Talk about a strawman

26 Dec
Talk about a strawman

We often hear about “strawman” purchases when gun control is discussed but what about the strawman arguments that the gun control crowd likes to put forth.

Basically, the gun control zealots prefer to use the gun as the strawman and not the root of the problem.  Often times it is mental illness.  The state of mental illness treatment in America is appalling and until we get a handle on that, tragedies will continue to happen regardless of what gun control measures are passed.

Crazy guy on a subway platform pushes people on the tracks in front of an oncoming train.

Knife rampage by someone suffering a psychotic break.

Social outcast makes bomb out of fertilizer and household project and detonates in a crowd.

These things can and have happened and will continue to happen unless our country wants to come together and pass some real solutions to violence in America.

Why isn’t there a registry for the psychologically disturbed that can be checked when a person is purchasing a firearm?

Because the ACLU wants to protect the civil liberties of people with dangerous psychological defects rather than protect children.

Yet liberal rags like The Journal News in New York has no qualms about publishing the home addresses of those people with a pistol permit in their county.  Not only a list, but an interactive map that will give you directions to their house.  Not only is this a gross infringement upon the privacy of law abiding citizens but the paper seeks to try and ostracize these people in their own communities.

For myself, everyone I know in Pittsburgh knows I am a gun guy and that I carry and if they have a problem with that I could care less as I would simply stop associating with them.  Yet I do not expect my level of comfort in dealing with this issue within my sphere to expand to other gun owners.  The Journal News would seek to make these people into pariahs.  It’s an underhanded and pathetic move by a paper that hides behind the First Amendment while trying to extort those who exercise their Second.

So instead of attacking gun owners and trying to make them feel like THEY’VE done something wrong, how about we have a real conversation about what we are going to do with the utter failure of the Mental Health Industry in regards to stopping these tragedies.

While we are looking for real answers, lets also take a look at the recidivism of criminals we let out of jail.

In Webster, New York a man set fire to a building and when the fire department showed up he shot 4 firefighters, killing 2.  Now the gun control zealots are out in force saying that New York needs stricter gun control.  NEW YORK?!?!

None of these gun control zealots are bringing up the fact that this man, who beat his grandmother to death with a hammer, shouldn’t have been out of jail in the first place.

Those firefighters are dead, not because of a gun, but because of a weak willed judicial system that let a man who beat his grandmother to death with a HAMMER, out of jail after only 17 years.

This psychopath left a note behind saying that he was going to die doing what he does best, “killing people”.  So not only do we have this lunatic slip through the cracks of our mental healthcare system, but also was given a pass on serving the rest of his life behind bars after bludgeoning his grandmother to death with a hammer.

As you may have noticed, I repeated the fact that he killed of his grandmother to death by beating her with a hammer, a number of times.  I do this so that you can conceptualize why this guy might not have been worthy of being released from prison let alone being pinned as a person with a mental disorder.

But no…liberal organizations like the ACLU and rabid gun control zealots want to protect the dangerously deranged and use the gun as a strawman.  They push their own agenda at the expense of innocent children and for them to say otherwise is as duplicitous as it is disgusting.

People want to have a conversation about gun violence and preventing tragedies like Newtown from happening again?  Fine.  That conversation begins with how this country will fix mental healthcare and lower the recidivism of criminals.  Any talk about guns is a strawman argument used by morally contemptible people who want to push their own agenda at the cost of innocent lives.


Posted by on December 26, 2012 in Uncategorized


32 responses to “Talk about a strawman

  1. Chris Swenson

    December 26, 2012 at 12:25 pm

    What level of psychosis do you want to use as the “line in the sand”. I like to consider myself logical and well adjusted. That does not mean that situations may or may not have occurred that would put me in a state of depression. Does that mean I must turn in my firearms during that period. Does that mean I should forever be banned from owning a weapon. What about those who lose security clearances if they seek mental help. I don’t disagree that mentally deranged people shouldnt own firearms. I just see a circular situation that would encourage people to not get help if they get penalized.

    • Webeers

      February 14, 2013 at 5:48 am

      I wouldn’t know how to set the bar on this one. But one thing for sure, the incompetent Federal bureaucrats running our government should not.

  2. Hank rearden

    December 26, 2012 at 12:34 pm

    Keep harping on the people with psychological defects. That works so well until the government deems you to be the one with a psychological defect. The constitution has absolutely no limit on gun ownership and neither should we.
    It is pretty easy to have anyone and everyone diagnosed as “psychologically unstable”. Especially when you have the resources of the federal government.

    • Robert Shelton

      January 11, 2013 at 12:36 pm

      yup. I couldn’t disagree with you less. Giving our government permission to violate HIPA so they can decide that someone shouldn’t own a gun because he was diagnosed, and successfully treated for depression without any suicidal ideas is wrong at every level.

  3. Tony Oliva

    December 26, 2012 at 12:35 pm


    One must be always wary of a slippery slope. But i’m not talking about a person who is having a difficult time in life and is feeling blue. Or about a person who is no danger to themselves or others but may be a bit odd nonetheless.

