I chose background checks, not because it would have prevented (the Virginia shooting) but because this would be easiest to pass. We will not be able to prevent every single incident. We need to do something.

Patrick Hope
Democratic member of the Virginia state Assembly
September 4, 2015
Renewed calls for gun control laws spurring gun sales
[This guy is saying “we need to do something” in response to an incident even when everyone knows what is being suggested we do would not have made any difference whatsoever. What I want to know is how he determines “need”. Furthermore I want to know how he determines truth from falsity and right from wrong. As far as I’m concerned he just gave the world conclusive evidence he can’t be trusted driving a car, possessing matches, or even being a greeter at Wal-Mart.

There are two options here.

One option is that he is incapable of rational thought. With a mind this irrational I have no model of how to predict he might act in everyday circumstances. Suppose he says, “Hello. Welcome to Wal-Mart” and you go off script by asking, “Do you have a restroom I may use?” I have no idea what his response will be. “He has to do something” even if it cannot possibly appropriately address the issue, is totally unworkable, costs millions of dollars every year, and is unconstitutional.

The other options is that he is evil and his mindset is, “We must never let a crisis go to waste.” If this is the case he should be disbarred from all public office and prevented from ever being in a management position of, well, anything other than wiping his own ass.

I think we need background checks for public servants. If they have ever said something this stupid and/or evil they should not be allowed on a government payroll. Perhaps they could trusted to sweep sidewalks in the private sector, if they had careful supervision.—Joe]

With regards to the weak “but there’s illegal guns” argument, mandatory registration would solve this problem. The federal (or state) governments could issue a six or 12 month window to allow people to register their firearms. All of them. This would include currently unregistered guns — this would be a way to avoid punishment for the crime for the moments and to promote more universal gun registration. If you have an unregistered gun in your possession after that point, you should be slammed with a felony that carries a minimum of 3 to 5 years of jail and heavy fines. No exceptions. No loopholes.

Harrison Finzel
September 2, 2015
Now the time to fight tooth and nail for stronger, more intelligent U.S. gun control
[This is a “textbook” case of Dustydog’s Definition. Finzel doesn’t know of the failure of registration in Canada, New York, Connecticut, and many other countries, Haynes v. Haynes says his plan is unconstitutional, no other constitutionally protected right requires registration, prosecution for failure to register is more difficult than he might think, and it can’t be any more effective than a complete ban which is an obvious failure with recreational drugs.

But Finzel is eager to spend other people’s money to engage in violence against peaceful people for no tangible benefit. I have to conclude he has crap for brains.—Joe]

No one wants to disarm anyone.
We want to reduce hand guns IN PUBLIC.

David De Santis
June 2, 2014
Comment to Editorial: More gun violence, but not prevention
[Not only is prosecuting people for handgun possession in public infringing upon the “keep and bear arms” section of the Bill of Rights De Santis’s statement is self-contradictory. This conclusively demonstrates it is non-sensical from an epistemological view. This means De Santis does not know what it means to know things.

And yes, he actually wrote that in consecutive sentences. He didn’t write three paragraphs and arrive at a different void in his mind where communication from void A to void B was nothing but static. This had to be part of the same void or else these voids in his mind are so close together they have merged into one.

Apparently Mr. Crap for Brains David De Santis, like many anti-gun people, is nothing but a vacuous noise maker.—Joe]

There’s been a number of changes in gun laws in states all across the United States in the past several years, a number of pushes to purchase these high capacity magazines, for fear that they may not be legally available some time in the future, and now is it possible that now maybe some of those are making their way to the major cities? We don’t know, but for some reason they are showing up in all major cities.

Cathy Lanier
D.C. police chief
August 13, 2015
DC’s Top Cop Accidentally Makes The Case Against Gun Control
[Let me get this straight. Lanier knows that people are buying standard capacity magazines because of laws being passed to ban them. Then she wonders why people in major cities own them?

Does she have a problem with forgetting facts she expressed only seconds earlier when she attempts to ask a question?

As Emily Miller said, “I don’t think the IQ is all that high.”

Let me spell it out for you Ms. “Crap For Brains” Lanier. People in the cities own them in increasing numbers because authoritarians like you are trying to ban them. Stop trying to ban them and there would be less demand for them. And, this is the really important part for people like you to grasp, if you stop trying to ban guns the less likely they are to be used on you.—Joe]

Guns kill. The fork ate the cake. Same thinking.

Suzyqpie
July 16, 2015
Comment to Gun control activists call for probe of NRA’s political spending
[I have nothing to add.—Joe]

But I do know this — we know from our experiences that background checks are effective in preventing a lot of people who should not have guns from getting guns.

James E. Clyburn
July 8, 2015
South Carolina Rep.: Removing Confederate flag matters, but what about guns?
[The CDC has been unable to find convincing evidence of this claim. Does Clyburn have evidence the CDC doesn’t have access too? Of course not. Clyburn doesn’t “know” things the same way as normal people do.

How do I know this for certain? The article also says:

Clyburn said he has “no way of knowing” whether the bill would have stopped the Charleston shooting.

This is our problem. I’ve pointed out this before too. We have a major disconnect when attempting to communicate with anti-gun people. The means by which they determine truth from falsity is completely different from normal people.

We do know whether the bill would have stopped the Charleston shooting. The shooter passed a background check when he obtained his gun. Therefore we know that requiring background checks for sales unrelated to his gun purchase could not have affected his shooting of innocent people. It is magical thinking to believe it would have. These anti-gun people need help with their mental health. They have no business in positions of power. There is no point in attempting “reach a middle ground” with them. The only reason you would negotiate with people this crazy is to buy yourself some time to deal with them in a more appropriate manner.

I’m reminded of something Will Rogers said,

Diplomacy is the art of saying ‘Nice doggie’ until you can find a rock.

If you already have a “rock” there is no point in engaging in diplomacy with them. You instead force them into submission with the minimum amount of effort required.—Joe]