And it isn’t. No matter what the State might choose to call it, two guys (and two gals, but for the sake of brevity I shall say only the former and expect you to include the latter) who want to have sex and who exchange paperwork samples at a bureaucrat’s office aren’t married.
Marriage, I unfortunately have to remind you, is the lifetime union (or matrimony) between a man and woman, a state orientated towards procreation. That is the religious view, yes, but also the natural law definition. It must make detractors choke to acknowledge it, but it’s also the scientific designation.
Never mind that, because I’m talking here to those who already know this. For those who refuse to acknowledge these truths, well, you’re welcome to stay, but I’m not interested in a debate over fundamentals today. (See here for that).
Now states have a long history of passing laws calling what is not so “true” and requiring its citizens to play along or else. It’s the “or elses” that I want to talk about.
Good place to start is Ross Douthat’s unconditional surrender. His reasoning in parts is somewhere south of coherent,1 but his predictions are good.
First, the dissolving of religious freedom. Religious bakers will have to bake cakes for the men who want to have sex with men or they will pay fines, face legal harassment, even lose their businesses. “So what,” say the Tolerant, “Serves them right for being bigots.” That the Tolerant are being bigoted themselves is never noticed. Religion, as soon-to-be defined by the “elite” (cue Anthony Kennedy), will be worship in church and not part of a man’s “public identity.” (The Obama administration trotted this out to scattered applause during its contraception “mandate.”)
Second, the closing of charitable religious organizations such as orphanages because they refuse to place children in homes which don’t contain married couples (don’t forget ersatz unions don’t count as marriage). “So what,” say the Tolerant, “Serves those kids right for being near bigots.”
Third, schools and colleges which maintain truth will be sued, especially if they accept any form of state lucre. Those that do will be forced to adopt “sex codes,” affirming man-on-man sex is swell and to be encouraged. This is already happening, incidentally.
Fourth, loss of tax exempt status for religious groups who refuse to participate in state man-on-man ceremonies. The viciously circular argument will be, “Those that refuse aren’t serving the public” (logical fallacies are the last concern of the lust brigade, which is why they shout “bigot!” which also assumes what it wants to prove).
What should those who oppose the state do?
Call real marriage what it is, real marriage, and call the government mandate what it is, (say) “government unions.” This small step will cause fury in the Tolerant. You will lose business (Yours Truly has, and this article won’t help him), but stick to it. You cannot let the enemy control language. This move will also prove that the “other side” does not want mere “marriage equality”, which might have been a reasonable civil compromise, but that they will settle for nothing less than full-throated celebration of their desires and the destruction of all who disagree. This is called “tolerance”.
Do not talk to the media, but use them. Never, never, never grant an interview which you do not control.
Have your church, temple, or mosque (especially mosque) head to a bakery run by men who want to have sex with men and ask them to bake cupcakes for your organization’s party with messages like “Homosexual behavior is sinful”, “Gay sex is disgusting”, “True marriage is one man one woman”, “We love you, but you’re wrong”? I do not kid. Doesn’t have to be a bakery, any business which “serves the public” will do. T-shirts, anything in the fashion industry.
The loss of orphanages will be hard, but make it known to your local community that your organization can find homes for kids, then figure out how to do this. We should not be looking to the government but to ourselves. Strengthen families, not bureaucracies.
Homes school your kids or send them to a faithful parochial school. Get them out of the government’s hands and back into yours. This will be the best money you ever spend.
Accept the loss of tax-exempt status gracefully. It was always a matter of time, anyway. Be more creative about how funds flow into and out of your group so that not everything has to count as income.
Update Be interesting to see what the intelligentsia makes of this case, which pits a woman who wants to have sex with other woman and Muslim barbers (who care nothing about the woman’s proclivities but fret about her biological sex). Screeching at Christians is one thing, but at Muslims? Well, the left’s bravery only goes so far. My bet is with Islam.
Update In the wake of Arizona’s SB 1062, “Jim Crow” is the new “Hitler”. The only thing you can trust the media to do is to get it wrong.
Update Not everybody in the lust brigade is unreasonable in the sense of asking for more state control (which the state is always happy to provide). See this at Reason.com.
Update Long past the point of parody, folks. Judge dismisses witness in Mich. gay marriage trial.
The state had planned on having its first witness — Sherif Girgis — on the stand for up to two hours. Prior to getting dismissed, Girgis spent about 20 minutes on the stand listing his credentials, most of which included lecturing and writing academic papers on the philosophical debate surrounding the definition of marriage. He also has written a book, “What is Marriage, Man & Woman in Defense.”
But [Judge] Friedman dismissed the witness following arguments from the plaintiffs’ side, who noted that Girgis is not a lawyer, child development expert, psychologist or expert in Michigan law. He has no experience in the issues that matter in this case, the plaintiffs argued.
Friedman agreed.
Update From Sheri. “[Male] Gay hair stylist drops [female] New Mexico governor as client because she opposes same-sex marriage”. The media applauds.
