Quote of the day—Jonathan Hutson

Through simple, common-sense solutions, supported by nearly all US Americans, including the vast majority of gun owners, the Brady Campaign plans to realize the audacious but achievable goal of cutting gun deaths in half in the United States by 2025.

Jonathan Hutson
Chief communications officer for the Brady Campaign and Center to Prevent Gun Violence
June 30, 2015
Is Strict Gun Control the Best Way to Prevent Shootings?
Another Massacre Begs What Can Be Done

[It’s fascinating to read his entire answer to the question. He writes entirely about how great and wonderful background checks are. But not once does he say they would have prevented the Charleston massacre. Not once does he even hint at any evidence that “simple, common-sense solutions” will cut “gun deaths” by any amount let alone half in the next 10 year.

His entire response is an exercise in avoiding the question asked. There are two possibilities here:

  1. He knows gun control, of any type, will not prevent the shootings that make headlines and he is deliberately avoiding the question.
  2. He has mental problems similar to Peterson Syndrome. He literally sees and hears something very different from what others write and say. He brain is malfunctioning and he is incapable of rational thought.

In either case Hutson is making it clear to everyone that he and his organization are either malicious or have crap for brains and are to be ignored in the political debate.

Because of the evidence supplied by Brady Campaign board member Joan Peterson, for which Peterson Syndrome is named, and the actions of their lawyers, I’m inclined to believe crap for brains is a requirement for everyone aligned with them.—Joe]


38 thoughts on “Quote of the day—Jonathan Hutson

  1. Possibilities 1 & 2, though distinguishable from one another as different symptoms, are two sides of the same coin. I assert that they become inseparable in the chronic liar.

    I repeat that one must be able to recognize the truth so as to oppose it.

    And yes; they have ways of finding and recognizing each other. I first noticed the existence of the general technique as a teenager. A new co worker wanted to know if I would smoke pot with him, but a prudent person does not directly and openly ask a stranger if he would like to conspire in breaking federal laws. His solution was, “Do you smoke…at all?”

    The “at all” was the question, covered by plausible deniability. It was a very low risk bet. If I’m “one of him” I’ll know what it means and respond by upping the ante. Christians of yore had the fish symbol and others. How, during all the centuries in which their very lives would be in danger if they weren’t careful, did homosexuals find each other. I once introduced two lesbians to each other for the first time, neither knowing anything about the other. First, they may already have some of the trust cues about their appearance, some more subtle than others. So I hear the opening salvo, “Hello. Great party…so much diversity!…” Ding-ding-ding-ding-ding! I had never thought how it was done, but there was a simple example. It’s really quite easy.

    Sorry; I don’t mean to compare homosexuals with anti constitutionalists.

    When it comes to enemies of liberty, the Obama/Biden, or Kerry/Edwards bumper sticker is a pretty obvious trust cue. There are myriad others.

  2. On the Peterson Syndrome, did you see her recent blog post where she referenced a scientific study and made a claim that nowhere appears in the paper:


    It’s one thing to lie, but that seemed wayyy to blatant. Instead I think she read a paper that showed that the EXACT same number of people are dying by gunshot (shuffled around a bit between homicide and suicide) while auto deaths are going down, and read it as “Gun deaths are increasing!”

    But your guess is as good as mine.

    • Joan also must be aware (at least sub-consciously) that very few people on her side will click through to her sources. To her supporters, what she says is gospel and needs no fact-checking. Nobody’s going to call her out on it except for us, and she can block us.

      (Not that they deal in facts much, anyway, but that’s beside the point.)

      In their world, we are the skeptics. We are the “deniers”. We are “anti-science” if we dare to refute a glorified survey with cherry-picked data published as a “study” by an agenda-driven political activist with a “Ph.D.” after his/her name.

      They do issue advocacy and call it “science”. We do science and they dismiss it as issue advocacy. As David Codrea says, in “Progressive” land, every day is Opposite Day.

      • Well, strictly speaking, science is issue advocacy, the “issue” being reality as best we can understand it. The point being that Progressive have a point when they accuse us of being issue-driven.

        My wife, for example, has come to hate it when I point out flaws in other people’s reasoning, or correct her here and there. It’s unfair, you see, that I should be right more often than her. It’s an injustice.

