These are really target-rich videos so expect more of these.
So here Helmke is calling the pro-rights mantra that we need to work harder to enforce the laws currently on the books.
He uses the Tucson shooting as his one-and-only example of why this is a fallacy. Well Laughner DID break the law when buying the gun, as he lied about his marijuana use which is mentioned on the form. Of course Paul rightly points out that Criminals can’t be trusted to tell the truth on their forms. I agree, I would also take it a step further and say that criminals can’t be trusted to follow the law.
Paul mentions that the Police couldn’t have stopped Laughner if they had seen him with the gun before the shooting. You know what? They DIDN’T see him. Moreover the laws that didn’t stop him from buying a gun wouldn’t have stopped him from getting an Arizona Carry Permit (something he could have done but didn’t). Paul also talks about a lot of 20/20 hindsight of people’s amateur assessment of his mental health. Still the big issue is, as tragic as Tucson was, Laughner was never charged with a crime, so no matter how much people didn’t like him, there is no reason to discriminate against him. Now I haven’t followed the case very much after the initial facts, I have no idea if the police cut Laughner breaks or looked the other way on the various felonies he committed, but was never charged with, but without due process you can’t move, Paul, but this is why I call them “Anti-Freedom” not just “Anti-Gun”, because guns are a target of theirs, but not their end-game. Also I’ll add that Paul says all these lies, as well as false dichotomies, and then PUBLISHES them on his own webpage (the videos are from the Brady Camp Youtube Channel) Do you think Paul might be dangerously insane? Sure he’s never been charged with a crime…but do we want the first crime he’s charged with to be “Pulling the trigger”? I’m being silly…Paul’s being serious. Remember that!
So he goes on to talk about nobody “Needing” 30 round magazines. Now let’s set aside the fact that “Need” is never factored into rights. I don’t need a blog, you don’t NEED to go to church, nobody NEEDS a TV etc etc, bullshit argument. Also let’s set aside the shell-game that Paul talks about people who don’t use 30-round magazines, so we can limit magazines to 10!! Sure we can argue that not many people use 30+ round pistol magazines in their day-to-day, but 15+ round magazines are FILTHY common in damn near every handgun application these days. People DO use those mags…and you’re for banning them. So again your argument rings hollow, you’re lying.
Hunters don’t use high-cap magazines? Well my rights have nothing to do with Ducks and Deer, but the reason most hunters use limited guns is because of arbitrary hunting laws. These are rules to the game. If I’m not playing the game, why should I play by the rules? When I kiss my wife when she comes home from work does the Ref call that an Offensive Foul? Of course not, because I’m in my house, not on the NCAA Basketball Court! Still the rules are different in every state, and you’ll find that people have no issue with hunting with large capacity magazines: (Bad Photo but its a Deer harvested in Montana by a PTR-91 *in a configuration that would consider it an “Assault Weapon” by the Bullshit ’94 law* with a 20 round magazine)
Law Enforcement don’t use 30+ round magazines? Hmmm I don’t know many Police forces where they don’t stick an AR-15 or similar into the cruiser. That’s a 20-30 round magazine. I know Boston Police have a good stock of full-auto MP-5 Sub-Machineguns, and when I see officers walking around with these weapons they have 30-round magazines affixed. And of course Paul doesn’t care about 30+, he cares about 10+, which EVERY police officer is carrying a gun that holds more than 10 rounds.
People don’t use 30+ round magazine for self-defense? Maybe not for pistols, tho I heard one person say he keeps an extended magazine in his nightstand simply because if something goes bump-in-the-night he’s not going to have a gun belt for carrying reloads. Its a good point. My standard carry load I’m carrying 25 rounds of .45 ACP on me. Granted they’re in 3 8-round magazines (plus one in the gun) but I’m not carrying reloads on me if I get woken up in the middle of the night. I wouldn’t carry a 25-30 round magazine on me in my carry kit because it would be hard to conceal and probably have weight issues….but in my home I’m not dealing with holsters or concealment…doesn’t sound like a bad idea really.
That being said I know handguns suck, so if my handgun isn’t enough I’ll be using it to fight to my rifle which has 20-round magazines. Actually for in-house I’d say if I had an AR or an AK it would be even better than my FAL, so 30 round mags are standard for that, and most people who are concerned with home defense have a house gun with such magazines.
Also these magazines weren’t BANNED. You’ll note that the AWB wasn’t repealed here in Mass, yet I have lots of 10+ round magazines. Perfectly legal so long as they were made BEFORE 1994. Given that people were making monster-sized magazines for most of the 20th century, they aren’t hard to come by if you’re looking for mags that fit an established arm.
Oh and if the magazine was so instrumental to the lethality of this attack, then why were so few people killed?
Seems that there were lots of spree killers that used smaller magazines and killed more….why is that Paul?
Of course this is all off of JUST ONE CASE, you even admit that Virginia Tech Cho broke shitloads of laws before he “Pulled the Trigger”, of course the Brady Camp doesn’t want to talk about places like Boston, DC, Chicago, or LA where shootings are CONSTANT, and none of the people pulling triggers can legally have guns for a laundry list of reasons.
