OK I’ll Play.

A Joyce puppet has an open invitation. Being he’s a Joyce Foundation stooge, I have no confidence my post will show up, so here it is.

“My goal, and the goal of Gun Control in general, is to reduce gun violence”

Why be so specific? My Goal is to reduce Violence in total. Isn’t that a better goal? By the narrow definition you give, a 100% decline (total zero) in “Gun Violence”, but a 100% INCREASE in total violence (so 2X, where X is the current violent crime rate) would be considered a victory for you.

Same with an increase in other violence at the rate of decrease of gun violence….so just the same number of people hurt and killed, but non by gun, is a victory by the perimeters you set.

Does that make any sense at all?

If he responds I’ll like the “Gun Death?” files

I think we all have seen this before and we all know what lies down that road.

Still Never interrupt one’s enemy when they are making a mistake. The hand shall be tipped, and another shill for the Joyce Foundation will expose his dishonest nature.

**Update** Four new comments since I submitted mine I suspect it didn’t make the cut. I wonder why?

This entry was posted in Freedom, Guns. Bookmark the permalink.

0 Responses to OK I’ll Play.

  1. Old NFO says:

    A nice little ‘poke’ there Weerd, I’m betting that one will never make the comment trail… 🙂

  2. FTYD says:

    The blogger sort of posted your comment without actually posting it. Assuming mine doesn’t disappear as well, here’s a response I added:

    “Baldr, you’ve partially made Wee’rd Beard’s point for him. While England, which you just cited, has a much lower firearms homicide rate than the USA, the same statistics show that England has a much higher overall violent crime rate. More recent statistics than the 2000 WHO survey paint an even worse picture of Britain. For example, here’s a story reporting 2007 or 2008 violent crime statistics, where Britain had a violent crime rate of 2,034 per 100,000 in comparison to the USA’s 472.0 per 100,000. (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1196941/The-violent-country-Europe-Britain-worse-South-Africa-U-S.html) This while Britain has moved on from banning guns and moved into banning knives.

    But for an actual solution to part of your original proposal, I’ll echo several of the other commentators when I say that the way to keep felons from getting guns is to lock up the felons and enforce existing laws.

    For example, in 2009, pardoned multiple felon Maurice Clemmons, out on bail for child rape, and already on parole for another offense, obtained a stolen handgun, murdered four police officers, then stole one of their duty weapons and fled. The problem isn’t that he obtained a handgun, the problem is that this slimeball wasn’t already rotting in a prison cell for the rest of his miserable existence. http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2010385617_webmansought29.html

  3. “Joyce Foundation stooge”? “Joyce puppet”? What on earth are you talking about??

    I did delete your first comment, the one you mentioned above. I took serious exception to your suggestion that I have as a goal the increase of violence. It’s disrespectful. And it did not suggest solutions, as I had asked for.

    I’m sorry you don’t take me seriously, Wee’rd. I was quite honest when I said I was looking for solutions to reduce gun violence, from those who are pro-gun. Don’t like my stances? That’s fine, but don’t just criticize. Suggest solutions to make us safer.

    • Weerd Beard says:

      No I don’t like your stances. And I do suggest solutions to make us safer, its why I blog. If you are as open minded as you claim give it a read.

      Does nor Cease Fire Oregon, like the other Cease Fire Orgs get their funding from the Joyce Foundation?

    • Linoge says:

      Whether you take (un)righteous indignation to his comment or not, it remains a vaild point and question: Why are you focused exclusively on gun crime?

      More to the point, why do you hold up countries like England as an ideal? Yes, their firearm-related crime rates are quite lower than ours… but their violent crime rate is nearly four times greater than ours. In fact, England is one of the most violent “civilized” countries in the world.

      And, yet, given your position of solely wanting to decrease firearm-related crime, you would consider America wresting that position away from England a “win”, so long as we could minimize our firearm-related crime at the same time.

      How is your position not “disrespectful” to the entirety of the American populace, what with your placing their safety second to your personal goals?

      In other news, this is a prime case study in what happens when anti-rights nuts try to control the conversation… we take said conversation elsewhere, to a weblog that receives significantly more traffic, and it continues unabated. One would think they would learn from the mistakes of their predecessors, but that would indicate an ability to learn.

      • Linoge says:

        Unsurprisingly, it would appear as though Baldr has not revisited any pro-rights post he has commented upon (at least of the ones I am aware of).

        So much for his self-righteous claims of wanting to reach an “understanding”…

        • Weerd Beard says:

          They may not be one-trick-ponies, but that doesn’t mean we haven’t seen ALL their tricks.

          At this point I’d be DAMN surprised if I DO see another one from the likes of them.

    • Thirdpower says:

      CF Oregon is an ‘affiliate’ of “States United to Prevent Gun Violence”, a Joyce umbrella group that distributes funding to ‘grassroots’ gun control groups that can’t survive on their own.

      That’s why Weer’d calls you a ‘Joyce Puppet’. If you’re unfamiliar w/ your own organizations connections, perhaps you should do some research.

    • mike w. says:

      Why am I not surprised to see an anti-gunner engaging in comment moderation? Weer’d comment hurt your little feelings did it? Boo hoo! So sad!

  4. Jake says:

    I took serious exception to your suggestion that I have as a goal the increase of violence.

    Which would be understandable… if that was what he said.

    Read his comment again. He says that, by focusing on the metric of gun violence, you are claiming that the rate of overall violence is irrelevant.

    Thus, while what he says about an increase in overall violence with a decrease in gun violence, or a decrease in gun violence with no change in the rate of overall violence, being a victory under the definition you are using holds true, it would also be true that a decrease in gun violence with a decrease in overall violence would also be a victory.

    Of course, his two main points are that you should be focusing on overall violence rather than just gun violence, and that it has been observed in several countries that gun bans correlate with either an increase in overall violence or no change in overall violence. Thus, tracking only gunviolence rather than overall violence does not make sense, and gun bans do not make sense.

    • Weerd Beard says:

      Had this person been an average Joe blogger with some honest questions for gunnies about and oft misunderstood issue or three, I might make that clarification.

      Given that this is a Joyce shill who moderates comments, the misunderstanding is likely intentional.

      He knows exactly what he’s doing, and he cares NOTHING about the loss of human life. Hence the “Gun Death metric.

      • Jake says:

        You’re probably right. I did go ahead and copy my comment over there in case he doesn’t come back here, but mainly out of curiosity over whether it will get approved or not. He doesn’t seem to have gone to full-blown Reasoned Discourse ™ yet, but he does seem awfully sensitive to what he perceives as an insult.

  5. Pingback: moron of the day | walls of the city

  6. Pingback: New Trajectory Blog: Japete, segunda parte (Part Two for the Spanish Impaired)

  7. mike w. says:

    Isn’t it sad how even in the blogosphere the anti’s are paid shills? They don’t even have true grassroots on the internet. Meanwhile 99% of the huge list of pro-gun bloggers on my blogroll do it for free.

    • Weerd Beard says:

      Well I can’t confirm in baldr is paid staffer or not, but he is likely a staffer and is being compensated for his efforts for the cause.

      I believe it is confirmed that Joan Peterson is NOT a paid member of the Brady Board, that being said she has been compensated with travel and meetings, as well as recognition.

      They are doing this because they have something to gain.

  8. Pingback: Weer'd World » You Keep Using That Word…

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *