Discover more from Declan’s Newsletter
#TBT from my other blog
This is less a Throwback Thursday and more a “I really wanted to repost this from my old blog, but Blogger nuked it.”
So, it’s back, and let’s see if Substack will melt down.
Please recall, I started this after the Pulse shooting in Orlando. And I wanted to gather up all of the stupid in the world on Gun control nonsense and beat it with a stick.
And no, no one in my books whines about guns.
I have always been pro-gun. Even when I was a New Yorker, I was pro-2A.
I've made some comments on my Facebook feed here and there about the Florida shooting. But let's make this simple. Because there are a lot of simple people out there.
Omar Saddiqui Mateen, 29. Killed by police. Officially the U.S.'s worst mass-shooting murderer, as of the date of the shooting. He slaughtered almost 50 at a popular Orlando gay club. He's connected to ISIS.
AND he's a registered Democrat. Fun huh?
And somehow, the NRA and Christians are to blame. Why? Because those people didn't back every "pro-Gay" legislation for the past year.
Item the second: Some skinny white kid with a gun and a Confederate flag posts pictures online, he’s called an army, and all Confederate flags must be removed. A Muslim psycho security guard with a semi-automatic rifle kills fifty, while shouting Allahu Akbar, and we all have to worry about becoming Islamophobes. Huh? How does that work, anyway?
In the words of Larry Correia, on Facebook,
Gun free zones are vile, stupid, wishful thinking.
There are evil people in the world who simply do not care about law or good intentions, and they want to kill you. And when they decide to hurt people, you can't count on anyone else saving you in time.
They've seen it work in San Diego, Paris, and Mumbai. They'll bring it to somewhere near you too.
Get a gun, get your permit to carry it, get some training. Gay, straight, doesn't matter, same advice goes to everyone. Evil doesn't care.
Or, as Michael Z. Williamson put it, on the political angle
So, let me get this straight (so to speak), Muslims and Democrats don't have to apologize for the actions of a member of their groups, but Christians and Republicans have to apologize for the actions of a member of two other groups?
I guess that makes perfect sense, if you're a retard or a Democrat. But I repeat myself.
And, seriously, folks, Obama says that we're to blame for the Orlando shooting. How about ISIS, who claimed credit for a Florida attack 3 days before the attack happened.
Sure, Obama. Sure.
In short, post- Orlando, I have seen more ignorant, stupid, inane anti-gun statements than I know what to do with.
People want the UK's gun laws! Because they don’t have mass shootings! Really? You want the UK's anti gun laws? Do you also want their 100,000 plus knife attacks per year?
You want Australia's gun laws? Perhaps you want Their rape gangs and the sexual assault rate that go with them?
Here are your safe and secure UK and Australia.
Meanwhile, in America....
UPDATE: New mortality numbers for 2014 were released (the government is slow in everything it does). Here are the updated statistics:
Average from 2009 to 2014:
Mass Murder Deaths: 27
Oh, by the way, I first saw the article in the LA Times in 2001 (and I should have kept it) that cited that armed citizens stop over 20,000 crimes each year in LA. Guns stop five times more crime than they cause. In 2007, a Florida State University study revealed that private guns stop 2.5 MILLION crimes each year.
You know what? Go ahead, ban guns. Just like the French did, and you saw how well that worked.
How about we take alllll the guns in the planet and burn them? That way, next time, they'll just make bombs with Styrofoam and gasoline.
So, yeah, the stupidity around the Orlando shooting was stupid. It was an ISIS moron, he was NOT using an AR-15, an AR-15 is basically the same as your standard hunting rifle only it looks cooler. You can't even believe the ways in which an AR-15 is really used.
Really, a word to the stupid: an AR-15 that look like an M4 is still an AR-15.
Everyone decided that a total gun ban would work, even though that the Paris attack happened in a country where guns ARE COMPLETELY ILLEGAL, EVEN FOR THE COPS.