So are you claiming that laws need to be 100% effective, Paul? If so you kinda need to look at murder laws.
The “Gun Death” mantra is of course “If guns were as illegal as murder, nobody would murder anybody with guns!” because the murder laws don’t do shit, but gun control laws are different.
They’re different because they’re different!
Gah… And the truth comes in a poor second, yet again…
Fuck that! For these goons the truth is the sworn enemy! They are pushing the big lie because truth is death to their organization, and to Helmke’s sizable paycheck. And what other work could a window-licker like him do, if not this?
The ONLY reason Helmke is pushing his anti-rights agenda is Money!!! All his issues from 30 round magazines to scary looking psuedo assault rifles are bullshit. If he got only one concession he would say great!! Then he would start on the next issue!! Thats his job and thats what he is paid for. If someone would offer him a job at twice the salary to sell guns, he would then be selling guns. He has no grass roots support, and never will.
Paul in Texas
Yep Helmke and Sugermann and Rosenthal, and all the other paid shills are mercenaries, they do what they do so they can get paid, they care less. People like Mike Bonomo is for gun control because he’s too stupid to engage anybody honestly and wants hits to his website, he also doesn’t care about guns. The rest are the standard-issue useful idiots who are doing it for selfish reasons, often shrouded in the big lie to make them feel like they aren’t self-serving assholes.
Joan Peterson doesn’t really care about guns, if she did she’d have taken more than 5 seconds to research the topic and attempt to actually form rebuttals (the same path that turned me pro-gun), instead she gets attention and recognition because she’s willing to sell her sister’s story for T-Shirts and website biographies.
I’m sure deep down inside she knows she should have told her sister to leave that psychopath asshole, and she knows she held her tongue when she should have spoken in many cases, and that might have saved her life. She blames us lawful gun owners simply because its less painful than blaming herself.
I agree there is probably some guilt and also irrational fear in play here (amateur psychoanalysis). Her assertions about guns are like, “they’re bad, they’re bad, they’ll kill someone without any human manipulation.”
I challenged her on one of her stories of a friend’s daughter being killed by her estranged husband who seems to have bought a rifle at a store and killed her at her workplace. I tried to pry open her mind that if this woman was armed there would have at least been a chance of survival. I forgot to mention that an armed co-worker might have also helped in her defense. She railed that it was a surprise attack and that us gunnies could not have drawn from concealment to deal with the threat. Hard to say, but not having a gun in a gunfight is just really bad.
I think she views guns as always the problem, never as a good solution. I have tried to post many times and the one theme that does not get through is when I present the concept of cost versus benefits. BTW, I do not give any ground on the SA which trumps all her arguments. The Cost/Benefit ratio is this…the rare cases of negligent discharges, suicides, and homicides is vastly outweighed by the deterrence and defensive use of guns that prevent many more murders, rapes, kidnappings, etc. If she wnats to play the numbers (and stark facts) we kick her ass.
Finally, I have had plenty of training in statistics and analysis techniques and can tell you that her notation for “education” from her bio blurb is a really bad joke. She would not know what data is valid and what is useless (e.g. study heterogeneity, confounders, inability to establish causality, etc).
“And your point is? John Hinckley was mentally ill. Had we had the NICS, he may not have been able to purchase that gun- at least from an FFL. Of course we know there are private sellers who would be oh so happy to sell a gun to a guy like him. Or maybe he stole it from a home. I think things could be done to stop people like him from getting guns. It is just nonsense to say that nothing can be done. If we say that, it’s a self fulfilling prophecy and that is just what you guys want. ”
http://tinyurl.com/63867hd
That concurs with your theory! She admits her proposals won’t work, but presses on because we’re the “Bad Guys” and she won’t let us win no matter how right we are.
Of course we are winning, and she can do nothing about it because she’s insane…and it doesn’t help that she’s also wrong, and is indeed a bad person.
It’s easy to tell when anti-gun shills are lying; their mouths are moving.
Pingback: If Guns Were Illegal…. | Where Angels Fear To Tread
The other fallacy Helmke treats as gospel, and it is a relatively minor one in comparison to the rest, is that magazine size has absolutely no bearing on the lethality of the person in question. As Joe Huffman more than adequately demonstrated, the Tucson shooter could have spent a few weeks/months at the local range honing his skills at reloads, and would have gotten off just as many rounds in just as short a time. Hell, if he had practiced in a range at all, he would have probably managed to hit a lot more people…
But the determining variable in that function is the person, not the eequipment.
And, of course, there is the small glitch in Helmke’s argument that by supporting a ban on magazines of size X+num, he is indicating he is ok with X murders with the assistance of firearms per incident. Does anyone really believe that is his position? Then why do you think he will stop at 10 rounds?
Also remember Cho wasn’t an avid shooter, and all but two of his magazines were ban-compliant. Cho’s body count was simply because people like Collin Goddard’s best defense was to cowar and call 911.
Helmke’s solution is to turn ALL OF AMERICA into Virginia Tech. Good idea, huh?