——————————————————–
1Douthat says, “Christians had plenty of opportunities—thousands of years’ worth—to treat gay people with real charity, and far too often chose intolerance….So being marginalized, being sued, losing tax-exempt status—this will be uncomfortable, but we should keep perspective and remember our sins, and nobody should call it persecution.” Nothing in this paragraph is sensible. Even if sexual “orientation” were a real thing and not just a recent invention, and even if Christians 1,000 years ago chose “intolerance”, what is that to today? Those Christians are dead and the men who wanted to have sex with men are dead. It’s now that counts. Besides, the argument assumes what it sets out to prove, that we should be tolerant of man-on-man sexual behavior even to include “marriage”. And persecution is persecution. Sheesh.
Q: What do you call it when two guys head to City Hall and undergo a ceremony meant to tie their finances together until one of them tires of the other?
A: Mirage.
Matt,
Fantastic first steps in planning how to take back our culture.
This requires organization and follow-through.
Let’s hope that soon we’ll see Briggs Brigades throughout the country demanding man-on-man-sex businesses provide Normal-Americans services.
Keep up the good work!
Relevant quote (attributed to Lincln) ==
“If you call the tail a leg, how many legs does a dog have? Four! Calling a tail a leg does not make it one.”
The arc of the universe is bending towards justice. Bearing witness to this event should not offend you so much, Matt.
A fine example of Scientism.
Oh very well, Mike. Tell us just how the “arc of the universe is bending towards justice.”
Well said, Matt. The Bigots for Tolerance have done us a favor by discarding their masks. They’re forgetting the all-important rule of warfare which dictates that you always leave a clear path of retreat for a routed foe. If, however, as our opponents are doing, you corner the enemy and leave him no other option, he’ll turn on you with redoubled ferocity.
It’s clear that the consequences of resistance are the same as the consequences of cooperation–only faster. And if we fight, we just might win.
https://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/gay-hair-stylist-drops-new-mexico-governor-client-opposes-same-sex-marriage-article-1.1027072
Sheri,
The bigot!
When homosexuals were victims of coercion, intolerance, and intimidation, I was sympathetic to their cause. When they became perpetrators of coercion, intolerance, and intimidation, my sympathy switched sides.
You again show a misunderstanding of what human rights really are.
Human rights are really the right of each individual. There are no absolute in rights either. For example, the right to freedom of everyone is limited by the right to freedom of the other individuals.
In the case of the bakery, who’s right are violated, the baker or the gay costumer?
Answer the gay customer.
The religious freedom of the baker is not violated since it is of no concern to him what his cake will use for. He doesn’t have to be present at the wedding. He doesn’t have to witness anything of the wedding. He doesn’t have to do anything differently than with any other wedding.
The example presented by Sheri:
If the governor wanted to sue the hairdresser she would undoubtedly win. Although would you want your hair cut by such a person.
The example of the barber in Toronto who refused to cut the hair of a woman because he was a muslim:
The freedom and liberty court will side with the barber since it implies direct action from the individual in doing something against his belief, i.e. he has to touch the hair of a woman who is not part of his family, which is contrary to his belief. If there were non-muslim employee in the shop, then the company could be found guilty.
The same goes with the photographer and caterer.
Sylvain,
“May I help you, sir?”
“Yeah, I want to buy a gun. Gimme that one.”
“Excellent choice, sir. We’re running a little survey here. Would you mind answering a question about your purchase?”
“Not at all. Shoot. Little gun humor there.”
“Very funny, sir. Never heard that one before. Anyway, the survey: what will you primarily do with the gun?”
“I’m going to kill my wife. Can’t stand her any more.”
“Another fine joke. But really…”
“No, really. I’m going to kill her. I hate that witch. I’m going to take this gun and shoot her between the eyes and I don’t give a damn what happens to me afterwards.”
“Then I’m not going to sell you the gun, buddy.”
“Are you trying to violate my rights? It’s no concern to you what I’m going to do with the gun. You morally have to sell it to me. It’s my right!”
“Well, sir. I guess you’re right. None of my business. (I do vote Democrat, you know.) Maybe I can interest you in these armor piercing shells? That way…”
Sylvain: You don’t happen to be related to or benefit from a lawyer, do you?
Also, did you just say “Although would you want your hair cut by such a person.”? Really–are you that dim that you can’t see that also applies to the cake or do you just not care because the cake is what you want? That is really, really dim.
Why are people so stupid they never understand the loss of rights will hit them also? I can force you to do what I want when I get power. I don’t like your attitude, I regulate your business out of existence. You have to pay 80% in taxes and sell what I say you’ll sell. I will own you. Then you’re out and you did it to yourself. Blindness and foolishness have severe consequences.
One gay to another: is that a gun in your pocket?
Briggs,
Do you really think that people that sells gun care that it will be used to kill someone. Although, last year Gabby Gifford husband was denied the purchase of a gun because he wanted to destroy it.
Sheri,
I have studied a bit of law. I know that I have a very good understanding of human rights because I rarely predict wrongly the outcome, and when I did, it was because by not separating the business from the individual, which I now take into account.
And yes I wouldn’t want a cake from someone that could make it very bad tasteful on purpose.
You realize that you never had so much freedom than you have at the moment. The right you claim to lose are the right to impose your views on others.
Taxes were often much higher in the middle ages, the roman empire, etc. The puritan society that landed in Massachusetts was much more strict and liberty free than the society is today.
It has been barely over 100 years that a woman is considered a person under the law. Before, they were the property of either their husband or dad.