But then, sanity completely went out the window. Talk of secret abolition of gun rights? Talk of getting rid of due process because it's a threat to security? Yes, really, I heard a Senator talk about that (Sen Joe Manchin, D-WV). Right after the other idiot talked about the AR-47.
Seriously, we went from “a shadow ban on the second amendment” to talk of suspending due process in the course of a week? This has reached the level of parody--if we were parodying the worst fear of every tinfoil hat conspiracy theorist. Congrats, politicians, I'll be looking up the nearest gun store.
The stupid, precious, it burns us. We hates it. We hates it forever.
Also, yes, the second Amendment means individual people. Even Penn and Teller can tell you that.
And apparently, shooter Omar Mateen was reported to the FBI by a gun shop because he was being shifty and asked about body armor. Last time I checked, coworkers even told the FBI that Mateen was a freaking psycho. A background check that goes back to grammar school insists that Mateen has always been nuts, and cheered the 9/11 attackers.
Some idiots like to talk about Australia's gun grab. Here you go. This is how safe Australia is now. On the left is the usual spin. On the right is the truth.
No pun intended.
Oh, and did we mention that France's terrorist attack happened where guns were completely illegal? It's almost as though murderous terrorist bastards will break the law to get the required weapons. What a thought!
But hey, I'm certain there's some idiot out there saying "well, that's just Paris."
Then of course, you have the morons boasting that "a gun wouldn't have stopped this!!!!!"
“This” being any shooting ever.
Except here's Michael Z. Williamson dissecting the entire argument. He goes on for a while, but I think this boils down to the following section.
The defensive shooter engages the hostile. The hostile must choose to ignore, take cover, or return fire.
If he chooses to ignore it, he remains a target and the odds of him being shot increase, and if he is shot, the engagement ends, and no further lives are lost. If this happens before he quits or runs out of ammo, it is a NET POSITIVE for the group..
If he takes cover, he is not shooting for a few moments, and in that few moments, more people can escape or formulate an attack. (Barstools can be as deadly as bullets, when thrown or swung.) NET POSITIVE.
If he returns fire, anyone not in the cone near the defensive shooter is not being shot at. This is a NET POSITIVE for all those people, and a slight negative for those in the defender's immediate position.
It is possible the defender will hit a bystander in the process. However, as he is deliberately choosing a single hostile target, the odds still improve for the remainder, and if the hostile is hit, the engagement stops. This is probably still a net positive.
The defender may be hit. Negative for him, but he accepted that risk. And in those few seconds, the fact is that more victims can escape or respond. This is still a NET POSITIVE for the GROUP.
Yes, the defender may decide his best course of action is to flee. If so...there is no negative nor positive for the group. They remain as they were.
But, this assumes an engagement takes place. Knowing certain areas contain a lot of defensive shooters, attackers tend to avoid them. NET POSITIVE for the group.
Gee, it's almost like shooters go where the guns aren't. Funny that.
Hey, remember when that Trans shooter killed a bunch of Christian School children? S/he/it decided to go to the school with the fewer armed guards.
And wasn't there an Uber driver who stopped a mass shooting?
And aren't guns soooo much of a problem?
Meanwhile, in another part of the universe -- also Florida -- the same place that hosted the Blind Sheikh, terrorist mastermind behind the first World Trade Center attack, decided that a homosexual British conservative was far too divisive and terrifying, and possibly hostile. Does anyone else see a problem here?
We won't even go into the little weakling reporter who went to a gun store, fired an AR-15, and claimed PTSD afterwards. He's a man with the appropriate name of Kuntzman. Can't even make this one up.
Who am I kidding, everyone did.
Seriously, all of the anti-gun people need to step back, take a deep breath, and try not to cry into your non-alcoholic, vegan approved fake milk. Try going out to a gun range, and firing off a few rounds. And if you don't listen to the range master, at least try not to deafen yourself or shoot yourself in the foot. And eat some bacon while you're at it.
A former Navy SEAL defends the AR-15.
To all those people who insist that law abiding citizens should disarm themselves for "everyone's safety..."
Go screw yourselves.
