When the hypocrites come marching in- starring rosie O'donnell!

[bjdony]

no i’ve never been a rosey fan and none of this surprises me.

if it is true that she said “But if you are qualified, licensed and registered, I have no problem.” then she just spit in the face of every gun control advocate she ever brought on her show for her frequent “good for us” chats.

let her talk. she’s just digging deeper and deeper.

IF YOU HAVE COME TO THIS BOARD TO DEFEND YOUR BELOVED ROSEY, FIRST STATE YOUR OPINION ON HER QUOTE::

“But if you are qualified, licensed and registered, I have no problem.”

do you agree with her on that 1?

[SingleDad]

SPOOFE, I was agreeing with you. All gun control nuts should cease defending themselves by legal means in order to avoid hypocrisy. It’s intuitively obvious that private gun ownership is the only possible means of countering the criminal class. Why, a day doesn’t go by in England or Canada but that hundreds of households are invaded by drug-crazed maniacs and the peaceful and honest residents slaughtered after unspeakable acts!

[SPOOFE]

SPOOFE, I was agreeing with you. All gun control nuts should cease defending themselves by legal means in order to avoid hypocrisy. It’s intuitively obvious that private gun ownership is the only possible means of countering the criminal class. Why, a day doesn’t go by in England or Canada but that hundreds of households are invaded by drug-crazed maniacs and the peaceful and honest residents slaughtered after unspeakable acts!

Uhh… now you’re just being irrational and insulting.

In case you haven’t noticed, there’s a bit of a difference 'tween England/Canada, and the United States.

Everything else… well, there’s only so much unintelligible babble that I care to translate into “sense-speak”.

[QuickSilver]

Yeah Spoof, there is a difference between England/Canada and the US. The difference, besides the obvious geographic one, is that the forefathers and law makers in England and Canada did not deem it necessary to grant each civilian the right to own and carry guns. The only question that remains is whether that has hurt or helped society in Canada/England. I, of course, have my opinion about that. As do you. Any chance that we concur? I didn’t think so. Why do you suppose civilian Americans have such a love affair with guns and their ownership? Is it simply because they can and they have tasted the power of such an instrument? I’m keen to find out myself. I think I’ll start a thread on that.

As to the poster who asked if I’ve ever used a gun. Quite frankly, no. It’s not a source of pride or principal for me. I simply never had the opportunity or desire. I’ve also never used a grenade launcher, or a 50mm machine gun, or a smart bomb. So what? Do you actually need to use one of those to know their purpose and to have a healthy respect for them?

[Sam_Stone]

Don’t be so quick to use Canada as an example, since it disproves your point.

First of all, Canada has always had much lower crime rates than the U.S., despite the fact that our gun control laws were once as lax as yours are today (and not that long ago). About the only thing Canadians couldn’t do that Americans could is carry a concealed weapon. But rifles (even ‘assault rifles’) could be purchased over the counter without so much as requiring ID, and handguns could be purchased after getting a permit from the police (a fairly trivial matter).

Almost every family I know has a gun of some kind in the house. We have both a rifle and a Colt 9mm pistol.

In recent years, we’ve been bombarded by the anti-gun crowd. It now takes a license to own any gun, or even to buy ammunition (as of next year). Purchasing a new one will be a morass of red tape. A federal firearms registry is forcing all current owners to register their guns and pay an annual fee for owning them. And I’m sure this is jus the tip of the iceberg.

But the big question is, if guns are responsible for all the crime in the U.S., how come Canada’s crime rate is much, much lower? Guns have always been about as easy to get here, and the black market in handguns ensures that any criminal who wants one will get one. You can walk into any tough-looking bar in this country and find someone who will sell you a handgun.

In recent years, violence has been on the rise in Canada despite a much stronger gun control system. But I wouldn’t be quick to either blame guns for crime OR claim that the lack of them has increased crime here. It looks to me that the reason we have more crime is that, well, we have more criminals. Specifically, there’s been a tremendous rise in Gang activity in the larger cities, with accompanying spikes in murder rates. This would suggest that cultural factors play a much larger role in the crime rate than something as simple as the availability of guns.

