Ann Coulter on VT Killings

[Sparrowhawk]

http://www.anncoulter.com/cgi-local/welcome.cgi

This oughta be an interesting ride. I'm pretty sure how we all feel about Ann Coulter here, myself included. But I don't exclude her blog from my reading just because she's an abrasive, arrogant, self-righteous bitch - many people could say the same things about me. And now and then, she strikes a tone that resonates, at least with me.

Only one policy has ever been shown to deter mass murder: concealed-carry laws. In a comprehensive study of all public, multiple-shooting incidents in America between 1977 and 1999, the inestimable economists John Lott and Bill Landes found that concealed-carry laws were the only laws that had any beneficial effect.

And the effect was not insignificant. States that allowed citizens to carry concealed handguns reduced multiple-shooting attacks by 60 percent and reduced the death and injury from these attacks by nearly 80 percent.

Apparently, even crazy people prefer targets that can't shoot back. The reason schools are consistently popular targets for mass murderers is precisely because of all the idiotic "Gun-Free School Zone" laws.

From the people who brought you "zero tolerance," I present the Gun-Free Zone! Yippee! Problem solved! Bam! Bam! Everybody down! Hey, how did that deranged loner get a gun into this Gun-Free Zone?

Now, by no means am I suggesting that Ms. Coulter be the voice of the majority (or even that her comments reflect a whole truth) but I like to get alternative perspectives here and there.

Oh by the way, the other major "Gun-Free Zone" in America is the post office.

[Hegemon]

Actually, that reminds me of chris rock's song, No Sex in the Champagne Room...

"Don't go to parties with metal detectors
Sure it feels safe inside; but what about
all those n****** waitin outside with guns?
They know you ain't got one.."

... amusingly i actually did type out those asterisks..

[jotabe]

uh... you are self-righteous?
maybe i got the meaning of that word wrong...

[Sparrowhawk]

1. Piously sure of one's own righteousness; moralistic.
2. Exhibiting pious self-assurance: self-righteous remarks.

[jotabe]

You always hit more like cynic kind... but whatever

[Boothby]

You forgot to add "lying bitch."

Anything she says I assume is made up. I'll wait to see ACTUAL stats, instead of something she just pulled out of her @$$.

[Sparrowhawk]

I think I made John fall in love with her, unfortunately. Other than the Christianity part, he'd probably marry her.

[Hegemon]

I am working on that conversion even as we speak.

[hive_king]

One part of that which doesn't make sense is that a good portion of these gunmen killled themselves afterwards. Why would they be afraid of death if they're blowing their brains out afterwards? Also, there's the possibility that correlation is being mistaken for causation. There is the possibility, especially with the statistically small sample size, that there is another factor behind this that was not taken in effect that might operate on both factors or regardless of both.

[Hegemon]

I find myself wondering how multiple shooting attacks are defined in the article. Does it simply mean a rampage, or perhaps something more organized like a gang killing? If it means more than a rampage, then I could see it happening less often when the other person is more likely to be armed.

Another thing that i imagine could cause a lower amount of attacks is the fact that if the shooter thinks he's going to get a low bodycount, he might be demoralized. No one knows what is going through their minds at the time, but they could very well not feel that it is worth the hassle if they only kill a small number of people.

[Sparrowhawk]

More hilarity from Coulter (sometimes, she says the things I wish I could say in public):

http://www.anncoulter.com/cgi-local/welcome.cgi

For cranky right-wingers who think politicians don't listen to them, this week I give you elected Democrats running like scared schoolgirls from the media's demand that they enact new gun control laws in response to the Virginia Tech shooting.

Instead, Democrats are promoting a mental health exception to the right to bear arms. We've banned mass murder and that hasn't seemed to work. So now we're going to ban mass murderers. Yes, that will do the trick!

This is a feel-good measure that is both wildly under-inclusive (the vast majority of nutcases receive no formal court adjudication of their nuttiness) and wildly over-inclusive (the vast majority of nuts don't kill people). The worst thing most nuts do is irritate everybody else by driving their electric cars on the highway.

As lovely as it would be, we cannot identify mass murderers before they have broken any law, and mass murder is often the first serious crime they commit. No one can be locked up permanently for being potentially dangerous.

She goes on to mention the Korean communities' response:

But just to get this straight: Democrats are saying we should be able to jail "strange" or "angry" people, but we can't deplane imams who demand extra-length seatbelts after boarding?

Speaking of which, has anyone else noticed the public expressions of shame and contrition from the Korean-American community after the Virginia Tech shooting? Of course, no one blames this exemplary community for the actions of one nut. The Koreans are manifestly law-abiding and decent — nipping at the heels of Italians as the greatest Americans and tied for second with the Cubans.