Report: 92 Percent of Mass Shootings Since 2009 Occurred in Gun-Free Zones
On October 9, the Crime Prevention Research Center (CPRC) released a revised report showing that 92% of mass public shootings between January 2009 and July 2014 took place in gun-free zones.
The CPRC report was released in response to an Everytown for Gun Safety study claiming only 14% of mass public shootings took place in gun-free zones. Everytown actually claimed 86% of such incidents occurred in places where guns were allowed.
CPRC showed that the 86% claim rests on Everytown’s “inclusion of attacks in private homes” and “numerous errors in identifying whether citizens can defend themselves.” For example, Everytown “[ignores] rules that prevent general citizens from carrying guns [for self-defense]” in certain cities, and they fail to recognize that “allowing police to carry guns is not the same thing as letting civilians defend themselves.”
So Everytown might count an attack in a public area in Los Angeles as a mass shooting where guns are allowed because certain guns are allowed in the city with a permit. However, they miss the fact that L.A. County issues a minuscule number of concealed carry permits, and many of the ones that are issued are granted only “to wealthy [political] donors.”
Using the same numerical standard that Everytown used–four or more people killed–but taking all rules and regulations against firearm possession into account, CPRC showed that only 8% of mass public shootings occurred in places where citizens could have guns for self defense
And the next a-hole who says "gun owners need to take one for the team . . ."
"Nation Firearms Act of '34
Federal Firearms Act of '38
Law Enforcement and Criminal Justice Assistance Act of '67
Gun Control Act of '68
Firearms Owners Protection Act of '86 (sic)
Gun Free Zones Act of '90
Brady handgun Violence Act
Clinton Gun Ban (has since sunset)"
And that's not all of the infringements we've "taken for the team." And you're not happy yet.
Strangely, New York City is not home to the most stringent gun laws on the planet Earth, though you would be forgiven for thinking that, given that previous mayor Bloomberg has become one of the biggest anti-gun nuts in the country. It is, however, close to having gun laws as insane as Chicago.
Even as a New Yorker, before moving, I wanted a gun. All of my local friends wanted guns.
Handguns for "out on the town" defense. We want rifles and shotguns for at-home defense. Who am I kidding? After my two gun shop visits out of state, I wanted guns just for the fun of target shooting. Because target shooting is fun. Also, I'm told I’m good at it.
NYC loved to boast being one of the safest big cities on the planet Earth… but that was years ago, and requireed an effective police force that is literally bigger than the ENTIRE FBI.
Yet, everywhere I turn, there's yet another idiot online talking about how “we need gun control.”
Well, we have gun control.
It's called Chicago, where there’s a shootout every weekend, and over a dozen fresh bodies in the morgue.
It’s called London, where guns are banned, but the assaults with a deadly weapon are so high, kitchen knives must be banned, and restricted.
We have Australia, who confiscated guns, and all of their violent crime SHOT UP.
Then there are places where gun control means that you hit what you aim for. I call it Switzerland, the country where every home has a NATO-issue rifle. Their crime rate is insanely low.
What's that you say? Switzerland has a different culture? Funny, every time someone holds up European and Australian gun laws as an example of what we do, “it's not our culture” somehow never applies.
But okay, fine. How about we compare and contrast America.
Have you ever noticed that we don't get a lot of shootings in the South? I’ll address Virginia tech and the recent Florida shooting in a minute. But one of the bigger incidents with guns in the South happened in Texas. Two Jihadi types came in with 200 rounds of ammo and AK47s -- fully automatic weapons. They were dropped by an off-duty guard with a side arm in a matter of seconds, because welcome to Texas, muthaf**ka.
But yeah, overall, places with high rates of gun ownership have a sharp decrease in gun crime. Why? Because you are either polite, or the locals will shoot you. A lot.
But then, welcome to Virginia Tech and Parkland.
They were “gun free zones.”
Seriously, who thought that this was a good idea? Who honestly thought that disarming the law abiding was going to disarm the criminal?