A proper study of the effects of guns has to account for stuff like gang activity, poverty, racial tension, and other violence-inducting factors, normalize it all out, and then measure the changes in crime rates with gun availability. The most comprehensive study like that I’ve seen was the Lott report, which tracked crime over something like 3,000 counties across America. And Lott found that, if anything, the availability of guns decreased the crime rate.

Incidentally, I’ve heard a lot of people accuse the Lott Report of being a Republican tool, because of name confusion. Many think it was sponsored by Trent Lott. It wasn’t. The economist who performed the study was John Lott, a very distinguished academic, who actually approached his study initial expecting to find the opposite answers (and therefore validate his own gun control beliefs). The data indicated otherwise, and he changed his mind.

[Max_Torque]

What One Woman Really Needed

Wonder what Rosie’s spin on the above would be. All the safeguards supposed to protect the young woman failed. I bet Rosie would still argue against private gun ownership. Too bad the young woman couldn’t afford an armed bodyguard, like a certain celebrity…

[Arnold_Winkelried]

posted by Danielinthewolvesden:
Quicksilver: Yes, and we can add Switzerland to the list of 1st world counties with low crime & strict gun control. The law is VERY strict: Every able-bodied male citizen MUST keep a fully automatic assault rifle in their home or business.

This is false. There is no law in Switzerland requiring able-bodied male citizens to have a weapon at home.

You are probably confused by the fact that swiss males who are in the military, and as part of their military duties carry a rifle, keep the rifle at home in order to expedite mobilization in case of emergency. The rifle must be stored in a safe place, the firing pin removed (or whatever means to make the weapon unable to fire accidentally, forgive me if I don’t know the correct english term), and it is illegal to use the rifle for any purpose other than military duty (including the scheduled target practice that are required for any swiss soldier.)

Swiss citizens are on “reserve” duty from the ages of 20 to approximately 55, and thus keep their rifle at home during those times. They are allowed (or used to be when I lived there) to purchase the rifle when their military service is complete.

Please note that if your military duties do not require the use of a rifle, then you do not have one at home. For example, my father, who played the french horn in the army band and would double as a medic in case of war, had no rifle at home, only a bayonet.

[Odesio]

**
Rosie O’Donnell is a gun control proponent in a nation with millions of armed citizens, many of them nutjobs and criminals. She has received death threats against her daughter. Obviously, the only rational position is that she should be prepared to sacrifice her daughter’s life to maintain her philosophical consistency.
**

I agree that getting a body guard is a very rational move on her part. However if she cannot remain philosophical consistent then maybe there's something wrong with her philosophy. At the very least her philsophy doesn't seem to be integrated into her life very well.

Marc

[TubaDiva]

**
Please note that if your military duties do not require the use of a rifle, then you do not have one at home. For example, my father, who played the french horn in the army band and would double as a medic in case of war, had no rifle at home, only a bayonet.
**

I dunno. A French horn AND a bayonet? Sounds pretty damn dangerous to me.

The only thing that stumps me is figuring out where he fixed that bayonet on the horn.

your humble TubaDiva
Adminstrator
There’s probably something in the Geneva Convention about it, I betcha.

[Arnold_Winkelried]

Good one Tuba!

My father told me, when I asked him the purpose of his bayonet, that he would carry it as a “side-arm”, attached to his belt. (He also said that he could use for “mercy killings” for soldiers that were mortally wounded on the battlefield and were in pain, but I’m pretty sure he was kidding.)

My personal opinion, after hearing him try to play his french horn after a fifteen-year hiatus (when he was out of the country and thus unable to go to his regularly scheduled two-week stints), is that the bayonet would be used for hara-kiri by people forced to listen to the army band playing.

[MetallicAsh]

So much obfiscation, so little time.

Among the many innane ideas flying around (criminals who psychicly avoid breaking into your home because somehow they know you have a gun hidden under your bed), quite possibly the most so is that Rosie O’Donnel is being a hypocrite by employing an armed bodyguard to protect her child from armed assailants.

To illustrate by analogy, I will take the poster-boy for the Ridiculous Right, Ronald Raygun. (Actually, its just for illiteration.) Let’s say Ronald Raygun is the Regent of the Republic. Let’s say he thinks nuclear weapons are bad, and nobody should have them. He has two choices:

1. unilateral disarmament - I will get rid of my nuclear weapons with no regard for my personal safety, and hope that my comrades do the same by following my moral leadership;
2. negotiate a disarmament - I will negotiate a legal treaty which regulates, and eventually phases out, these evil beasties, but so long as they’re legal, I’ll make sure I’m as well armed as the next guy.