Indeed, I believe this marks the first time a Korean has killed anyone in the United States, not involving an automobile. Nonetheless, Korean congregations, community groups and the family members themselves are issuing statements of sorrow. Not "pleas for tolerance." But sorrow. Remorse. Remember those? They were big back in the day.

Really, read it for yourselves. If you get over the gag reflex of who she is, it's got a point.

[Oliver Dale]

No kidding it does. Cool links.

[hive_king]

Ha, obviously Ann Coulter has spent time disconnected from reality. She needs to come to California and see Korean street gangs for herself. Has she even been to SF?

[Oliver Dale]

hk, I think she was speaking generally and hyperbolically. Korean gangs aren't representative of a larger community -- they are disconnected, meta-communities.

[Eaquae Legit]

The response from the Korean community perhaps isn't so simple. They have the luxury of being sorrowful, remorseful, regretful. No one's calling them terrorists. I'd guess that the Muslim community* would love to have that luxury, to not have to jump immediately to the defensive because the rest of the nation didn't jump right to the offensive.

The Korean community doesn't need to be defensive - no one's accusing them. But when you have an entire country looking at you suspiciously because of the level of melatonin in your skin, well, you've got to head things off at the pass.

When your eco-friendly recycling habits can shut down an entire campus, you get defensive. If we could stop immediately blaming Muslims for the actions of a few and give them room to breathe, maybe we'd get more of the response we want.



* "The Korean community." "The Muslim community." Like they're these huge, monolithic entities that always act in unison, always in accord. Never disagree. All Koreans, all Muslims, they're the same, right?

[jotabe]

What i wonder is... when a person of any of our western countries commit a crime abroad... what is our attitude?
Are we really sorrowful?
Or do we react quite similarly to CAIR?

[Lazarillo]

Again, the right doesn't even read the constitution they bloviate about. The constitution doesn't say "any idiot who wants a gun can have one", it says "“ A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." That means that the states can form well-regulated militias for protection, I.E. what we call the national guards. Of course to expect people like Ann Coulter to actually read or show intellegent discourse would be too much

[Hawkblaze]

Again, the right doesn't even read the constitution they bloviate about. The constitution doesn't say "any idiot who wants a gun can have one", it says "“ A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." That means that the states can form well-regulated militias for protection, I.E. what we call the national guards. Of course to expect people like Ann Coulter to actually read or show intellegent discourse would be too much

Maybe you should read the Constitution yourself before lecturing others about their supposed ignorance of its contents.

Yes, in this country "any idiot" can own a gun, within certain constraints, of course. There's a way to change this, you know. See Article V.

[Jebus]

Why are you guys throwing quotes at each other like it means anything? Aren't the exact meanings of "militia", "the people" and "bear arms" what the whole thing is about?

[Sparrowhawk]

No; because if the Founders had to enumerate every single point conceivable the Constitution would have to be many volumes. The general terms used in the document are difficult to pin a specific meaning to, but those who wrote it made their beliefs explicitly clear in other writings, documents, books, etc. Specifically, anyone reading Jefferson's letters or The Federalist Papers or any number of other things would see that they understood the 2nd amendment to prevent any free man from being barred the use of arms.

[hive_king]

so, in your opinions, Anthony and Hawkblaze, should people be allowed to have their own personal nuclear weapons? I mean, after all, they're arms. What about an Abram tank?

[Hawkblaze]

To take the simple statement that people should be able to own and carry guns and extrapolate that statement to include nuclear weapons is really mind blowing.

Interpreting the Constitution in a textualist or originalist fashion does not imply that you simply look up the definition of a word and use that word to decide what the Constitution does and does not permit. You must take into consideration the traditions of the nation and the general meaning of the word at the time of the amendment's adoption. With the comment, "a well regulated militia," it's clear that the right to bear arms would not include the right to own a nuke. The clear meaning of the Second Amendment is that citizens have a right to own firearms so that they can protect themselves from other people and a possible tyrannical government. This makes sense considering the founding of America. We never would have won our freedom without guns. Perhaps one day we will need them to win our freedom again.

[hive_king]

While the founding fathers were able to overthrow the british mostly using only guns, there is no way that would work today. To overthrow the modern government, you would need artillery, armor, air support, among other things. If we were to go by the revolt criteria, there is no reason why I shouldn't own a Harrier or an Abram tank.

With the comment, "a well regulated militia," it's clear that the right to bear arms would not include the right to own a nuke.

Explain this one to me, we're thinking on two different levels, apparently.

By the way, where do you think most of the american troops in the revolution got their weapons from? The answer: france.