You want a free market. A free market requires stringent rules to prevent anarchy. One of these rule is the ability to sue other people that have rendered improper services or wronged you.
Sylvain,
You evaded the argument, dear boy. Try again. It takes no imagination to change the scenario to a knife. Or how about a ordinary claw hammer which the would-be killer says he’ll use on the skulls of school children?
Never mind. I’ll save you the time. You can’t answer it, not if you hold to your original position, which is morally very frightening.
I have studied human behaviour. You really don’t want me to start with that, trust me.
Worth a read 😉
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/04/120406234458.htm
Hans,
I’m too scared to look.
Sylvain,
“Human rights are really the right of each individual. There are no absolute in rights either. For example, the right to freedom of everyone is limited by the right to freedom of the other individuals.”
Just where do you get the idea that it is OK to force people to sell a service or good to someone else?? Where is it written in your Holy Book that I MUST do business with who YOU or the Gubmint chooses I should do business?!?!
I may despise the color blue and tell you to leave my premises if you have a blue shirt or hat on. You do NOT have a natural or Moral RIGHT to enter my shop if I do not extend you access.
Briggs,
Like I said before it doesn’t matter to the seller what the item will be used for. Neither does the buyer have to say what use he will have for what he buy. If the seller learns what the item will be used for and that the item will be used to commit a crime, the seller might want to call the police.
Refusing the sell will only give the opportunity to the criminal to buy the knife, hammer or gun somewhere else. And again you are talking about criminal activity.
Preacher and lawyer have a vow of secrecy and cannot tell the confidence their parishioner or client tell them no matter how evil or bad they are.
Kuhnkat,
The civil right act trump your holy book. Not everyone has to abide to your holy book but everyone in the US has to abide by the Civil right act.
Sylvain,
You don’t believe the words that are coming out of your fingers. It is immoral for you to participate in the murderer’s crime by selling him, loaning him, or freely giving him the method for his black act. That you won’t acknowledge this is bad news, brother.
If you read what I said, you will notice that I will call the police so he can be arrested before he leaves the store.
Also, why then are there people that sells gun like the AR-15 (or at least gun that don’t have hunting as their primary purposes) when the first use for such a gun is to kill or hurt people.
Sylvain,
Listen: it is immoral to participate. And you believe this, too; or ought to. Good grief, what a silly thing to say. Call the police forsooth!
There was a similar case here locally where a baker — actually a supermarket bakery department — refused to decorate a birthday cake with the child’s name.
The child’s name was Adolph Hitler Campbell. The father went to court and lost.
Later, he lost custody of his childen, including Aryan Nations Campell. He complained that the Jews (those bigots!) had come to his home and took away his kids.
Sylvain: Try learning about weapons and not spouting propaganda. AR-15s are great for hunting. And target practice. Just because the media says AR-15’s are evil does not make it so. The only guns that don’t have hunting/target practice as primary uses are automatic weapons, which are regulated beyond belief and rarely if ever used in crimes if legally owned. Trust, gang bangers don’t have paperwork on their guns.
A couple (man-man, woman-woman, man-woman, woman-man) can live together and commit sex together without approval from the government or any person. The only commitment they have to each other is negotiated between them but absent a written contract, it is not enforceable.
The same couple can enter into a state sanctioned thing called “marriage” which bestows on them certain rights and obligations and changes their tax status among other things. Many (most? all?) religions have rules (laws?) about marriage but since the church and state are separate in the US of A, the church’s rules (laws?) have no direct bearing on civil marriage. A church’s rules about marriage are enforceable though coercion, not through legal means.
What interest does the state have in this thing called “marriage?” Why is the state involved at all? Why can’t this couple simply enter into a written contract that by mutual agreement gives them the same rights and obligations that civil state sanctioned “marriage” would give them? Or whatever other set of rights and obligation they agree to?
In summary, the state has no business in the marriage business. Churches (religions) can say what they want about marriage but they rightly have no civil authority over it. Marriage, if anything, should be a legal agreement between two people who, at their option, may recognize religious rules and teachings about it.
Briggs,
One of the thingies learned while in law school was that the laws have nothing to do with morality, equality or even justice. It is all about the law; its words and its interpretation.
In matter of rights everything has to do with the individual. A baker cannot claim that he participate in a guay wedding simply because he baked a cake, just like a gun shop owner could not be old responsible for legally selling a firearm.
The law consider justly that you cannot discriminate against people for many reason including sexe, religion, political affiliation and sexual orientation.
And again for the baker it is not immoral to make and sell a cake. What the cake will be used for is of no consequences to him.
But the hair dresser can discriminate against a heterosexual woman whom he does not like the politics of?
Sheri,
As I said if she sued him she would win.
What interest does the state have in this thing called “marriage?†Why is the state involved at all?
Plato put it this way:
Athenian Stranger. What will be our first law? Will not the the order of nature, begin by making regulations for states about births?
Cleinias. He will.
Ath. In all states the birth of children goes back to the connection of marriage?
Cle. Very true.
Ath. And, according to the true order, the laws relating to marriage should be those which are first determined in every state?
Cle. Quite so.