I don’t think anyone would call Mr. Raygun a hypocrite for attempting to ban nuclear weapons, while retaining them in his own defense until such time as his proposed ban goes through. He could easily say “Nuclear weapons are evil; I don’t think anyone should have them unless they are in the military or in the police” and yet not be called a hypocrite for retaining them for his own defense until he gets his wish and they are outlawed.
So why would Rosie be a hypocrite for saying she doesn’t think anyone should have guns, but if gun-toting wackos are going to threaten my child for my beliefs, then I will employ a legally liscenced professional with a sidearm of his own until such time as guns are made illegal and both parties disarm.
Just to touch on one other issue…while we’re conducting thought experiments:

*If you were an armed robber who broke into someone’s house and were undeterred by an alarm, would you:

a) upon seeing the homeowner with a gun, turn your back to the angry armed person and flee, hoping not to be shot in the back;

b) upon seeing the homeowner with a gun, panic and shoot;

c) upon seeing the homeowner with a gun, shoot with the deliberate notion that a first strike favors your experience with the weapon, your lack of scruples, and your lesser state of surprise (you knew you were going to rob a house in the middle of the night; the homeowner did not expect to be awakened in the middle of the night, and probably isn’t sure that you’re not just the cat).
*

[SPOOFE]

MetallicAsh:

quite possibly the most so is that Rosie O’Donnel is being a hypocrite by employing an armed bodyguard to protect her child from armed assailants.

Did you read the thread? Read it again. I’ll wait. ::waits:: Read it? Good. Then you’d know that nobody has said that Rosie is a hypocrite because she wants to protect her child!

She’s a hypocrite because she’s saying one thing and doing another.

Got it now? Simple enough for ya? Good. I hate being so harsh, but I’ve already said this exact same thing before, and I also hate having to repeat myself.

Among the many innane ideas flying around (criminals who psychicly avoid breaking into your home because somehow they know you have a gun hidden under your bed)

Are you unaware of the law of averages? If a criminal knows that few people have a gun, DUE TO THE GUNS BEING BANNED, then he knows he has a very good chance of going into a house and doing whatever the heck he wants. If he knows that any homeowner can have a gun at their discretion, he’ll think twice.

Got it now? 'Cuz I don’t want to have to repeat myself again.

And, yes, Mr. Raygun WOULD be hypocritical if he were to say one thing and then do another. I don’t think ANY member of the NRA likes the fact that there are psychos out there committing murders with guns. Just like ginsu-knife people don’t like the fact that there are psychos out there committing murders with knives, or that Ford people don’t like the fact that psychos are driving while drunk.

upon seeing the homeowner with a gun, turn your back to the angry armed person and flee, hoping not to be shot in the back;

Get shot in the back? There’s that much open room inside the average house? You’re not going to find more than a dozen meters of clearance in the average American home. In order to “run”, a criminal just has to duck behind a wall and disappear out from whence he came… he’s not going to be an idiot and stay behind and carry out a long gunbattle… that only happens on TV and in the movies, my friend. If a criminal sees that someone in the house has a gun, he knows things are already FUBAR.

b) upon seeing the homeowner with a gun, panic and shoot;

The initial panic instinct is to point ones’ hand at the source of said panic and jerk the index finger? Of course not, the initial instinct is to duck out of sight (or any other related “evasion” moves).

c) upon seeing the homeowner with a gun, shoot with the deliberate notion that a first strike favors your experience with the weapon, your lack of scruples, and your lesser state of surprise

“Favors your experience with a gun”? If you’re robbing a house, how the heck do you know if the guy living there is an ex-Navy Seal or not? Besides… a criminal uses a gun as a THREAT… the THREAT to shoot. If he HAS to shoot, he’s already botched the job. I know gunshots don’t sound so loud when coming from your television screen, but if some nut breaks into your home and fires his gun, the neighbors WILL hear (don’t bring up silencers… those are rarer than Charizards). Those neighbors WILL call the police, since, despite what “NYPD Blue” may say (or whatever show you use to base your expertise on firearms), a gunshot isn’t easily mistakable for a car backfiring.

