Jan 4, 2016

I Answer Daily Show Questions About Guns. Episode: America Responds To Another Mass Shooting

Background: Gun Debate - Gun Free Zones: I Smash Larry Wilmore & The Left On Inconsistent Gun Debate Logic (While Explaining What's Going On)

Trevor Noah comments on American gun culture and Jordan Klepper gets a gun. Please read all the way to the end.

AMERICA RESPONDS TO ANOTHER MASS SHOOTINGDECEMBER 10, 2015 - MICHAEL STRAHAN - In the wake of the mass shooting in San Bernardino, CA, Northeastern University announces a plan to arm campus police with semiautomatic rifles. (3:43)

First I'll answer a couple of questions and then go more in depth.


It occurs to some people that if people are going to go around shooting people then maybe they should have guns to protect themselves?

Why arn't people buying bullet proof vests? Why don't they have bullet proof desks and shields in every public area especially if its marked with a 'no guns allowed sign'? Good question. Clearly defense and offence go together. People should be buying bullet proof vests etc.

That has been the fear of the right since the 1960s. When you see the analysis of the countries that don't have guns (below) you'll understand why some people won't want to get rid of their guns to a point where ANY move on banning ANY type of gun is seen as a threat. No empire has ever had an armed population. Martial arts was even invented when society went through one of it's regular upheavals of tyrants taking over and banning arms to people under his thumb. Since America now has more bases around the world than any country ever... we look more and more like an empire. This could be part of the reason for the 'taking away guns' hysteria, i.e. a small group of people have too much power.

Well, it wasn't the practice room that attacked. It was a person that practiced there. Maybe you are getting scared of the wrong thing? If someone dies on a bright sunny morning, do you then avoid sunny morning by staying indoors?

OK. Lets take a look at the countries with no guns and what makes em so special;

Before going into perspectives from the "right" I would like to point out that every study has a limitation which has to do with the criteria that is used. Before beginning in this image I would like to point out what's NOT in this study.

1. It's not mentioned if they have an active terrorist media organization riling up the population while only admitting to it when it suits thier needs.
2. A policeforce (FBI/CIA etc) so stupid that the GOP, who used taxpayer resources for personal gain by invading a country on false pretenses for oil, are allowed to run in a public election. Not only that, we have a ton of proof showing the media is involved in the coverup of the Iraq War. If that isn't enough to reopen the 9/11 case I submit this page of links (and this one) as proof of a ton of terrorist like behavior the GOP & Fox News has been involved in for a while. How long are we going to let these guys go cause they are rich and can buy the corporate media? Traitors running for Government in a first world country! Unbelievable!

OK. I covered some information which would be useful to determine the health of a society in the above two points. Now I can begin to go into the image of the countries without guns.

Japan: Conquered by the United States by dropping two atomic bombs and destroying two whole cities. As part of the Japanese surrender they were not allowed to have guns. I thought I would start with Japan cause that is the worst example any reasonable person could ever use. To compare to societies on one criteria within such a limited time period should be a crime of stupidity.

Australia: Australia was a prison continent. Obviously you don't want to encourage guns in a population of criminals. (where the sentiment probably originates from)

United Kingdom: It was an empire of Kings whose rule was absolute and whom being rude to could mean a death sentence. Obviously they wouldn't want their populations to have arms they could carry against thier rulers (who were often violent, egotistical and warlike. Current "Constitutional Monarchy" is clearly derived from the idea of a "Constitution" from the United States with it's concepts of equality etc. strange huh?)

I could look up the other two little countries on Google but then I would be ignoring the fact that the daily show didn't point out two countries where guns DO work successfully... 

2 examples;

The country had one mass shooting in 2001, but a resulting anti-gun referendum failed to pass. The Swiss will not give up the gun. Can their system work in the U.S.?

BBC:  is violent crime so rare in Iceland?

Iceland is awash in guns, yet it has one of the lowest violent crime rates in the world. US law student Andrew Clark asks why.

So instead I could say...

"Daily Show is doing biased reporting on guns based on bad research or purposely avoiding facts to fit in with the liberal knee jerk mode of thought."

But I will just say that I got two countries awash with guns for daily shows two countries that don't have guns. All five debunked.

JORDAN KLEPPER: GOOD GUY WITH A GUN PT. 1DECEMBER 10, 2015 - MICHAEL STRAHAN - Jordan Klepper sets out to determine the likelihood of another gun owner stopping an active shooter. (5:02)

You'll notice that the training for a basic conceal carry gun permit is very short. While all the rules of gun safety ARE taught to the person taking the course there hasn't been enough repetition in multiple scenarios to make the person CAPABLE with a gun. When you buy a car you keep practicing driving till the rules of driving become natural for you to follow. When you buy a gun there is no training necessary (you don't need to train if you are going hunting, people you go hunting with tend to do that) but to carry a concealed weapon you learn just the rules and don't even have the habit of keeping the finger off the trigger till ready to shoot yet (basic rule). This means a person, if ever faced with a stressful situation will simply not have the necessary training to be a useful asset on the scene.