        People who are wrong, then, deserve an equal say in things. “Everyone has a right to their own opinions”. That’s social justice. It’s only a beginning of course, because once they’ve been established as having credibility and status, (a “Voice” or a “Seat at the Table”) they’ll take it all, start silencing their opposition and eventually kill and destroying en masse.

        • People who are wrong and the weight of their opinions: As I often say, “A thousand uninformed opinions count as one.”

          As for Lyle’s wife wanting a sort of social-justice adjustment of the score of who is right in domestic arguments; my Sister-in-Law has a similar attitude; HER reality should apply because she’s the female in the marriage. Not that the credit card companies care.

          And the cherry-picking of data ranges from, “I asked my friends here in NYC and NOBODY I know voted for this man”, to the famous Literary Digest telephone survey of 1936 that predicted a victory for Alf Landon over Roosevelt with a survey error of 19%.

  3. I know that I shouldn’t allow pablum spewing, asexual, Progressive parasites to get my blood pressure up, but reading the serial non truths that they propagate is maddening.

    There is no doubt that when the news of a tragedy that somehow invokes guns comes up, these folks say, “Oh No!” And then do a dance and high fives as they have another pile of bodies to stand on and make their case for a disarmed, neutered citizenry.

  4. Even if it was possible, I don’t think that reducing the number of gun deaths is necessarily a good thing. What we need to do is shift the demographics so that fewer crime victims are killed during robberies, etc., and move those deaths over into the perpetrator column. One of the best common-sense solutions to that is to make sure that more good citizens are armed and trained.

    • Your solution will reduce the number of “gun deaths”, anyway. It will take longer, but eventually fewer will choose a criminal lifestyle knowing that they’re risking their life with every “job”.

      If the antis were honest about their desire to reduce violent crime and “gun death”, they’d support your solution. But we already know where they stand on this.

      • Progressives see the planet as over-populated, and the human in race in general as a stain on the planet. That’s all you really need to know about gun control, power-lust and all the rest notwithstanding.

        Thousands of black kids killing each other in a few inner cities; no problem. A young wife and mother legally shooting an attacker to save herself and her family; problem. That’s a “gun death”.

        Christians refusing to bake cakes or make flower arrangements for events that go against their beliefs; problem.
        Genocide in the Middle East against Christians, homosexuals and moderate Muslims; no problem.

        America fighting communists in Southeast Asia; problem. That’s war and war is bad. Communists going in and murdering millions of people after Americans pull out; no problem. That’s “peace” and “peace” is good.
        Examples abound.

      • Here’s a gun law I could stand behind and will make liberals heads explode.

        Anyone who uses a firearm in the commission of a violent crime (i.e. rape, robbery or murder) would get an automatic death sentence if convicted, which is carried out one year from the conviction date regardless of the status of appeals.

        If they truly hated gun deaths this would be appropriate, but as we all know they are all about supporting criminals.

  5. The surest way to cut “gun deaths” in half is to cut gun ownership down to less than a third of what it is now so that suicidal people use things other than their guns to kill themselves. Yeah, I guess the “vast majority” of gun owners didn’t what those guns they bought and would support such a “common sense solution”.

  6. friends:

    i suspect that the american people have pretty much “accomplished” what they have accomplished entirely without the contribution of the “brady bunch” in the slightest.

    something the elitists will never figure out in ten million years.

    john jay
    one of “the people.”

  7. Since “gun deaths” would include suicide, I think the easiest solution wouldn’t even involve gun control.

    How difficult would it be to replace fluoride in drinking water with antidepressants?

    • You really don’t think much, Ubu.

      #1 why would you feed prescription medications to people who haven’t been prescribed them by a physician?

      #2. Do you know how many people who commit suicide are already on prescription antidepressants?

      #3.have you read the warning labels for most antidepressants? Hint, one side effects is increased risk of suicide.

      Hey but your opinions on guns, and politics, and even summer fashion must be totally valid, all that thinking that comes so naturally to you.

      • Hey, opinions are always valid. Mine are valid, yours are valid, everybody has a valid opinion. That’s why they are called “opinions” and not “facts.”

        • And because you not only avoid using facts, but seem to have some unnatural aversion to them, your opinions are abject garbage.

          So nope, you’re wrong.