And, seriously, enough about the AR(malite) 15. It's a gun so common, children use it. Nine year old girls have pink Hello Kitty AR-15s. It's not some "military" weapon. It's semi-automatic. Anyone who ever saw Under Siege should realize that semi-automatic means that you pull down the trigger, and a bullet comes out. A single bullet. The Virginia tech shooter killed more people with handguns than this “ultimate death weapon” all the anti gun nuts are so hyped up about.
But now we're told that citizens don't need guns. That's what cops are for.... then we learn that the cop at the Parkland shooting sat outside while children were slaughtered. Then Uvalde cops did the same thing.
Seriously, what's so hard about this math?
Chicago banned guns, their crime went up.
Australia and the UK banned guns, THEIR crime went up.
98% of shootings are in gun free zones, which mean they PROMOTE crime.
Switzerland has guns all over the place, they're cool.
The American South has guns all over the place, they're cool ... except for gun free zones.
So taking guns is not about safety. It's about control.
Did no one learn anything from prohibition? Ban something, you get more of it. There were people who drank more during prohibition than before or after it. I await the day when we have speakeasy gun clubs that are three levels under the street so no one can hear the gun fire.
You want “common sense gun control”? Get rid of the gun free zones, and let everyone carry guns wherever and whenever they want.
Because an armed society is a polite society. Always has been, always will be.
You know what, while we’re at it, a quick discussion of anti-gun agit-prop…
If you know Slade Wilson, aka Deathstroke— and after Arrow season 2, how can you avoid it? —Deathstroke is a mercenary who is an almost perfect badass.
What do I mean by almost perfect? The first time he ran into Batman, he beat him unconscious. He’s also quite honorable. After beating Batman out cold, Deathstroke left him alone —the Dark Knight wasn't the target, he was just in the way. From what we could tell, he didn’t even peek under the cowl, but probably figured out who Batman is, since he’s deduced the real names of almost every Robin. He’s also a brilliant tactician.
Deathstroke is "almost" perfect as a badass, mostly because he's insane. This is a guy who took on most of the Justice League in Identity Crisis, nearly beat them, and flipped out after Green Arrow jammed an arrow into his empty eye socket — which became a vendetta that concluded with nuking a city.
Deathstroke also carries enough guns to go toe-to-toe to Deadpool— who started as a parodied version of Deathstroke.
This is Deathstroke's load out.
And in Deathstroke #11, Christopher Priest wanted to use Deathstroke to talk about gun violence.
Nope. Not a joke. I can't even make this up. This really happened. Author Christopher Priest used a gun-wielding mercenary with more guns this side of The Punisher… to talk about the evils of guns.
Do I even have to highlight how stupid this is?
Not to mention that this is the DCU: alien invasions drop out of the sky every five minutes. To hell with guns, how do standard citizens not have a rocket launcher in their basement, just in case of the next invasion by Apokalypse— or however else they spelled that planet— or attack by Amazons, or ninjas, or whatever the hell else is going on out there this moment?
It's also amusing because right now, they've made Deathstroke an anti-hero. So if he's not shooting someone, he's either: 1) beating someone over the head with a six-foot long iron staff, or 2) shanking them with a katana.
Now, I can kind of appreciate Chris Priest, who is a Baptist minister, trying to use a gun heavy protagonist to explore guns.
But let's look at his execution a moment, shall we?
Priest uses a reporter to investigate rumors that the families of shooting victims have hired Deathstroke to take out the armed killers of their children. Deathstroke is mostly silent through the issue, while Chicago citizens debate whether an eye for an eye can ever be the right way to answer back to violence.
To be honest, that's not hard. Deathstroke doesn’t need side kicks. Exclude first person narration or thought bubbles, it wouldn’t be all that hard to make an entire issue read like a silent movie, only with screams and sound effects of the targets being wiped out.
The silence from the assassin was intentional, according to Priest. “I wanted Deathstroke to be a force of nature more,” Priest said. “I wanted to have as objective an analysis of the crisis as I’d be able to do. So I used a reporter’s voice.”
