn.   When she was mayor of San Francisco, she revoked all civilian carry permits – but got her's converted to a “police” permit.
Her “training” was no more involved that what all of us carry permit holders get.
You find this level of hypocrisy throughout the gun control movement; the lists of prominent gun-grabbers who’ve gotten themselves carry permits, or wangled permits for their bodyguards, or who’ve been busted with illegal guns, is legendary among 2nd Amendment Rights activists…
In the vein of "never let a crisis go to waste" Jerrold Nadler (NY) states
A veteran Democratic lawmaker believes the nation will go along with stronger gun control laws if President Obama “exploits” the Newtown, Conn., tragedy and nudges Congress to action.

Harry Reid has also had concealed carry when he felt threatened, as he states in videos uploaded in 2010 to his website.  In contrast to most Democrats, he has been supported by the NRA and supported the NRA 2nd Amendment issues in the past.
Reid: “When I was Chairman of the Nevada Gaming Commission, I had a lot of bad people after me and I carried a gun every place I went”
But Senate Leader Reid may be "evolving" in his stance.
In the past, Reid has touted the rights of gun owners and eagerly sought the NRA's endorsements, contributions and praise. In 2004, Reid was one of the rare Democrats to be endorsed by the NRA. In 2009 he sought to please the powerful lobby by supporting a controversial bill to allow gun owners with concealed weapon permits to cross state lines. 
.... After this latest tragedy at Sandy Hook that left 20 children dead, Reid took a timid step forward, saying it was time to “engage in a meaningful conversation and thoughtful debate about how to change laws and culture that allow violence to grow." Hinting at a softening of his position, he said that as we discuss how best to protect our nation’s children, “every idea should be on the table.”
But for the gun control advocates in his office on Tuesday, Reid’s faint-hearted call for reform was not nearly enough. With alarm clocks in hand, they said the time for discussion was long past; they wanted action. They said it was time for Senator Reid to stand up to the NRA and to use his leadership to protect our children, not the gun manufacturers.
When the question of personal security arises, they choose to make the rational decision for themselves to take the one step that has real meaning in their self defense.  They arm themselves, or get armed security, as do so many bleating Hollywood voices (here here ) of the the gun withholding movement.  But when the political posturing and power brokering begins, then everyone else's rights are abridged and told to go without.

Next: What do statistics about guns and conceal carry say.

This post is contributed by a community member. The views expressed in this blog are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of Patch Media Corporation. Everyone is welcome to submit a post to Patch. If you'd like to post a blog, go here to get started.