— The Laws, Book IV
The State has a compelling interest in marriage because the coupling of man and woman leads by nature to the increase of the State and, unless all children are to be thrown on the public purse, they are to be raised by the procreating couple themselves. That way there is orderly inheritance of property and a domestication of otherwise rambunctious young men. Further, we observe that in animal species in which the male shares in raising the young the parents generally mate for life, and where they do not mate for life, the father generally abandons the mother to her own devices.
Similarly, we find in the Code of Khamurapi the only laws dealing with marriage are those disposing of inheritance, debts or crimes incurred jointly or severally, the provision for children. The law covering divorce specifies childlessness as the grounds.
In both cases, marriage is something that happens outside the purview of the state, since it is simply the coupling of a man and woman. No state permission is required. In Western Europe, that did not begin until the mid-1800s, about the same time when the State seized control of education.
“Bake your own damn cake”. Classic Briggs. Sometimes the truth is that simple.
Say… what would happen if a young, Bible-quoting, cross-wearing couple walked into a bakery owned and operated by homosexuals requesting a cake bearing the inscription “Marriage: Still just one man, one woman”? By law, what must the gay baker do?
Also, AR-15 are illegal in Canada and people are still able to hunt. We also have a 1 month mandatory waiting period and thorough background check to avoid impulsive criminal buy. Still we have about the same percentage of gun owner than the USA
Curio,
He could not refused to make the cake but he could refuse to make the inscription as shown in the example by YOS earlier.
Oh, yeah, Sylvain, I forgot. Sue the bad guy.
The fact that AR15’s are illegal in Canada and people can still hunt says nothing about what AR15’s are good for. The US has a background check but not that long a waiting period. If you have a concealed weapons permit, there is no wait. Actually, most people who impulsively buy for committing a criminal act go to the guy in the back alley selling illegal guns. Otherwise, they’s be pretty stupid–though thankfully some are. Makes catching them much easier.
Only 40% of weapon sold go through background check.
When something is important to you, you sue it is a right that people have.
“You want a free market. A free market requires stringent rules to prevent anarchy. One of these rule is the ability to sue other people that have rendered improper services or wronged you.”
In order to sue there person must be wronged – not offended. Refusing to make a cakes isn’t doing someone wrong. There are plenty of other cake makers who would be happy to have the business.
Stringent rules are required in a free market??? The Austrians wouldn’t agree. Markets left on their own are inherently more moral than governments. I can stop buying from someone I find to be immoral. I should be able to choose to refrain from selling someone a cake if I find their actions to be immoral. If I do so, someone else will come along and take up the demand for the cake I refused and all three parties will be happy. In the case where Leviathon interferes, one of the two parties is forced to do something and that ensures at least one unhappy party in the transaction. Probably both parties, though, because I can’t imagine anyone forced to make a cake is gonna give it their best effort.
Sylvain:
two points on US law
1) if the governor sues in Mew Mexico (which she has to) instead of California, she will lose. Public Accommodation law does not require any vendor to serve all comers, it merely establishes “protected classes” makes it illegal to discriminate against a member of a protected class based on their membership in that class. Having offensive political opinions (outside of California) does not make one a member of a protected class. California is a special case and the governor might be able to win a suit under California law but also might not because California’s Public Accommodation Law (the Unruh Act) has been ruled to both include and exclude holders of political opinion as a protected class.
2) If you sell a gun (or a hammer or a rutabaga) to someone who you know is going to use that gun (or hammer or rutabaga) to commit a crime, you have committed the crime of being an accessory. If you call the police on them you are unlikely to be charged, but that doesn’t change the fact that you have committed a crime. Regardless of the ethics involved, the law considers selling something which you know will be used in a crime to be crime itself. As for a lawsuit, establishing that a seller sold a gun/hammer/rutabaga to someone who they knew or had reason to know intended to use that gun in the commission of a crime all that is necessary for the seller to be liable.
I guess I failed to understand we have law enforcement by suing here in the US. Seems like a cumbersome system–every single legal disagreement goes through court. We already reportedly have more lawyers than any other country and you are advising we add more to settle all disputes that should be obvious?
The 40% number is a talking point (translation: a number based on a very old statistic, a statistic that applies to another group, or no statistics at all). Yes, it’s all over your liberal media friends articles, but they just love to make up numbers. I doubt anyone actually has any number that is accurate. All sales through a dealer are verified. Private sales are not. You read this blog–there is no way to accurately measure private sales. You are guessing and so are your media pals.
Sylvain Allard wrote, “Only 40% of weapon sold go through background check.”
The dubious statistic of guns that avoided background checks — which is actually 36 percent — comes from a small 251-person survey on gun sales two decades ago, very early in the Clinton administration. Most of the survey covered sales before the Brady Act instituted mandatory federal background checks in early 1994.
http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/337958/gun-sales-and-background-checks-obamas-bogus-40-percent-stat-john-fund
At William Briggs dot com, we check facts.
Just in case Sylvain decides to commit the genetic fallacy, there are multiple other sites that fact-check that back up the assertion made by Speed. Not just the one quoted.
In this country we have the thirteenth amendment and the federal courts have routinely held that it prohibits forced labor. You can’t force somebody to bake you a cake or fine them if they don’t.
Sheri, Speed,
It is not worth arguing much about the 40% verified or unverified. The number of gun sells that don’t go through any background check is staggering.