So a criminal is going to avoid shooting at all costs, since it means he’s just lost his chance at robbery/rape/whatever. And he ALSO knows that if a homeowner has a gun, even though the defensive shots will miss, the noise will attract your friendly neighborhood law enforcement officers by the dozen, who most likely WON’T miss. And don’t bring up the notion that “oh, then it’s a hostage situation, and that’s even worse!”… that’s just grasping at straws.

[Shirley_Ujest]

I’ll believe Rosie and the rest of Hollywood are sincere when they (Hollywood) start making movies with rubber band fights, spitwads and getting cracked in the leg by a wet towel instead of 90 minutes of gun battles .

[beakerxf]

**The initial panic instinct is to point ones’ hand at the source of said panic and jerk the index finger? Of course not, the initial instinct is to duck out of sight (or any other related “evasion” moves).

[snip]

Besides… a criminal uses a gun as a THREAT… the THREAT to shoot. If he HAS to shoot, he’s already botched the job.

[snip]

So a criminal is going to avoid shooting at all costs, since it means he’s just lost his chance at robbery/rape/whatever.**

You keep stating these things as if they are universal truths. Have you not ever seen surveillance tapes of convenience store robberies? The one’s where the owner pulls out a gun and has a shoot out with the thief? Far as I can see, you are projecting how you would act if you were a criminals onto all criminals everywhere.

Some criminals are willing to have shootouts. Some criminals have self-destructive behaviors and pent-up anger. Not all are about self-preservation at all costs and will do something stupid, like have a shootout with a gun toting owner. Has this ever happened in a home? Not that media has ever reported, but as some here like to point out, the media is selective in its portrayal of guns. However, I have seen it happen in store robberies.

So don’t say all criminals will act in one way. Criiminals are individuals and their responses will reflect their individuality. No situation will be exactly the same.

[MetallicAsh]

SPOOFE:

Did you read the thread? Read it again. I’ll wait. ::waits:: Read it? Good. Then you’d know that nobody has said that Rosie is a hypocrite because she wants to protect her child!

She’s a hypocrite because she’s saying one thing and doing another.

Did you read my post? Read it again. I’ll wait. ::waits:: Read it? Good. Then you know that people are saying that Rosie is a hypocrite for employing an armed bodyguard while she opposes gun ownership.

Got it now? Simple enough for ya? Good.

What I said (sorta the main point of the post, if you can’t be bothered to read it) was that it is possible to take a principled stance against guns/nuclear weapons without unilateral disarmament. I would love some substantive analysis beyond “says one thing and does another” on the subject. Do you really think that it is hypocritical to work towards banning or restricting something without being the first to unilaterally disarm? I hardly think it is “doing one thing and saying another” to work within the law, but to try and get the law changed.

As for SPOOFE’s “law of averages” analysis regarding criminals being deterred by guns in the home, the entire argument depends on the presumption that a proliferation of guns will reduce the crime rate (more guns->criminals think twice->fewer crimes). I have yet to see a credible study that shows this to be true.

SPOOFE’s second contention is that the loud noise of a gun firing will be enough to scare of a criminal. Well, if SPOOFE had bothered to read my post (ironic that he decided to chide me for not reading, isn’t it?) he would have seen:

If you were an armed robber who broke into someone’s house and were undeterred by an alarm, would…

I specifically constructed it this way to respond to eariler posts that contend that home alarms are a poor substitute for guns. Personally, if you’re counting on the loud noise as a deterrant, I think its much more reasonable to get a device that makes a loud noise whenever someone breaches the perimiter of your home, than to count on the loud noise of a discharging weapon (because by then, it may already be too late). Besides, I guarantee your kids will never accidentally kill one of their friends while showing off the alarm system.