    I’m talking about the grown kid whose own parents are afraid of him. I’m talking about the guy who beats his own grandmother to death with a hammer and no one questions whether he is a danger to others. The person on the street corner talking to the voices in his head and then pushes a person in front of a train.

    Should you be denied a firearm because you talk things out to a psychologist? Of course not. But if you should be institutionalized because you are a danger to yourself and others then I think we need to figure out a way to better deal with the mental health cases so that tragedies like the aforementioned are limited.

  4. Siobhra DeWar

    December 26, 2012 at 12:36 pm

    So very true. However I am a bit worried about the mental health records being shared. Whenever the government does something they seem to do it to harm more than help. I was discharged from the Navy with a Honorable Discharge for mental health reasons. I’m Gay. There are a lot of Gay gun owners who will find their Navy Discharge used against them if the records are shared. It is how the government works. It will hurt a lot of people who have problems with petty things also. Things that have nothing to do with are they safe with a gun. You may not like us Gays but a lot of us are gun owners and we too love our country.

    • Tony Oliva

      December 26, 2012 at 12:44 pm


      Thank you for your service. And I share your concern about the sharing of mental health records but I don’t think they have to be in order to be used with NICS. A registry of those who are deemed psychologically dangerous would be placed on this list. When NICS are checked it is cross referenced with this registry.

      If a person is seriously deranged they are prevented from purchasing the weapon. If they are not and the placement on the list was an error (much like those poor souls who are on no fly lists through no fault of their own) then upon appeal when the case is reviewed the situation can be quickly remedied.

      Is it perfect? No. But if the people really want to look at stopping these massacres by lunatics it is a step. Punishing law abiding gun owners for the criminally insane is just an agenda by the gun control zealots that will help nothing.

      • Siobhra DeWar

        December 26, 2012 at 1:28 pm

        I should have gone into a little more detail as to why I fear my Navy discharge being used against me. I am 65 years old and I am more than just Gay. I am a male to female transgender. I have never been arrested in my life. Except back when I was 21 years old. I was arrested for wearing girls clothing in public. Yes back then it was a crime. At age 52 I was rejected by the background check for buying a gun because I was a felon. The background check for guns has such a low bar that a crime that is no longer on the books can still cost you your rights.
        No matter where we want the bar to be set the gun banners will lower that bar as low as they can. It cost me $8,000 in lawyer bills to get a pardon to get my rights back. I don’t have the money to fight again.

    • Hank rearden

      December 26, 2012 at 12:45 pm

      Mentally ill, gay and many other reasons were used as an excuse to disarm the german people. Does anyone really believe we are immune to such things? How long until there is a national registry of Gays,Scientologist,Furries,etc.etc.
      How about we put the no compromise back in the “NO compromise”!

      • Tony Oliva

        December 26, 2012 at 1:14 pm


        You speak of “No Compromise”. I’ll paraphrase the 2nd Amendment: The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

        I could contend that the criminal, the insane and some others no longer constitute “the people”. You may consider that denying inmates their 2nd Amendment rights by not letting them have firearms in jail is a compromising position but I do not think so.

        Just as I don’t think it a compromising position to consider a person who will act on the orders of the voices in his head to kill and run amok, no longer among “the people”.

        Just as I don’t support putting a loaded .45 handgun in a babies crib so he can excercise his 2nd Amendment rights, so too do I resist allowing a psychotically deranged murder spree waiting to happen from having access to guns.

  5. Chris Swenson

    December 26, 2012 at 1:07 pm

    I agree with limiting firearms in regard to severe mentally disabled or psychotic individuals. I wrote an article on my own website in response to an inquiry on the subject. Some of my problems with improved mental health care is who is going to pay for it (obamacare?) Is it possible to provide services at a rate equal to or greater than the societal problems that may very well be exacerbating the small problems that may require a visit to the mental health provider by ignoring other issues such as an economy pushing wage earners into low paying jobs, taking parents away from children. Or the lack of commitment in marriage that leaves many children often times with one parent who is forced to work multiple jobs.

    I know many of these are not directly related to gun ownership. While I agree that something needs to be done in regards to mental health, I also have to wonder if we are already on a metaphorical slippery slope where we as a society are spawning the degenerates that need locked away.

  6. Frank Albert

    December 26, 2012 at 1:37 pm

    Maybe we need to start ID’ing people while in school? Could the mental issues stem from being bullied, for instance? Could it be the Bully? The dog torturer? Some common denominator? A specific DNA?
    It’s got to be something other than a kid playing with a toy gun and getting expelled. It’s got to be more than a kid with a ‘normal’ temper tantrum. Or it unidentifiable? I’d hate for a bureaucrat to decide what I am at some whim.

    • hank rearden

      December 26, 2012 at 1:48 pm

      Exactly. It makes no difference what well meaning, and even well thought out, plans we come up with. Any time you put beauracrats in charge they are a direct threat to our Liberty. Look how well they have handled the War on Poverty. Everyone thinks ending poverty and feeding the starving is a good thing but once the govt gets involved it becomes a clusterfuck at best.