    • The response to antidepressants is highly individual. They affect different people in different ways. The wrong drug or the wrong dose can cause more trouble than leaving the person untreated. Treating a mass population with these things would probably cause more, rather than less, suicide.

      I think Huxley’s Brave New World was the distopia that posited a drug called Soma that had the effects you propose. It does not exist and the resulting world was not a place I would want to live.

      • What Fast Richard said. Speak to people who have actually been prescribed antidepressants. It’s not uncommon to try one, under a doctor’s supervision, only to find that it doesn’t work and/or has unfortunate side effects… and thus have to wean off it and try something else. Wash, rinse, repeat, until (if?) you find something that works.

        Then, several years later, you find that your body has adapted, the drug that used to work for you no longer does, and you need to start the tiresome process all over again.

        There is no antidepressant that will produce a positive effect on everyone… and medicating an entire population with psychoactive drugs is a spectacularly bad idea.

        Happy Fourth,

        • I have taken antidepressants. One made me feel so unbelievably happy, nothing could go wrong, ever. Another made me feel totally scatterbrained, like I couldn’t concentrate on anything, even driving. So, yeah. I understand that people have a different response to them.

          So maybe antidepressants aren’t the best. Maybe pot would be better? Or beer? Maybe mass hypnosis?

    • ubu,
      do you know that most, if not all, of the mass shooters here in the US during the past 20 years were found to be taking, or recently stopped taking some form of those drugs you speak so highly of?

      As Fast Richard and Daniel mention, those drugs can be very troublesome to those using them. As a class, they are noted as having the highest rate of unwanted side effects. To the tune of over 40% of those trying a specific drug. Since it may take an individual several attempts to find a working drug application, the number approaches 100%, IIRC. Oh, BTW, some of those side effects are known to cause permanent problems or damage.

      As has been pointed out, unsupported opinions are not worth much. Please make some attempt to learn about a subject before spouting off.

      • Oh please. My last job was with working with pharmaceutical companies and their documentation. I know a lot more than you’d think.

        • Odd that’s what my last job was as well.

          One of us is lying….or maybe you were just answering the phones or sweeping floors.

          • Guess again. I was in management.

            Since I know I’m not lying, you must be.

    • ubu, you really need to lay off the koolaid.
      Most antidepressants are fluoride compounds. Why do you think the put that shit in the water? It’s to dumb people down and make them more passive, compliant serfs.
      And don’t give me that shit about its good for your teeth. To much fluoride causes fluoridosis, which is bad for your teeth. While there is some evidence that occasional TOPICAL fluoride treatments MIGHT reduce cavities, DRINKING the stuff provides no benefit at all. Fluoride is a potent neurotoxin and has NO medicinal or nutritional value at all (unless you consider being chronically poisoned to be medically beneficial).

  8. I guess I’m not as obvious as I think I am.

    I believe the Brady bunch is FOS and what they want isn’t possible. Is that better? They’ve veered into hyperbole and their statements above aren’t rational. There is no possible way to reduce “gun deaths” 50% in ten years through legislation. Sorry.

    • Actually there was a means to reduce the murder rate over 50% in ten years. I understand that the FBI crime statistics demonstrate that rough effect all when unConstitutional gun control laws were being removed and concealed carry was booming.

      I understand we cannot ascribe causality, but isn’t it interesting that when gun control laws were being axed, we got the glorious drop in gun deaths (which is the polar opposite of the Brady Campaign view).

      • That would do absolutely nothing for suicide statistics, which make up the majority of “gun deaths.”

        • Interestingly put, Ubu. And correct, to the best of my knowledge; last I heard, about two-thirds of all shooting deaths in the United States were suicides.

          Therefore, if the Brady folks really mean what they say, they ought to put their entire operating budget into suicide prevention.

          But they won’t, will they? It never seemed to me that suicide prevention was high on their list of priorities. (According to our noble host, meaning what they say has never been high on their priority list either.)

          • Exactly. And “gun control” won’t help prevent suicides in any major way. When they start talking about preventing 50% of “gun deaths” and don’t mention suicide prevention, they lose me.

  9. This can be summed up in one sentence, “For every complex problem there is answer that is clear, simple and wrong.” H.L. Mencken.

Comments are closed.