Liberaltarian January 02, 2013 at 03:15 AM
Did you see the story about the landlord who shot and killed two tenants for not parking their cars in the right spots after it snowed? A guy like that was much more of a danger to himself and the community because he had a gun, than he would have been without one. Dallas, in your opinion, is it possible for the "right to arms" people to strongly maintain that position and yet still discourage gun ownership as for purposes of personal protection? Or do gun owners intuitively believe they are safer because they own a gun? We've dramatically reduced cigarette smoking by repeatedly pointing out the dangers of smoking for the smoker and for those breathing in the second-hand smoke. I think it's clear that gun owners and their families and neighbors are much more likely to be shot or to shoot an innocent person than people who don't have guns in their house or the houses around them. I'd like that fact acknowleged. Then the conversation can move towards protecting the right to bear arms while simultaneously reducing gun ownership. Am I being completely unrealistic with this approach?
Stafford Christensen January 02, 2013 at 07:30 PM
Public disarmament is a historically bad idea; one that just creates a monopoly against the public. Instead of a responsible public owning guns for hunting, self-defense, etc.; only the government and the criminals will own them. That's a very dangerous monopoly; of course, it is something that some explicitly desire. Criminals certainly want a reduction in public ownership of guns (no one to shoot back) and the government wants it to better control the lives of the public. Isn't it interesting when the motives of both criminals and politicians overlap? The line from the anti-gun sounds inconsistent but it really is not inconsistent at all; it fits perfectly into their desired outcome. While powerful people want everyone else to be disarmed, they wouldn't dare give up their guns or gun-toting body guards. Why? NY Representative Jerrold Nadler says that the “state ought to have a monopoly on legitimate violence” (http://tinyurl.com/bcgdzja). Ah yes, the government, already unfortunately deciding what kind of violence against the public is "legitimate" in the first place, should have all of the guns! What could go wrong? If guns are to be outlawed or limited in any way, the army, police, secret service, etc. have to give up their guns too. Monopolies are bad, after all - and who honestly believes that they are safer because the army or police own guns?
yomammy January 03, 2013 at 01:28 PM
What utopia do you live in? Do you suppose there is a little more to the landlord parking story....hmmmm Reducing gun ownership? Ever heard of give an inch? The criminals will NEVER give them up--EVER. Most already have felonies and are forbiddden from even possesing one--think they give a S#%T? They will just get another slap on the wrist and back on the street.
Liberaltarian January 04, 2013 at 02:19 AM
You'll admit, I'm sure, that the public shouldn't have bomber drones, armed tanks, or nuclear warheads. And I think you'll admit that, since the time when the weapons available to military began to make the weapons available to the public essentially useless, that there are no cases in which an armed public has defended itself against a criminal government. The only time the public has been able to counter a tyrannical government is when they have had access to weapons that no American would ever want to be made legal. So, we're left with admitting that the only way to stop a modern government is for a group people with access to government weapons to use them against itself. The number of private people owning handguns or rifles is irrelevant. Now we can talk about guns as a self-defense against other private citizens who have guns. The fact is that, unless you're a criminal, that gun is much more likely to kill or hurt someone who's innocent than to protect someone from being killed or hurt. Kids get at the guns and accidentally shoot someone. An old man loses his temper and shoots someone. The depressed student shoots himself. The psychotic loner takes his mom's guns and shoots up an elementary school. Over over-zealous neighborhood watch guy shoots a kid in a hoodie. Etc. Etc. These stories are much more common than "Thank God I had my pistol handy or I would've been dead." That's not utopia. Them's the facts.
Dallas Pierson January 04, 2013 at 04:03 AM
Really, crazy is your supporting case? Any individual case is simply that, practically meaningless at proving any point. Pak probably did not get a legal permit anyway. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2254992/Horror-landlord-74-shoots-dead-tenants-dispute-parking-cars-driveway--just-minutes-police-left-home.html The landlord killed them 3 minutes after the police left. Neighbors called Pak a 'horrible landlord' who never kept tenants for more than a year. Previous tenants complained about Pak peeking in their windows. http://www.rutlandherald.com/article/20130103/THISJUSTIN/130109968 Since they had at least a three minute warning, had they been armed it might have turned out differently as well. We will have to wait for the facts, but this possibly could be an SSRI case (more on possible link with SSRI medications and violence/mass shootings later). This what leads me to think its possible: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/12/31/james-pak-due-in-court_n_2387911.html Pak had alcohol on his breath and told police he was suicidal and wanted to die, the affidavit reads. And numbers are more indicating that someone will swing a murderous hammer at you than a rifle. And what household doesn't have a hammer or two? Do you plan on demanding laws to keep hammers out of homeowners hands? FBI: More People Killed with Hammers, Clubs Each Year Than Rifles http://nation.foxnews.com/gun-rights/2013/01/03/fbi-more-people-killed-hammers-clubs-each-year-rifles
Dallas Pierson January 04, 2013 at 04:40 AM
We now have an unfortunate experiment, to answer your question, initiated by the idiotic actions of the media (who just started using armed guards). I am sure someone will track future crime in the area where the names and addresses of conceal carry were published. As for your other point that you frequently bring up that "your safer without a gun". Implying perhaps, which I believe you said earlier (not in this discussion), they are an increased risk to be used against the owner etc. The best analysis of the study that purports that is here http://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/2011/09/foghorn/guest-post-a-critique-of-study-claims-guns-in-the-home-offer-more-risk-than-benefit/ In 2007 there were 613 accidental gun deaths, and again it’s part of a steady downward trend. For comparison, there were 29,846 accidental deaths by poisoning in 2007 according to the CDC. It’s true, guns do not clearly deter crimes from being committed when viewed in the aggregate... There have been studies claiming otherwise both ways, but they have consistently only studied relatively short periods of time and relatively small sample sizes compared to a 50-year span for every state in the nation. That Dr. Hemenway chose just this single study, for a single city, going over just a 4-month period instead of the course of years, instead of aggregating available data across the nation, says loud and clear that citation #12 was cherry picked to suit his conclusions.
