Guns and fake arguments Friday, Dec 4 2015
Uncategorized gun control laws, monetary non-sovereignty, monetary sovereignty	Rodger Malcolm Mitchell 5:23 pm
•The single most important problem in economics is the Gap between rich and the rest.r.
============================================================================================================================================================================================================================================================
We believe what we want to believe.
When Mr. Trump says he will build an impossible wall and make Mexico pay for it, and deport 11 million people and "bring back the good ones," some people actually believe that nonsense.
They believe what they want to believe, no matter how illogical and unfounded.
And when the right wing disagrees with the vast majority of climate scientists, and claims that humans are not causing climate change, some people actually believe that nonsense.
Perhaps no subject is more filled with fake arguments than guns. Americans have more guns, per capita, than any nation on earth. We also have more gun-related mass killings. Many people believe there is no relationship between those two facts.
When the U.S. Supreme Court says the words, "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State . . ." do not refer to a militia, much less to a well-regulated militia, people actually believe that nonsense.
Which brings us to the latest bit of gun-related illogic:
How Background Checks and an 'Assault Weapon' Ban Failed in San Bernardino
Two of President Obama's favorite gun control solutions did not prevent this week's massacre.
Jacob Sullum|Dec. 4, 2015 8:45 am
The Washington Post reports that the four guns used in the San Bernardino massacre "were all purchased legally from federally licensed firearms dealers," which means the buyers passed background checks.
As usual, in other words, President Obama's knee-jerk response to mass shootings—"universal background checks"—makes no sense.
The fact that the rifles were legally purchased in California exposes the fatuousness of another gun policy that Obama favors: a federal ban on so-called assault weapons.
California has one of the country's strictest "assault weapon" bans, but somehow it did not forbid the sale of rifles that have been widely described in the press as "assault weapons."
Someone please tell Mr. Sullum that today, a licensed doctor gave a patient some pills that killed the patient, thereby "proving" that licensing of doctors "makes no sense."
And I understand that today, a 15-year-old boy purchased some cigarettes and alcohol, thereby "proving" that laws against selling cigarettes and alcohol to minors "make no sense."
And recently, in Chicago, a trained police officer killed an unarmed boy, by pumping 16 bullets into him, thereby "proving" that Chicago's police officer requirements — completion of the police academy courses, take the State of Illinois Certificate Examination and field evaluation and training — "make no sense."
Further, the fact that California law did not forbid the sale of the specific guns used by the terrorists is offered as "proof" that outlawing any types of guns doesn't work. So let's legalize machine guns and bazookas?
You will hear and read a great number of comments in the vein, "This [law] would not have stopped the terrorists, so we shouldn't do it."
Of course, it's all self-serving crap. No one law can completely stop every act it was designed to stop.
Laws against speeding cannot stop all speeding. Laws against murder cannot stop all murder.
But we have such laws because they can help reduce the incidence of negative acts.
And that is the real point. The fact that we can't entirely eliminate gun murders, is not a valid reason to do nothing. We should try to reduce the murder rate.
In the real world, it's rare that any important problem can completely be fixed by one big solution. Our lives depend on partial solutions, so step-by-step we reach our goals.
Don't be fooled by the gun manufacturers and their shills: The NRA et al.
Gun control laws can reduce the violence and the killing.
7. Increase the standard income tax deduction annually Click here
Vertical gray bars mark recessions. Recessions come after the blue line drops below zero and when deficit growth declines.
As the federal deficit growth lines drop, we approach recessions, each of which has been cured only when the growth lines rose.
Increasing federal deficit growth (aka "stimulus") is necessary for long-term economic growth.
10 Responses to Guns and fake arguments
Fraud says:
So its illogical that the folks murdered in California could have had a fighting chance had they had gund, but didnt because they are illegal in the state?
Your logic is either confused, stupid, or you are just a wealthy, narcisist, communist, socialist, manipulating, securities fraudster lying sack of shit.
Thank you for your typically intelligent comment. Absolutely perfect.
and you are a douche bag
Yet another brilliant gun-nut argument. How typical.
the douche bag comment was meant for Fraud
elizabethharris001 says:
"Gun control laws can reduce the violence and the killing." ~ RMM.
Perhaps, but I prefer the approach that Rodger took with his post "How to cut the crime rates in America."
>Institute the Ten Steps to Prosperity
>Stop claiming that financial aid to the poor makes the poor lazy
>Stop claiming that the federal government will run out of dollars, or that federal benefits and federal debt are "unsustainable."
>Stop claiming that federal benefit spending causes inflation.
> We can prevent crimes before they occur, simply by lifting the poor.
That is exactly my position too.
I don't think that gun control laws alone are much help, especially when some of the gun crimes seem to be perpetrated by the government itself.
Consider last Wednesday's incident in San Bernardino CA in which fourteen people were killed, plus twenty-three wounded. As usual with these events, the police were conducting a large-scale anti-terrorism exercise nearby when the shootings occurred. As usual, eyewitness testimony does not square with the official account. (More on this below.) As usual, there are many questions that no one asks. For example, local and federal authorities say that two alleged perpetrators did not own the rifles they used, nor had they purchased the rifles, but authorities are not saying who obtained the rifles for them, and the corporate media outlets are not asking. And why did the shooters use a rented vehicle with Utah plates, rather than their own vehicle?