[Glitch]

MetallicAsh: Concerning reliable studies, by this do you mean studies which do not disagree with you, or studies that have a sound methodology? I assume the former because they are have been many studies performed on private gun ownership and the effect on violent crime, which have sound methodology. If you wish to contest the following studies, please do so:

John Lott - “More Guns, Less Crime” and other articles. (University of Chicago)
Gary Kleck - Many articles. (University of Florida)

Morgan O Reynolds - National Center for Policy Analysis
W.W. Caruth III - National Center for Policy Analysis
James D Wright & Peter H Rossi - “Armed and Considered Dangerous: A Survey of Felons and Their Firearms”

Paul Blackman - Journal of Firearms and Public Policy

Marianne Zawitz - “Guns Used in Crime” & “Firearm Injury from Crime” (Bureau of Justice)
Patsy A Klaus - “The Cost of Crime to Victims: Crime Data Brief” (Bureau of Justice)
Micheal R Rand - “Guns and Crime: Handgun Victimization, Firearm Self Defense, and Firearm Theft” (Bureau of Justice)

Ted R. Miller, Mark A. Cohen and Brian Wiersema - “The Extent and Costs of Crime Victimization: A New Look” (National Institute of Justice)

I have posted some brief summaries of gun defense at least a dozen times in various threads from my studies of self protection and criminology. If this even briefer summary doesn’t satisfy you then please go get some books on criminology (“Inside the Criminal Mind” by Stanton SameNow and “The Criminal Mind” by Phillip Roche are good books, although old, “Inside Murder: The Criminal Mind” is more recent, but I haven’t read it yet … it is sitting in my pile of books to read) or find the other threads where I have posted the material.

Roughly 50% of all armed criminals when presented with the threat of a firearm attack immediately. This percentage was not seemingly affected by any factor, including (surprisingly) whether the defender surprised the criminal and had them at a clear disadvantage. The other 50% immediately fled or surrendered. Unarmed criminals choose to attack roughly 20% of the time.

Of course, virtually all criminals when not presented with a counterattack succeed in their crime, and criminals are without a doubt becoming increasingly more vicious. Almost universally, criminals have predetermined the extent of their crimes (e.g. they have already decided if they are going to kill the victims or not), and this predetermination is almost never changed by the actions of the victim. Counterattacking has been shown to increase the chances of having minor lacerations or bruises by 0.2%, but doesn’t increase the chance of sustaining any other major injuries.

[DAVEW0071]

Seems to me that one of the distinctions getting lost in all the hysteria is the difference between gun control and banning guns.

Did Rosie advocate getting rid of guns entirely? This is not a rhetorical question, as I’ve only heard stuff second-hand about what she’s said. I know I’ve heard people attribute to her a plea for mothers/wives to go get any guns in their houses and dispose of them. If I’m wrong about this, then I was getting faulty information. And now she is apparently saying it’s OK for someone who is licensed, trained, yadda yadda yadda, to have a gun. That, in my book is hypocrisy, if she had advocating tossing all privately owned guns into the Atlantic.

Banning guns is quite a different issue from gun control. We already have gun control in this country. Whether or not we enforce those laws is another debate; whether or not certain people or groups are happy with those laws is yet another debate, but a certain measure of legislative control over firearms exists.

The real nub of the issue (and of Rosie’s hypocrisy) is whether or not the ownership of firearms by private citizens should be allowed to continue. As I read and interpret the Second Amendment, it should be.

I say this as someone who neither owns a gun nor wants one. I’ve held a handgun only once (my brother’s police sidearm) and to be frank, it frightened me. But even if I have no use for a gun personally, I would no more force my lack of desire for one on anyone else – any more than I would my religion, my dietary practices, or my belief that 8 hours of sleep a night is the optimum amount.

My belief is that with rights come responsibilities. Therefore, advocates of gun ownership should mount a massive campaign for enforcement of existing laws and comprehensive training. I see nothing wrong with owning a gun. But I dislike the fact that in some states it’s easier to get a gun license than a driver’s license. Education and training (and, yes, even background checks or waiting periods) are essential to the success of responsible gun ownership.

[tradesilicon]

Rosie is a joke. I mean that in several ways, since I do think she’s quite funny, especially as Betty in the Flinstone flick. But that’s all she is good for - a good laugh. This poor misguided woman could not even tell where South America was (did anyone catch her on Millionaire?), and we are to take her advice about Gun Ownership? Please, she’s catering to those who have less than the required amount of brains to plug in their own cable to watch her ridiculous show in the first place. This is the great advocate for the gun control cause? Ha!

There are many good arguments in this thread (not because one or the other is the absolute truth, but because each of you explains your thinking. Rosie could never explain her thinking, not enough capacity I fear.