That would be fine if we were being really honest about it. Part of the tale involves an armed citizen leading to a dead child passerby. It then goes to whine about how, as we "all know," private citizens are just too stupid to own guns.
But that's a lie.
I first saw the article in the LA Times in 2001 (and I should have kept it) that cited that armed citizens stop over 20,000 crimes each year in LA. Guns stop five times more crime than they cause.In 2007, a Florida State University study revealed that private guns stop 2.5MILLION crimes each year.
So already, part of the narrative is already a problem.
Add on top of that … That every time that Deathstroke has played hero, he's been an armed private citizen.
Frame #2 and #3 of the same page has this bit of Dialogue.
"I'd take Mickey Mouse with a machine gun if it'd help."
Then what, may one ask, was the point? "I'd take X if it would help, but it won't."
The point was the highlight the message.
Maybe Rev. Priest —talk about names being prophetic — should just let the story carry the day, be completely honest, and follow the main character instead of trying to “explore” a topic that he already claims to know the answer to.
I’m sorry, every time a comic book author says, “I want to explore the issue,” I hear “I have all the answers, and I'm going to shove them down your throat.” That always seems to be the end result.
Also, in case you missed it, the reporter is Jack Ryder, “The Creeper,” who is so utterly bizarre, he had the Joker looking at him like he was crazy. Because THAT’S the objective look we want.
Don't get me wrong, Deathstroke versus gang bangers in Chicago would be awesome, just to watch the crime rate spike for one weekend, and then drop for the rest of time. Because Deathstroke takes on whole countries when he feels like it, he can wipe out the gang bangers of Chicago in a weekend, if he takes his time about it. I can’t imagine the fees he would charge, but it'd be worth it.
And then there's this page
Are you kidding me? “Deathstroke hasn't used any guns to off these jokers. He must be sending a message!”
Yes, the message is “I’m Deathstroke, and I’m showing off, because you're not even worth the bullets. Because I’m a super-powered bad ass with sharp objects, and I can hold my own against Batman.”
Also, we're going to garrote one person, and cut off the arm of the next person with a great splash of blood …
But guns are bad.
Give me a break.
Maybe the message Priest is really trying to send is “People are violent bastards who will used whatever's handy to murder people.”
Also, that artwork...gah! Who the hell?
And then there's this.
What could have been the most powerful, most moving parts in the whole comic book, panel #2, #4, #5, is undercut by speechifying.
So a black mother and her black Reverend are being lectured by a white guy about “gun violence,” trying to blame “the culture,” and, worse, the parents of the dead kid, for “why guns are everywhere.”
I don't think I've seen something more racist in a while. The PC police throw around lines like “Whitesplaining,” or “White knighting” or some such idiocy. And I don't think that I have ever seen it any clearer than in this comic. Written by a black minister. What the hell?
I think I'm going to slam my head against the wall. After a while, I may even come to enjoy it.
And there's this bit of BS.
The reference to "49 Dead kids in a Florida nightclub." It was a gay nightclub shot up by — wait for it — deranged Islamofascist #57. Yes, you read that correct, ladies and gentlemen, they wanted to slap a “gun violence” label on a terrorist incident. Or is is no longer terrorism when there's a gun involved? Perhaps they would have preferred napalm, or a suicide bomber?
This is everything wrong with comics now — “No, we're not interested in a story. Let's all lecture at each other.” Marvel does it, now I guess DC wants to dip their toe in the water.
At the end of the day though, I'm grateful for Priest's work. Because you have to know this idea tanked. Why? Because the very next issue goes onto a completely different story.
Dear comic books: Tell me a story. Don't lecture me and call it art. If I wanted to choke down garbage, I can walk to the nearest McDonald's and buy better garbage for cheaper than the price of this comic book.
This is described as “an unflinching look at gun violence in America.” Oh, I flinched.
I flinched at every lie, every half-truth, every stilted line, every forced morale.
And they flinched at the truth.
For series where no one whines over guns, Press this button.
Declan’s Newsletter is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.