The whole thing stinks. The two California suspects, Syed Rizwan Farook and Tashfeen Malik were quiet and courteous, but supposedly they shot people. Why? The government simply says "ISIS."
The two suspects had never made any threats to anyone. They did all the typical things, like wedding celebrations, baby showers, and attended religious meetings every week and so on. They were a young married couple just living their lives in sunny California. They supposedly "hid" all their weapons and bad intentions from family, co-workers and friends. Why? "ISIS."
Tashfeen Malik was a new mother, and (according to the official narrative) suddenly left her infant to go on a suicide mission. Why? "ISIS."
Rizwan Farook got a bachelor's degree in 2010 in environmental health from Cal State San Bernardino. His older brother, Syed Raheel joined the U.S. Navy immediately after high school, and was awarded two medals for service in the "Global War on Terrorism."
Why did Rizwan Farook (supposedly) shoot people? "ISIS."
The corporate media outlets claim that the couple left a party they had attended with people who had attended their wedding celebration and threw them a baby shower, went home, kissed their brand new baby one last time, got suited up with their hidden stash of weapons, and returned in a rented vehicle to kill a bunch of people and go out in a hail of bullets.
Why? "ISIS."
A well-adjusted newlywed couple with a new baby decided, out of the blue, to kill their long-time friends and co-workers because they were "radicalized" on the internet?
Right. Sure. "ISIS."
CBS News spoke to a witness who described the shooters as three tall men with athletic builds. And indeed, initial reports said three assailants attacked the center, and that a third individual was arrested after "fleeing" the scene. The next day, CBS purged the video from its web site, but it is still on YouTube.
Something stinks. We went from three tall men with athletic builds" to a married couple, which included a small woman. Why? "ISIS."
Naturally the husband and wife suspects were not autopsied for drugs or intoxicants. They don't have to be, since…"ISIS." Naturally there is no video proof that this man and woman did it.
There seems to be a pattern here. In Paris there were reports of three tall athletic men dressed in military tactical gear, shooting up the streets and killing scores of people before somehow getting away from the scene in a black rented vehicle (just like California). French officials then killed a couple in a nearby town house. Why did the couple (supposedly) do it? "ISIS."
Naturally the French police were conducting a large "anti-terrorism" drill when this event occurred.
I'm saying that a lot of these mass shootings don't add up.
You can say, "That's because insane people don't add up."
Right. Sure. As Rodger says, "We believe what we want to believe."
"ISIS."
"As usual with these events, the police were conducting a large-scale anti-terrorism exercise nearby when the shootings occurred."
As usual? There have been dozens of mass shootings in America recently. Has it been usual that there were large-scale anti-terrorism exercises nearby?
Motive?
What is the commonality among all the mass shootings this year?
By the way, you'll enjoy this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mXtBZPONSCc
"As usual? There have been dozens of mass shootings in America recently. Has it been usual that there were large-scale anti-terrorism exercises nearby?" ~ RMM
Maybe "as usual" was too strong a phrase, but there was a large anti-terrorism exercise nearby when the Sandy Hook incident occurred, and when 9-11 occurred. I'm saying that some of these events (SOME) suggest government involvement. I mean events that spur countless questions which corporate media outlets never answer, or even ask. I refer to events with oddities like parents being filmed laughing and joking almost immediately after their children were supposedly slaughtered at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Connecticut.
If there is government involvement in some of these events (I say IF), then the motive is to validate the "global war on terror," which means fewer civil liberties, and more war, more police militarization, and more pay raises for "the authorities" at all levels.
Sometimes there is not government involvement, but government exploitation. On 22 Oct 2014 a man allegedly used his car to run over two Canadian soldiers (killing one of them) at Parliament Hill in Ottawa Canada. Then the man allegedly shot at the parliament building, and was killed by police. The Canadian government used this as a pretext to pass a new series of "anti-terrorism" laws, and to start bombing Iraq.
France (and now England) used the Paris attacks of 15 Nov 2015 as a pretext to ignore public protests and start bombing Syria. Those Paris attacks involve numerous anomalies and unanswered questions that are all silenced by the word "ISIS."
Regarding the California event, the official narrative is so full of holes that it is insulting.
I'm saying that "the authorities" often lie, and we should never believe anything they say without doing our own checking, especially when they evoke bogeymen such as "ISIS."
All that aside, my overall point is to agree with Rodger's post titled "How to cut crime rates in America." Gun control laws are necessary, but they won't by themselves cut crime rates.
See humorous images regarding guns…
https://monetarysov.wordpress.com/2015/12/05/welcome-to-merika/
Though I have trouble with conspiracy theories, I agree with what I believe is your central thrust.
Check out the most recent post ("The real reason why guns are not well controlled")
I myself avoid using the term "conspiracy theory," since it is politically charged. Just as a "terrorist" is anyone I don't like, a "conspiracy theorist' is anyone whose interpretation doesn't match mine.
Meanwhile in society at large, a "conspiracy theory" is any explanation that is not backed by political power, since it differs from the official narrative issued by society's rulers. If rich people say something, then it is "true." If poor people say something, it is a "conspiracy theory."
MMT people tend to say (in essence), "The assertion that politicians lie in order to widen the Gap is a conspiracy theory."
Anyway I still think the California incident is fishy. I question whether it happened the way that "the authorities" claim it happened.