Liberaltarian January 04, 2013 at 05:47 AM
Again, I don't want any gun control law changes. I only want it acknowledged that owning a gun is a far greater safety risk than a protection. You're correct that I don't have any good scientific studies to back this up - but I know it's true (I also know that sounds pretty arrogant, but I'm certain that it is true). In addition to the accidental gun deaths, I'm also adding in the crimes of passion that wouldn't have resulted in death, the suicides that wouldn't have been attempted or successful if a gun wasn't readily available, and the cases where the gun used to kill was borrowed or easily "stolen" from a friend or family member. Crazy old-man Pak put himself in danger of committing a murder when he obtained that gun. Other gunless men like him might have thrown rocks at the cars or run after the tenants with a baseball bat. My point is that he thought he was protecting himself, but he put himself at risk.
Dallas Pierson January 04, 2013 at 09:06 AM
Are you sure you read your remarks before you submit? "Pak thought he was protecting himself, but he put himself at risk." Clearly thoughts of protecting himself were not relevant or at issue at all. No thought of threat on Pak's mind, other than his threatening statement "I'm going to kill you"! Reading any of the articles I cited, it is clear he was under no threat, real or imagined. He make no such mention. The police had just left, without arresting him, because the ultimate victims had apparently asserted to the police they did not feel threatened. I cannot acknowledge your assertions, because they make no sense. Either logically or pragmatically. "Knowing" something is true with no rational data to support the case is simply not an option for certainty, in this discussion. This line of discussion has strayed far from the topic of the article. Anti-gun politicians are inconsistent in their arguments and hypocritical at best. My next article, as promised, will cover the "statistical" studies. Which will also not support your assertions.
Liberaltarian January 04, 2013 at 03:31 PM
I meant that, at the time Pak obtained his gun, he probably thought of it as a way to protect himself and his property. Turns out that having that gun handy resulted in him committing two murders. His personal well-being was more threatened by having a gun because now he's going to be in jail probably for the rest of his life. Although I don't have statistical studies, I do have rational data - my observations. People can own a gun for many reasons. I'm fine with that. But if you think that having a gun is going to make you safer, I think you're mistaken. I don't know anyone personally that's used their gun to successfully ward off a criminal. I do know one young person who killed himself with the family shotgun and another who shot himself in the foot with his parents' pistol. That's not a scientific study, but I'm guessing the same type of thing is true for the people you know.
Ed Hughes January 04, 2013 at 06:32 PM
I, for one, have no desire to "reduce gun ownership". I think we should move toward educating and arming EVERY adult citizen. In other words, INCREASE gun ownership.
Ed Hughes January 04, 2013 at 06:43 PM
Why would anyopne acknowledge that owning a gun is a greater safety risk. Do you propose to disarm police because they would be safer without a gun? That's beyond stupid. You don't have any studies because none have ever shown this to be true. It sounds to me like you're truly delusional and have an irrational fixation on the gun. In the UK where guns are virtually banned the homicide rate didn't change, just the method. There are now a lot of murders commited with "bladed" weapons and even fists and feet. The overal violent crime rate there is nearly five times that of the US. As for suicides, people will find a way if they really want to kill themselves. Japan is a perfect example. They also ban guns yet have a very, very high suicide rate. I do agree with one thing, YOU should not have a gun.
Liberaltarian January 04, 2013 at 10:24 PM
Ed, Tell me an example of when your having a gun protected you. I want to hear these stories because I think they're very rare. Trained law enforcement people are safer with guns than without. However, the only police officer I know of that didn't carry a gun was Andy Griffith - and he was always safe. Barney Fife, on the other hand, carried a gun and nearly accidentally shot someone with it several times. So maybe I'm wrong about that. Seriously though, I'm talking about regular Joe's that go down to Fleet Farm and buy themselves a gun to protect their family from danger. Those people are bringing more danger into their houses when they bring that gun home than they are preventing. I am not delusional, I'm illusional and I'm fixated on developing my argument that regular people shouldn't own guns. I'm not talking about gun control. I think lives would be saved if people simply understood the danger of having a gun in their house. I think that responsible gun owners readily acknowledge this.
Ed Hughes January 05, 2013 at 03:15 AM
Visit http://keepandbeararms.com/ and you will be able to read dozens of incidents every single day where legally armed citizens have defended themselves. I've been fortunate in that I have never needed my weapon but then I've never needed the fire extinguisher that I have in my car either. Better to have it and not need it than need it and not have it. There is no inherent danger in having a gun in the house. I've never lived in a house without them and I've never experience a single problem. As for "trained law enforcement". You don't know what you're talking about. I know LE quite well. Some are gun enthusiats but most aren't. Most go to the range twice a year to qualify and otherwise don't train. When I shot at competitions I would almost always outscore most of the LE participants because I am better trained and more importantly I practiced at least twice a week. Most gun owners ARE trained and all of us with concealed carry permits are trained. You are free to not own or carry a gun but you have no right to tell others that they MUST be defensless at all times. Study your history. Guns did not always exist. the times prior to the invention of firearms was anything but non-violent. In fact those days were far more violent than anything you see in America today, even in the worst neighborhoods of the worst cities (which by the way all have very strict gun control and are run by Democrats. Chicago, Detroit, D.C. to name a few)


More »
Got a question? Something on your mind? Talk to your community, directly.
Note Article
Just a short thought to get the word out quickly about anything in your neighborhood.
Share something with your neighbors.What's on your mind?What's on your mind?Make an announcement, speak your mind, or sell somethingPost something