The guy that assaulted the navy complex a few month ago, could have bought a AR-15 a few hours before he started shooting if he had simply been a resident of Virginia or was it West Virginia. Of course, he could have bought one from criminal but somehow all shooting are done with gun legally purchased.
By simply going to a gun show one can easily buy a gun without any background checks
Paul,
This is exactly why the anti-gay loses every time when they get to court. They misunderstand what they can and cannot do. Back in the 1950s it was legal to discriminate in the US. Since the Civil Rights Act, this is not possible anymore.
And no someone would not put their best effort in something they don’t want to do.
The idea that a market need stringent rule to work comes from Adam Smith we of course many read only what they want to hear. It is also in big part from him that comes the obligation to sell to anyone who has money to buy, as long as the sell is legal. Where Smith didn’t want any rule was in international trading, like special tariffs.
Sylvain: Please explain in detail how you know the “number is staggering”. Provide actual research numbers and how they were obtained. Otherwise, it’s nothing but meaningless statement designed to make us think you have evidence when you do not. Again, statistics on “all crimes committed by legally purchased guns”. That would include gang killings, drug deals run amok (I’m really sure drug dealers buy legal guns–well, except they have automatic weapons quite often). Maybe school shootings often involve guns either legally purchased or owned by others, but school shootings are a tiny portion of actual crimes out there. Your argument also would indicate there is not really any way to prevent school/mall shootings because the individuals have no criminal records and no reason to be seen as suspect. Unless you can become a mind reader, this won’t stop. Also, every place hit was a gun-free zone. Not a coincidence.
As for gun shows, yes, you can buy from individuals, but not from dealer, without a background check. Just like you can from news paper ads, etc. Considering over 16 million background checks were done for gun sales in 2012, the number of guns purchase from individuals at gun shows would have to number in the millions (multimillions) to actually make any difference. There are no statistics on this, so it’s a wild guess. Make up a number you like–and call it made up. I’m not stupid enough to think that if we closed this “loophole” that the criminal would not still get a gun. Criminals don’t care about laws.
You admit the guy in the navy could have gotten the gun illegally. Would that have made people any less dead? He committed murder. Buying the gun legally was irrelevant. How would it have been better if it was illegal? Everyone is still dead. The crime would still have been committed. So how does that make any difference, except in someone’s fantasy world?
Sheri,
There are millions of guns sold in the USA each year. According to speed number, 36% of those gun are legally sold without any background check.
Well 36% is 360,000 guns for each 1,000,000 gun sold. If this is not staggering then what is.
There are law against stealing, yet a lot of people do steal, should laws against stealing be cancelled? Yes, it is possible to buy gun illegally but I would not even know where to go to buy such a gun in my area. Criminal don’t easily trust people they don’t know and you are mistaken if you think that any Joe’s can go in a city and easily buy a gun on the street. If it was that easy the guy that has attacked the navy yard would have bought such a gun, yet he didn’t. But he did use the gun from the armed security guard to kill other people.
There are no way to know which individual might commit a shooting in a crowd. And the argument that only a good guy with a gun can stop such an individual, fell apart when a woman was able to talked down such a guy without having a weapon.
Sylvain: Again with the made-up statistics. You and no one else knows how many guns are sold without a background check, since the ONLY way to do this is through an individual. The only way to find out is call thousands of people at random and ask if they bought a gun without a background check. I’m sure that’s going to be accurate.
How would you know how easy it is to buy a gun? You have clearly stated that Canada does not have the gun ownership the US does. You have no basis for this claim whatsoever, except in your ONE case in Canada.
Why did the guy buy a legal gun? Who knows? I personally would not venture a guess, since I’m not psychic.
Okay, now you are making up arguments that don’t exist. The argument that ONLY a good guy with a gun can stop a shooting is obviously false. It’s not that only a good guy with a gun can stop a shooting, it’s that a good guy with a gun who is properly trained may shorten or stop the length and number of shootings. It’s that an properly trained, armed person has a much higher probability of stopping the shooting. If talking was all it took, there would be no mass shootings. You’re building a straw man here.
There’s no way to know the guy next to you isn’t carrying a kitchen knife, off his meds and mad as hell. He can kill you just as easily as the guy with the gun. How about the housewife with screaming kids in the car, just fought with her husband and decides to drive into a school yard at 80 mph? The world is dangerous. Get over it.
Sylvain concedes by writing, “It is not worth arguing much about the 40% verified or unverified.” He then writes another whopper: “The number of gun sells that don’t go through any background check is staggering.”
Compounding his errors, Sylvain further wrote, “The guy that assaulted the navy complex a few month ago, could have bought a AR-15 a few hours before he started shooting if he had simply been a resident of Virginia or was it West Virginia.”
“Virginia law does not prohibit the sale of assault rifles to out-of-state citizens who have proper identification,†Dan Peterson, a Virginia firearms attorney, told me Tuesday night. The required identification is proof of residency in another state and of U.S. citizenship, which can be items like a passport, birth certificate or voter identification card.
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/sep/17/miller-new-york-times-gets-it-wrong-about-navy-yar/
But wait, there’s more. Sylvain again, “By simply going to a gun show one can easily buy a gun without any background checks.”