The following video is a clip from a movie (World War Z) where a doctor with no experience is given a gun and taken into a stressful situation. He is told not to put his finger on the gun but under stress he forgets, trips and shoots himself in the head by mistake (safety wasn't on and finger was ON the trigger);


JORDAN KLEPPER: GOOD GUY WITH A GUN PT. 2DECEMBER 10, 2015 - MICHAEL STRAHAN - Jordan Klepper finds out that a good guy with a gun doesn't always stop a bad guy with a gun. (6:14)

A study is mentioned here that very few shootings/shooters were stopped by people with guns. In fact, it was found that 1 in 5 shootings are stopped by a potential victim who was unarmed. Then there are some jokes suggesting this is a lie (as he's trying to be sarcastic to gun owners). It's kinda stupid. All we have here is a study saying that most people are unarmed and even though unarmed are sometimes able to stop a shooter. It's not saying one needs to be unarmed to stop a shooter. It's a liberal schizophrenia to imagine that lack of guns is the safest way to deal with a shooter (it's a conservative schizophrenia to imagine they have the better lot of politicians than the left). So they put up signs telling people not to bring guns with no security guards to enforce the rule and then are surprised that we have studies of people dying cause they are unarmed and even when they stop shooters they tend to unarmed. If the signs instead said to get armed and get many months of training then you think a study would have the same result in 10 years?

The cop DID say there are some cases where 'good guys with guns' stopped the shooter. That is amazing in and of itself to have people with guns in a shooting situation when most places have signs up telling law abiding citizens not to carry guns. I guess the shooter just didn't think it through. The important part here is that a person WITH a gun WAS able to stop a shooter. 1 case is enough to prove the logic works.

Next is the issue of the loaded statement which the GOP says every-time there is a mass shooting (or shooting of any kind) and you have depressed, grief stricken and upset people around after a shooting, i.e. 'only a good guy with a gun can stop a bad guy with a gun'. The part they leave out (intentionally?) is that training and some experience is VERY important to be useful with a gun in a situation with a mad shooter. If there are multiple security guards around a place, all armed and looking out for shooters, then even if a couple get shot another one will show up ready to shoot the mass murderer. Not having a security guard while discouraging the presence of guns with scary signs, leaving us with large numbers of unarmed people walking around in places with signs saying you can't have a gun... is the height of stupidity. It's also why we have so few cases of capable gun men and many areas when a mad gun man can walk around and shoot people in relative safety.

Finally, there is mental illness. Frankly, I'm surprised that after decades of war - while we are destabilizing other countries and helping dictatorships rule while we crush the American people with an unfair tax burden to help the rich Oligarchs we have set up - American society is as stable as it is. Not to mention the mass psychological experiments big pharma and politicians (by helping big pharma) are carrying out on the American people. If you break down society and seek war for immoral reasons and are surprised when society gets violent you are very stupid and need to stop talking on TV. Of course, part of the media's mission is clearly to destabilize society (by lying and helping liars that own them get good ratings) and they are doing a good job of it.

By the way, the destabilization of American society started in full force under Reagan:

This is the full length 90 min. version of Bill Moyer's 1987 scathing critique of the criminal subterfuge carried out by the Executive Branch of the United States Government to carry out operations which are clearly contrary to the wishes and values of the American people...

Secret Government - The Constitution In Crisis (FULL) 

The ability to exercise this power with impunity is facilitated by the National Security Act of 1947. The thrust of the exposé is the Iran-Contra arms and drug-running operations which flooded the streets of our nation with crack cocaine. The significance of the documentary is probably greater today in 2007 than it was when it was made. We now have a situation in which these same forces have committed the most egregious terrorist attack on US soil and have declared a fraudulent so-called "War on Terror". The ruling regime in the US who have conducted the invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq, are now banging the war drum against Iran.


Did Reagan's policies destroy the middle class? That one is an easy yes...

How Reaganomics Destroyed The Middle Class...And Maybe America 

Notice in the following images how badly everyone but the rich have been doing since Reagan's polices. It's amazing that Republicans, being mostly poor & middle class folk, have been voting against their interests and for the interests of a very few rich people for the past 40 years. A population voting against their own interests for such a long time surely can't be a healthy phenomenon?

The National Debt went up under: Reagan 186%, Bush W. 77%... (what the following statistic show is that only the rich benefited from Reagan's policies)
When you break a society down there is a corresponding increase in violence as well and the ridiculous number of mass shooting today are related to this attack on American Society by Republican policies coupled with thier terrorist like rhetoric which encourages more violence. 


This argument often comes out to which there is a Constitutional counter no matter how much people don't like it. It goes something like this:

To follow the spirit of the Constitution (I think) we need easily available missiles too. The type that can take down helicopters, planes and ships AND are handheld. In this particular scenario, easily available means that all State militias should have a stock pile of say approximately 400 handheld devices with about 50 missiles for each handheld device. This way a bunch of States COULD bunch up together against a tyrannical government, such as one that would kill 1.2 million foreigners and 4000+ US Citizens to make money off of oil. I could go on but the debate isn't even acknowledging basic facts yet so there's no point. We DO have a serious problem and I think a "return" to the Constitution is the way to solve them.

No comments:

Post a Comment