As for all those who claim that guns should be banned, please, take a good look at the human race, we have been killing each other and all living things around us (for one reason or another) and will continue to do so for as ling as we exist. That’s our damn nature. If you can’t see that guns are not the issue you are beyond hope. People will find a way to hurt/maim/kill each other regardless of what weapons are available. Are there those among us who are truly peaceful? Sure. Are there others who would be distrustful no matter what you “ban”? Definitely. Get used to it.

I hate the idea, but it is life. Society offers its advantages and its disgusting darker side. Guns? The only thing I can see is this is the only defense a truly weak person would have against a bully. I don’t own any weapons, but if you ask me, more peaceful, law-abiding citizens with guns (who know how to use them) means less crime.

Sili

[Weirddave]

Very good suggested reading. The first one jumped out at me:

John Lott - “More Guns, Less Crime” and other articles. (University of Chicago)

The interesting thing about Lott is that he started his study as a gun control advicate. He was going to prove that guns did not decrease crime. Imagine his suprise when he discovered that statistics proved the opposite. Give him credit for being man enough to admit his mistake and change sides.

[SPOOFE]

MetallicAsh:

Here’s your first quote regarding what people are saying about Rosie:

Rosie O’Donnel is being a hypocrite by employing an armed bodyguard to protect her child from armed assailants.

Here’s my response:

nobody has said that Rosie is a hypocrite because she wants to protect her child!

To which you say:

Then you know that people are saying that Rosie is a hypocrite for employing an armed bodyguard while she opposes gun ownership.

Here’s how it is… first you say that people are saying Rosie’s a hypocrite for wanting to protect her child. Now you are saying that people are saying she’s a hypocrite for her actions that contradict what she says. Which is it?

I’ll try to keep this as unPit-like as possible: Don’t misquote people, especially things that they’ve JUST SAID. Thank you.

Second, if you want to draw a corollary between guns and alarms, how’s this… a criminal knows that an alarm isn’t going to kill him, no matter how loud it gets. Neighbors also know that alarms can go off accidently. When a car alarm goes off in your neighborhood, do you jump up and say “Uh-oh, better call the cops, someone’s car is getting robbed!” I doubt you do. You probably say “Turn off the f*cking alarm!”

In stark contrast, a criminal knows that a gun CAN kill him (unless he’s a stupid criminal). Neighbors know that if a gun goes off, it’s probably a bad thing and they WILL call the cops. See the difference?

Beakerxf: I apologize for not deliberately saying that my comments were meant about criminals in general. I should have anticipated that someone would ignore this implication and use that lack of clarification to conclude that everything I say has no merit. In actuality, I was making a comparison between what I was saying and what MetallicAsh said. He said “criminal does THIS”, and I responded with “no, criminal probably wouldn’t”. However, I never claimed that these were universal truths. I never even claimed to be an expert. Does a person have to be an expert in order to have a valid point? Or, rather, does a person need to agree with you in order to have a valid point?

In case it’s not clear enough for you, the comments I make about criminals and “neighbors”, or whatever else, are generalized comments, both in this post and previous posts. Your references to criminals, however, are specialized and rare cases (“self-destructive” criminals, for example… are you referring to “suicide by cop”? They’d probably want to find someplace where their “self-destructiveness” can come to fuition).

Second, the “shoot-outs”… yes, I’ve seen those “surveillance tapes of convenience store robberies”… those are shoot-outs? I can’t recall a single one in which more than a shot or two has been fired. That’s a shoot-out? Also, I think there’s a bit of a difference between a convenience store and a home… a convenience store is a relatively common environment that many people are familiar with (it’s essentially a big room with food, candy, etc. and a cash register). A home is an unknown environment with unknown factors involved to the “average” criminal.

Has this ever happened in a home? Not that media has ever reported, but as some here like to point out, the media is selective in its portrayal of guns

As has been proved by Columbine, the media will pounce all over any unusual or extreme case of gun usage. A gun battle going on in a suburban home (or, heck, urban home) would prompt the media to pounce all over it and get a few more ratings points. So if you don’t hear about it on the news, it probably doesn’t happen (in this case, anyway).

Anyway, I can say more, but this post is long enough already.