The clear meaning of the Second Amendment is that citizens have a right to own firearms so that they can protect themselves from other people and a possible tyrannical government.

Actually, the first part of the amendent, "a well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State", which describes the reason for the amendment, mentions nothing about protecting from other people, and it would be a stretch to think that the "security of a free state" is about overthrowing the government and not about protecting from foreign states like Britain, France, and Spain.

[Fish Tank]

I GOT IT! To stop crime we must give everyone free hand guns. That way no one will ever be able to commit mass murder....

[Sparrowhawk]

so, in your opinions, Anthony and Hawkblaze, should people be allowed to have their own personal nuclear weapons? I mean, after all, they're arms. What about an Abram tank?

Though Hawkblaze pretty much covered it, this "nuke" response is almost always the first thing out of a person's mouth when they hear about the right to bear arms and want to try and counter the argument. Since it's been done to death, the rebuttal is the same as well - nuclear devices are not "arms." An M1-A1 tank is not an 'arm.' The first is a bomb, and the second is a military vehicle. While this escapes the logic of most of the people who use them as examples of 'arms', the difference is still clear - while there weren't nukes and tanks when the 2nd amendment was ratified, there were bombs and other military equipment that were not for civilian ownership, the same as today. The right to "bear arms" is meant, not only in the context of the Constitution but in the mind's of the far-thinking men who wrote it, as a means of protection for the smallest minority on earth - the individual.

[hive_king]

Actually, according to Websters, an arm is any weapon. Including a nuclear weapon, or a bomb. Also, there were civilians who owned cannons in the civil war And while you espouse how you need arms to protect against the government, how are you going to fight the government with a gun when they have tanks? Just out of curiousity. Seems to be self-defeating.

Also, Anthony, civilians DID own cannons in the Revolution, and many of the artillery batteries in the Civil War were privately financed. This goes to disprove your assertation that there were restrictions on the heavy weapons of the time. The only restriction there ever was on cannons was the price. Please read history if you're going to comment on it.

[Sparrowhawk]

myself: "while there weren't nukes and tanks when the 2nd amendment was ratified, there were bombs and other military equipment that were not for civilian ownership, the same as today."

pretentious prick: "there were civilians who owned cannons in the civil war"

p.p.: "civilians DID own cannons in the Revolution"

Didn't say civilians didn't own cannons.

myself: "as a means of protection"

p.p. "you espouse how you need arms to protect against the government, how are you going to fight the government with a gun when they have tanks"

Didn't say you'd fight the government with a gun when they have tanks.

Maybe you meant to reply to Hawkblaze. I forgive you.

[hive_king]

while there weren't nukes and tanks when the 2nd amendment was ratified, there were bombs and other military equipment that were not for civilian ownership, the same as today

Didn't say civilians didn't own cannons.

Am I missing something here?

[Sparrowhawk]

Your brain, dipshit.

[hive_king]

I apologize, I misread the statement. However, I ask what military hardware was NOT allowed for civilian use during the revolutionary period. My historical studies haven't shown me any.

[Sparrowhawk]

As you said, your historical studies haven't shown you any. My own have fared no better at finding what specific equipment was disallowed to the general populace, but it isn't in dispute that certain hardware was kept in the hands of the government and away from private ownership; after the war ended, arms and armaments were everywhere in the colonies - not only the fighting forces weapons, but those left behind by the British. The heavy weaponry was taken by the government and subsequently not allowed to private citizens, for several reasons the early leaders of the new States realized. The weapons of the day were costly and difficult to operate, and it was quickly realized that if they were not consistantly maintained and kept operable, they would quickly fall into disrepair and be of no use in defending the nation. As the various militias were drawn into more regulated order as to be more efficient, private ownership became unneccesary; Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution made Congress responsible for "organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia". In one source I'd found, "Guns were used and owned at sufferance, [but] the state reserving the right to limit, regulate, or impress those arms at its discretion." While the ability of the State to regulate ownership of weapons is not in dispute (I and Hawkblaze probably differ in that regard) the tradition of governmental non-interference with the private ownership of personal arms is something that should not be undone, following the example of the Massachusetts Constitution of 1780, which proclaimed that "the people have a right to keep and to bear arms for the common defence" from which that uniquely American tradition extends. For example, the Pennsylvania Constitution of 1776 put it this way: gun ownership in Pennsylvania was premised on the notion that the individual would use that weapon in the state's defense when called upon. To make the point completely clear, the state required an oath to that effect. Shay's Rebellion and the Whiskey rebellion in the early nation made clear the need for a balanced approach to the topic of arms - that military hardware needed to be operated by the military under the authority of civilian government, but that the rights to personal arms should not be infringed.