Sylvain has ignored a fact in the article I pointed him to earlier …
Current federal law requires anyone who is “engaged in the business†of selling guns to get a license and have any sales go through law-enforcement background checks — whether those sales occur in a shop or in a gun show. If a gun is sold over the Internet, a background check is mandatory.
http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/337958/gun-sales-and-background-checks-obamas-bogus-40-percent-stat-john-fund
Now we find Sylvain picking cherries of the most egregious sort, “According to speed number, 36% of those gun are legally sold without any background check.” Reading the rest of the quoted article (which I pointed out to Sylvain) reveals the following:
If you look at guns that were bought, traded, borrowed, rented, issued as a requirement of the job, or won through raffles, 85 percent went through Federal Firearm Licensees and would have been subject to a background check. Only 15 percent would have been transferred without a background check.
Economist John Lott, the author of several landmark studies on the real-world impact of gun control, has concluded that if you take out transfers of guns either between FFLs [dealers] or between family members, the remaining number of transfers falls to about 10 percent. Those were the numbers from two decades ago. “We don’t know the precise number today, but it is hard to believe that it is above single digits,†he told me.
http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/337958/gun-sales-and-background-checks-obamas-bogus-40-percent-stat-john-fund
And now the straw man: “And the argument that only a good guy with a gun can stop such an individual, fell apart when a woman was able to talked down such a guy without having a weapon.”
First, nobody here said “only” and I’ve not seen a reasonable person make that argument elsewhere. Second, the Navy Yard shooter was shot and killed by “a good guy with a gun.”
On the third floor Alexis was fatally shot in the head at 9:25 a.m. by Dorian DeSantis, a DC Police Emergency Response Team officer who was also shot in his vest by Alexis during the exchange of gunfire. Alexis’ death was confirmed at 11:50 a.m
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Washington_Navy_Yard_shooting
It’s often difficult to tell if someone is ignorant or dishonest. In this case the odds favor dishonest.
Sheri,
1) this is the argument used by the NRA, Wayne Lapierre:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/9762200/NRA-The-only-thing-that-stops-a-bad-guy-with-a-gun-is-a-good-guy-with-a-gun.html
2) I used speed’s stats.
Would you know where you could buy a gun on the street in your area? Do you know people who do sell those gun?
3) in the case of the navy yard the guy shot one or more armed guy and then used their weapon(s) on civilians.
Sylvain wrote, “I used speed’s stats.”
No you didn’t. See my post just above yours — the one time stamped 31 minutes before yours. This supports my belief that you are not ignorant; you are dishonest.
Sylvain wrote, “in the case of the navy yard the guy shot one or more armed guy and then used their weapon(s) on civilians.”
That is false.
8:28 a.m.
Alexis arrives in the first-floor lobby. He kills a security guard and takes the guard’s handgun, a 9mm semiautomatic Beretta. FBI Director James Comey said security video shows that Alexis appears to runs [sic] out of shells, drops the shotgun and begins firing with the handgun.
8:57 a.m.
Alexis returns to the third floor and continues shooting. The timeframe is unclear, but at some point, a man in an alley outside is hit by a stray bullet and Officer Scott Williams is wounded on the third floor. NCIS officers carry Williams down the stairs to safety.
9:25 a.m.
After multiple encounters with law enforcement officers, Alexis is fatally shot in the head in a third-floor office.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/special/local/navy-yard-shooting/scene-at-building-197/
Sylvain wrote, “this is the argument used by the NRA, Wayne Lapierre:” followed by a link to one sentence from a press conference.
The only thing that stops a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun
Ignoring the balance of the speech …
How have our nation’s priorities gotten so far out of order? Think about it. We care more about our money, so we protect our banks with armed guards. American airports, office buildings, power plants, courthouses — even sports stadiums — are all protected by armed security.
We care about the President, so we protect him with armed Secret Service agents.
…Yet when it comes to the most beloved, innocent and vulnerable members of the American family — our children — we as a society leave them utterly helpless, and the monsters and predators of this world know it and exploit it. That must change now!
…They’re our kids. They’re our responsibility. And it’s not just our duty to protect them — it’s our right to protect them.
What if, when Adam Lanza started shooting his way into Sandy Hook Elementary, he had been confronted by qualified, armed security?
Will you at least admit the possibility that 26 innocent lives might have been spared? Is that so abhorrent to you that you would rather continue to risk the alternative?
http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2012/12/21/The-NRA-Speaks-The-Only-Thing-That-Stops-A-Bad-Guy-With-A-Gun-Is-A-Good-Guy-With-A-Gun
Or maybe we could designate a negotiator for each school whose job it is to talk a crazy person with a gun out of using it. I’d like to hear what the teacher’s union’s views are on that idea.
Speed you are contradicting yourself. You are the who mentioned the 36% and your quote mentions that he shot with the hand gun from the security guard for almost a full hour. Even a guy was shot in an alley
Sylvain: Okay, LaPierre said this about SCHOOL shootings, not gun violence in general. Yes, in ONE case a woman talked a shooter down, or in one case I could find. If only you held politicians and leftists to the same standards.
Actually, Wyoming is working on legislation to allow teachers to carry guns while at school. There’s one school in Colorado and I imagine others across America.
