Comments

  1. 11B40 says

    Greetings:
     
    I grew up in the Bronx of the ’50s and ’60s. Back there and then, they had the Sullivan law governing pistol permits. In our small by New York City standards neighborhood, the folk wisdom was that if you didn’t have a cash business, weren’t a retired police officer, or weren’t politically connected, you had no chance of getting a permit.

    Alternatively, some elements in our neighborhood kind of operated on a “I can get it for you wholesale” to “It fell off a truck that didn’t stop” spectrum. Undocumented pistols were rarely more than a day or two away; specific makes a models maybe a couple of weeks.

  2. jj says

    You know what the Sullivan Act was really about?  Timothy Sullivan was a Tammany Hall crook himself, and “crook” in the serious meaning of the word.  “Gangster” would be a pretty good approximation.  He ran all kinds of rackets from his perch in City Hall – as the whole Tammany gang did – and he conceived the idea that the only people who should be armed were his own bag-men and enforcers.  His boys didn’t like having to occasionally go up against people as well armed as they were.  So he arranged the local city ordinance  with that goal in view: nobody but his people should be able to be armed.  It made it a lot safer to be a crook – as people keep trying to point out to this day.
     
    Just kind of ironic that it was precisely that reasoning – take guns away from good people and make the world safer for lousy ones – that are the genesis and heart of New York’s vaunted anti-gun law.

  3. Danny Lemieux says

    JJ, thanks. You just explained for me why Chicago aldermen and Daly machine thugs walked around gun-free Chicago openly sporting handguns. 

  4. DL Sly says

    I used to love Sam Elliot, but ever since he became a shill for Government Motors, I’ve lost any respect I had for him. 
    But the poster is spot on.
    0>;~}

  5. says

     
    How stupid (or ideological….or crooked) do you have to be not to see something so blindingly obvious?
     
    There’s one more possibility – emotional.  A really good friend – the wife (forgive me) of one of my Biology professors who later became a colleague – has s wholly emotional reaction to guns.  She looks at the damage that is (occasionally) done by them and concludes that if we only got rid of them, that damage wouldn’t occur.
     
    No data, no argument, NOTHING will convince her otherwise.  When the Clackamas Mall shooter’s gun jammed and he repaired to a stairwell and shot himself, she opined that we could always hope that the next shooter’s gun would also jam.  When I pointed out to her that he quickly unjammed his gun in order to kill himself, and that if the armed citizen hadn’t pointed a pistol at him, he’d have unjammed it and killed more people, she simply went silent.
     
    I don’t know if being that sort of emotional would fall under “Stupid” or “Ideological”.  It’s quite frustrating.
     
    Here’s the latest URL I sent, not that I expect it will do any good:
    http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2013/02/12/U-N-Maps-Show-U-S-High-In-Gun-Ownership-Low-In-Homicides

  6. says

    Earl you wrote:

    “A really good friend – the wife (forgive me) of one of my Biology professors who later became a colleague – has s wholly emotional reaction to guns.  She looks at the damage that is (occasionally) done by them and concludes that if we only got rid of them, that damage wouldn’t occur.
     
    “No data, no argument, NOTHING will convince her otherwise.  When the Clackamas Mall shooter’s gun jammed and he repaired to a stairwell and shot himself, she opined that we could always hope that the next shooter’s gun would also jam.  When I pointed out to her that he quickly unjammed his gun in order to kill himself, and that if the armed citizen hadn’t pointed a pistol at him, he’d have unjammed it and killed more people, she simply went silent.”

    That’s exactly right.  It’s that kind of emotionalism that I see every day, everywhere.  My (mostly) liberal Facebook friends, the people who show in my local newspapers, the neighbors at parties — that’s the way they reason.  They’re all educated people, which may be part of their problem.  As children of the 1960s and 1970s, they never learned logic. It was always about feelings.

  7. MacG says

    “That’s exactly right.  It’s that kind of emotionalism that I see every day, everywhere. ”
     
    One time when I refuted an emotional argument that a co-worker presented fresh out of college (probably just reciting a Professor) the reply was “You’re just trying to make me look bad”(Pout).

  8. says

    “She looks at the damage that is (occasionally) done by them and concludes that if we only got rid of them, that damage wouldn’t occur”
     
    It’s easy to think like that when they don’t grow up around humans that can do the same damage, without any external tool attachments.
     
    If our culture had been based around ancient Chinese military philosophy, that would be different. But American culture is a gun culture. Even the Japanese recognize that.
     
    Which is to say, all the magical horse BS flying stuff you see from magic fantasy land Asian martial arts, is about the same kind of thinking Americans go through with guns.
     
    “They’re all educated people, which may be part of their problem.”
     
    Why do ignorant people consider themselves educated when they know absolutely nothing about how to execute lethal force using merely their body?
     
     

Leave a Reply