Sunday, June 12, 2016

Because that's what's important

A gunman wielding an assault-type rifle and a handgun opened fire inside a crowded Florida nightclub . . .

10 paragraphs in we get a name, "Omar." Of course, to be safe, we should assume he's likely a Tea Party supporter. To assume a radical Islamic terrorist connection would be racist.

3 more paragraphs in, we get a tentative question, "When asked if the gunman had a connection to radical Islamic terrorism, Hopper said authorities had "suggestions that individual has leanings towards that."  That's enough of that.

Six more paragraphs we get a gratuitous reference to Barack Obama, 'cause he's the man in charge.

One more paragraph and we get a reference to something that *is* relevant, "The attack follows the fatal shooting late Friday of 22-year-old singer Christina Grimmie, who was killed after her concert in Orlando by a 27-year-old Florida man who later killed himself. Grimmie was a YouTube sensation and former contestant on "The Voice."

Clearly, there's an issue of guns here. Oh, how I hope the president will call for more gun control against assault style weapons. And of course tolerance for all peoples, except Trump supporters, who are racists. We love everyone, except those whom we hate, because they are haters.

An update from the NYT for Anonymous: "After calling 911 to declare his allegiance to the Islamic State terrorist group, a gunman here killed 50 people and wounded 53 in a crowded gay nightclub early Sunday, the worst mass shooting slaughter in American history, law enforcement officials said.

"The gunman was Omar Mateen, 29, an American citizen living in Fort Pierce, Fla., federal law enforcement officials said.

"Local law enforcement officials and Department of Homeland Security officials have told members of Congress that the gunman made the 911 call shortly before the attacks and swore allegiance to the Islamic State."

That, at least, is a competent lead. But don't worry, anonymous, the Times quickly reverts to what is important here, so you can cling bitterly to what is most important to you.


Anonymous Anonymous said...

A little soon to be scoring political points on this, isn't it?

10:13 AM, June 12, 2016  
Blogger ColumbusGuy said...

Not for Associated Press, or Obama, or you.

10:16 AM, June 12, 2016  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Jeez CG You are really stretching and appear unhinged (the new normal?) - Rating the coverage as it happens for adherence to your brand of political leanings.

Does anyone remember Dana Perino's statement from the White House after the Va Tech Shooting (Previously the most deadly shooting until today) " "While we must respect Second Amendment Rights..."

11:14 AM, June 12, 2016  
Blogger ColumbusGuy said...

Yes, Anonymous, anyone who disagrees with you is unhinged. Here, this should make you feel good, the every four years story that conservatism is a mental illness:

Of course there's a little oopsie involved, but I'm confident that won't worry you.

11:50 AM, June 12, 2016  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

One guy with a license can do this.

5:12 PM, June 12, 2016  
Anonymous Denver Guy said...

As I understand he did not use an automatic rifle - he had to pull the trigger for every shot. He could have done even more damage with a shot gun. You can't really ban shot guns because they have plenty of legitimate hunting and protective uses, and they are realtively easy to manufacture youself, unlike rifles.

There is a relatively new movement in LGBT circles called Pink Pistol. It argues that rather than waiting for Americans to be disarmed, the gay community should begin arming themselves. 300 people in the club Sun. morning, and not one person there had a weapon or inclination to try and stop this killer. Shouldn't the head bouncer at least have had access to a weapon?

Also what's with it taking the Orlando police taking 4 hours to getthe equipment necessary to assault the building? How many people bled out on the dance floor waiting for the police to rescue them? We went through this all with Columbine here in Colorado. I know the left does not want the policie militarized, but there must be rapid response teams capable of saving savable lives when so much carnage has already ensued.

8:45 AM, June 13, 2016  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

People should arm themselves, so that during the 99.99999% of the time when there's no danger, but a party, there'll be plenty of guns around. Yes, thank goodness, during that .000001% when there is potential trouble (not to mention the thousand times more likely moments when they mistakenly think there's danger) there'll be plenty of guns around.

9:19 AM, June 13, 2016  
Blogger ColumbusGuy said...

Gosh, Anon, good thing you were here. It's so obvious when you say it!

4:54 PM, June 13, 2016  
Anonymous Denver Guy said...

According to Gallup as of 2014, 26% of households had been victims of crimes at some time, and 19% of Americans said they had been personally victimized.

If you want to narrow it down to violent crimes just in 2014, 3% of US Adults were asaulted and/or harmed in criminal attacks. Personally, this percentage is not high enough to convince me to get a gun (yet), but the figures are of course higher in more urban areas than where I live. I wonder if the Orlando shooter considered or was concerned that someone might shoot back at him. We know that James Holmes in Colorado very specifically sought out a place to commit his atrocities that would present a low likelihood of counterattack.

8:30 AM, June 14, 2016  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

The point is that, even among those who see violence, almost all their time is without violence. So you have to balance greatly increasing the time everyone is carrying a gun (including when they go out and party, and during times when they mistakenly think they're in trouble) with the few seconds of their life while they might need a gun, even though there's no guarantee that it'll make things better at the moment and might make things worse.

There are parts of America that are quite violent--they're where much of our violent crime originates--but most parts aren't. Will they become more or less violent if we greatly increase the number of people carrying guns in these areas?

9:42 AM, June 14, 2016  
Anonymous Denver Guy said...

Well, we aren't talking about taking a gun with you in the bath, or carrying it on your person at home or at work. An two or three hours when you are in public spaces with strangers doesn't seem like much of a burden. The burden that keeps me from getting a gun is the paperwork, the need to learn how to use it, and dealing with a gun salesman. That doesn't balance with the increase in my personal safety, since I don't find myself in public venues that often, and never much late at night. When I am in such places, they usually have armed guards already (airports and stadiums). So my exposure is at movie theaters and restaurants - we'll see how things go the next year or so.

11:46 AM, June 15, 2016  
Blogger ColumbusGuy said...

Wow, that's a sober thought--we'll see how things go. Wholly true.

Anonymous, you have a good data set, the police, and you are right, I'm sure the incidents of gun accidents is higher than one would think. But it's still pretty low, and I'll bet that the incidence of gun owners is lower still. Are there tragedies? You bet there are. We're not ignoring them. But you are ignoring the benefits. You wouldn't make that argument against an epi-pen. But Disney has convinced you guns are bad, and so there you are, saying "But it's only useful when you need it!"

3:07 AM, June 17, 2016  

Post a Comment

<< Home

web page hit counter