Let’s see who we can find willing to confront an armed gunman who is shooting up a school–those who tried it in the past have not always faired well. Some ended up dead because they just got in the way of the gunman. Police, with a hostage rescue team, often cannot talk down an armed gunman. What makes you think a “negotiator” appointed by the school can do better? Would you care to volunteer? We could get you a visa, I’m sure. How about it?
I remember you have no kids, so I can’t ask if you want your kid in the room with the designated negotiator, but how about your mother or sister or brother. You have a hostage situation with multiple hostages that can deteriorate rapidly and you want to try discussing the situation and see if the angry man with the gun can be talked down. I assure you, I would not send a child to such a school.
Sylvain feigns ignorance writing, “Speed you are contradicting yourself. You are the who mentioned the 36% … ”
Sylvain, you are willfully ignoring the rest of the quote which says, ” … the remaining number of transfers [without a background check] falls to about 10 percent. Those were the numbers from two decades ago. ‘We don’t know the precise number today, but it is hard to believe that it is above single digits,’ he told me.”
Sylvain also wrote, ” … he shot with the hand gun from the security guard for almost a full hour. Even a guy was shot in an alley”
Your point?
Speed,
From what I read background check are easily circumvented. But even with your 10% that leaves 100,000 gun sold without background check for every millions sold. With more than 100,000,000 gun sold in the last decade that mean over 10,000,000 gun acquired without any check ( 1 in 30 american).
The point is that hour he shot at civilian with the gun provided by the good guy who was supposed to stop him
Sheri,
Maybe I wasn’t clear but I was always talking about mass-shooting.
To arm the teacher is the most ridiculous thing I ever heard. 1) In simulation good guy always find a way to shoot at each others. 2) What happens when the depressed teacher start using his gun on his\her student or that the gun get taken by a student? Do you start arming the kids?
For sure I would not want to have a child in school where there are weapons. The police are the only one equipped and trained to deal with gunman. Sadly in the US cops are seen as the government bullies, and the government is seen as the enemy.
Sylvain: No, school shootings are a subset of mass shooting. Not sure where you got the utter nonsense of good guys shooting at each other unless you’re watching propaganda movies again. Cops are the worst shooters in many cases (they have there own range in my town–the casual shooters got tired of the cops shooting up the target stands and structural timber on the public one). The argument about a depressed teacher: again, idiotic. If she/he is depressed, they just bring a gun to school and start shooting. You know, you seem to think that all mentally ill people just start killing people. That’s really a severe prejudice you have…..
I would rather have my child in school with an armed teacher than a cop (see #1). Cops can’t hit the broad side of a barn much of the time (except on TV shows). You also have some of the stupiest (sorry, it’s the only word that fits) ideas about how the US works. People here see the cops as incompetent, yes. But as bullies, no.
Note: You asked if I knew where to buy a gun. I live in Wyoming. Virtually everyone here has guns (that’s with an “s”). Between my house and town (10 miles) I could probably find at least half a dozen guns to buy. If you want me to purchase illegally, that would take longer.
Wyoming’s homicide rate is 2.4 per 100,000, putting us 39th of the 50 states. The last school killiing here was done with a crossbow. There was a school that bombers tried unsuccessfully to blow up (they blew themselves up and injured some kids) and one shooting with 4 children wounded (shooter committed suicide). This is it–in the past 50 or 60 years. Where’s all the crazy people with guns? Why would I be afraid? In Washington DC, where the gun laws are among the strictest in the nation, the murder rate is 14 per 100,000. Probably should be afraid there.
Oh, and as long as we’re discussing statistics here, technically the latest “shooting” with a crossbow was not an actual school shooting. It was a shooting that occured at a school. The person targeted and the shooter were in a classroom at the time. But there was no shooting of students on the way in, and all the students were allowed to leave the classroom. This was a family violence incident that took place in a classroom. Which leaves us with one failed bombing and one actual gun incident in over half a century.
All,
I guess this bar owner is a bigot.
http://sanfrancisco.cbslocal.com/2014/03/04/san-francisco-soma-bar-bans-patrons-from-wearing-google-glass/
Sue him!
Sylvain wrote, “Sadly in the US cops are seen as the government bullies, and the government is seen as the enemy.”
On that we agree.
http://reason.com/search?q=brickbat
All,
On the freedom of religion’s transformation to “right to worship”:
http://www.crisismagazine.com/2014/obamas-right-to-worship-ushers-in-new-state-religion
“Not sure where you got the utter nonsense of good guys shooting at each other unless you’re watching propaganda movies again.”
Again you don’t know much about history. Good guy shooting on each other is called blue on blue fire. It happens largely because of the fog of war (battle).
It is easy to see who the bad guy is when only on person and the cops are armed. If you arm 10 teacher in a school the bad guy becomes everyone with a gun. The simple stress and the advantage of shooting first is enough to see people start shooting at each other.
Suppose that 10-20 people had been armed in the Aurora cinema theater. How would have they been able to know which one was a good or bad guy. Was the shooter alone or were they a team. The situation is so chaotic that it takes hours to understand what happened.
“The argument about a depressed teacher: again, idiotic. If she/he is depressed, they just bring a gun to school and start shooting. You know, you seem to think that all mentally ill people just start killing people. That’s really a severe prejudice you have…..”
Mass shooting is a very rare incidence. But access to a gun is crucial to such thing happening. And when the gun is readily available it makes that incident even more probable. Gun are bought when the person is sane. Yet what will be the state of mind of that person in 5-10 years. Women that lives in home where there are guns are more likely to be killed than women who live in gun free home.
http://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2014/02/having-a-gun-in-the-house-doesnt-make-a-woman-safer/284022/
How do you jump to war? As for a chaotic situation, police shoot the wrong people too. Want to disarm them while you’re at it? Maybe you can talk down the armed bad guys for them. They could send you in instead of an armed cop that might make a mistake.
In a theater shooting, if you can’t see the armed villain, YOU DON’T SHOOT. It’s really that simple. If you do, you can end up in jail for negligent homicide.
I believe I made it clear that if a gun is not accessible, a crossbow or bomb will substitute. In fact, guns are just the easy pick. There are dozens of efficient ways of taking people out. You are so incredibly paranoid. Just so you sleep well at night, Canada does not appear to regulate shotguns and that is what the Navy yard shooter used. So it can happen in Canada too.
Your last statistic is another liberal misrepresentation. You really should study the statistics on this blog and read outside of the Huffington Post (or The Atlantic). When you’re not hiding from the terrifying world outside. (I’m not going to play dueling links here–it serves no purpose except the show just how bogus many statistics are. Until you actually learn how statistics work and how it’s so easy to lie with them, it’s a waste of my time to post links.)
Oh–I see you completely ignored the fact that Wyoming has 55% or more of the population owning at least one gun, usually more, and a very low homicide rate. Do you just ignore points that don’t fit with your world view?
Sheri,
The crime rate doesn’t effect the fact that women that lives in a home with gun are more likely to get murdered.
The homicide rate in Quebec is about 1.3/100,000
There is no fact that women who live in a home with a gun are more likely to get murdered. There are poorly done studies and bad statistical analysis. Check them out in more detail.
The homicide rates in Manitoba, NW Territories and Nunavut are?
If the homicide rate in Quebec is 1.3/100,000 and the homicide rate in Washington DC is 14/100,000 and both have very strict gun laws, that would seem to lend credence to the idea that gun laws have little to do with homicide rates. In Wyoming, with 2.4 and virtually unrestricted own ownership and carry, the rate is not quite twice that of Quebec. Just seems that gun carry and ownership are that highly correlated to crime.
You realize that this kind of study is not that hard to do and that the methodology is simple:
1)A woman is murdered.
2) is she dead in her home or killed by someone living with her?
Answer yes or no
3) If yes, was there a gun in her home?
Answer yes or no
You do that with each woman murdered.
Than you take the number of women for which you answered yes at question 3 and divide it by the total number of yes answer in question 2. If the answer is greater than 50% then a women is more at risk in a home than have guns, if less than 50% than they are safer.
The murder rate doesn’t matter
Washington, D.C. May have strict gun laws except this is not a closed city and they cannot control if someone buy a gun somewhere else and bring it in.
In Quebec, we are somewhat protected by the fact that we have a border tossing with the US which make the import of arms more difficult. And also laws are similar throughout Canada.
The entire population of your state is less than our 2-3 largest cities and is over 90% white(about the same as us). So you have very little ethnic tension and you have no large cities that concentrate crime.
And still you have a murder rate double ours.
Sylvan: Sure, it’s easy to do. Too bad that’s not how most of the time it’s done. Plus, you left out where every woman murdered in a gun without a home has to be counted and the percent of women killed in their homes not using must also be reported. Then you have to decide if the presence of the gun figgered into the cause of the death. If it was merely the instrument, then the statistic does not in any way address causality. One could just as well say a woman living with drug dealer has a higher chance of being killed in her home. It’s just as easy to count and the statistics are probably pretty high on that one. Or may women who live with violent men are more often killed in their homes. Wow! That count keep a statistican employed for months, maybe even years.
Clever, now jump to “other causes” when the gun control issue does not work. I like–you just admitted many other factors are involved. In Quebec, you can still get a shotgun, just like the Navy yard shooter did. Not really a closed system. Plus, it’s really hard to get people who own guns illegally to say they own a gun, so the number of illegally owned firearms is always an unknown.
You didn’t answer the question about the homicide rate in the three areas I mentioned.
Maybe you can dig up some other excuses for these areas. If we are on “excuses” for Wyoming, try too many meth labs and dealers and too much alcoholism (which is not treated because people don’t want it treated, NOT because treatment is not available). It really doesn’t matter. You just proved my point. There are many factors in the homicide rate and guns are only one factor. I still find it amazing however, that you don’t understand the significance of gun ownership of over 55% (probably closer to 75 or 80%) resulting in only twice the homicide rate of your province, which is one of the lowest in Canada (back to those other provinces). If your logic were correct, the rate should be far, far higher.
In another “fun with dueling statistics”, Wikipedia says the homicide rate for Wyoming was 1.4 per 100,000 and .9 per 100,000 were committed with a firearm in 2010. So if we use Wiki, we’re pretty on the same level here. Any way you look at it, increasing the number of guns does not automatically increase homicide rates or endanger people’s lives. It may, as in the case of Wyoming, have little effect. Or as in the case of Washington DC, laws against guns have do not seem to have any effect on decreasing homicides.