  7. hank rearden

    December 26, 2012 at 1:53 pm

    Define criminal or insane. Now ask 100 other people for a definition. Now ask a federal govt that cares about nothing but power and expedienently reaching absolute power. This is not an issue for the government or LAW. This issue will never go away. people have killed and been killed since Cain and Abel.
    Our society is sick and some people are sick. This needs to be handled on a family level. Not with govt intervention.

    • Tony Oliva

      December 26, 2012 at 2:07 pm


      Im all for the non interference of government. I support Constitutional Carry over needing a permit to carry because any time you ask the government for something you allow them to say no.

      With that being said, the gun control zealots are asking for a “conversation” on how to stop these tragedies from happening in the future. By “conversation” they mean banning guns. I counter with offering a conversation about something that will do some good.

      Finally, unfortunately, some families like Lanza’s mother, are too indulgent with their children and these things happen. Let’s have a conversation about how to try and remedy that.

    • Chris Swenson

      December 26, 2012 at 2:32 pm

      I do agree Hank, and unless families take over their responsibilities nothing is going to change. This isn’t a gun problem. As the family unit degenerates the need for guns will probably increase.

  8. Bob Cusick

    December 26, 2012 at 2:30 pm

    Why is it that we do not randomly search felons houses, especially those that get out of jail early and are convicted of violent crimes?

    • hank rearden

      December 26, 2012 at 3:00 pm

      Probable cause would be a good reason. If someone is dangerous keep them incarcerated. If they have paid their debt to society get the hell out of their lives. Quite simple. Instead of spending trillions of dollars fighting a war on drugs that fills prisons and plugs up courts focus on real crime and real criminals.

      • edodaniel

        December 28, 2012 at 2:18 pm

        Actually those released on probation could have unscheduled searches included as a condition of release just as unscheduled drug testing can be. The main problem is that the probation and parole officers tend to slack off on their responsibilities and don’t get the checks done. They usually blame the lack of checking up on their large case loads but that is a rather specious claim when one actually looks at what they do and the amount of time they have to get it done and the FACT that they can simply place a quick call and if it is not responded to can vacate the parole or probation.

  9. msalzbrenner

    December 26, 2012 at 4:59 pm

    The question is and always will be “WHO SETS THE STANDARD”. How much is enough? How much is too much? Laws cause more confusion and crime. BAD PEOPLE WILL ALWAYS DO BAD THINGS! There are NO LAWS that will stop that inevitable fact. YOU CAN NOT PREVENT CRIME! All you can do is PUNISH the criminal once the crime is committed. THAT IS THE ONLY PREVENTATIVE.

    We need simple laws that contain the MANDATORY punishment. No more of this crap where the judge can “decide” what will happen to a criminal. It just makes crime a gamble. There is no preventative with that. If some is fully aware of EXACTLY what will happen to them if they do something, then and only then, can the be accountable for the choice to do it anyway. But instead we as a society elicit an environment of “maybe I can get away with it, and even if i don’t it probable I’ll only get a couple months anyway”

    This whole argument about blaming mental illness is no different than blaming guns. You want to prevent people from doing stupid things? Then they need to know what will happen to them if they do it. If they are “mentally ill” they will do them anyway and they will pay the price for their actions.

    Just like this stupid crap with the NRA spouting about armed guards in the schools. That is a cop out. And a sad one too. I personally would rather NOT send my child to a location that will condition them to become “accustomed” to “big brother” watching over their shoulder all the time. What a joke. The right thing to do is reduce the amount of laws. All we have done is muddied the waters by piling laws on top of laws. We need to go back to a small, specific, and decisive set of rules to abide by. Oh wait, we already have that, THE CONSTITUTION!.

    You want to reduce mass shootings? Eliminate Mandated Gun Free-Zones! No you won’t STOP them from happening but it will certainly reduce the amount of them as well as reduce the amount of victims that that are killed when they DO occur.

    Its very simple : “The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.” means exactly what it says. “SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED!”.

    Should a “mentally ill” (by WHATEVER DEFINITION YOU CHOOSE TO PLACE ON THAT TERM) be allowed to won a firearm. ABSOLUTELY! Why do I say that? Very SIMPLE : When Mr. “Mentally Ill” shows up and threatens anyone under my protection. I will GLADLY eliminate his ABILITY to carry a firearm with NO QUESTIONS ASKED. And I have the RIGHT to defend myself with any means available to me.

    Next we’ll be saying that “stupid” people should be on a list so they can’t own a firearm either.

    I think we should stick to no-compromise!

  10. ian1775

    December 27, 2012 at 4:56 am

    Wait! Kill that other guy first. Do you really want to go down that road? Bravo to Chris, Hank (love your metal), and msalzbrenner. No compromise, no throwing others to the wolves, hoping you will be eaten last. Μολών λαβέ !

  11. justasqpeg

    December 27, 2012 at 9:43 am

    I have zero interest in keeping guns out of “mentally ill” people’s (or “criminals'”) hands, because I don’t trust those who get to decide what constitutes a “mental illness”; I think it would morph, just like “drunk driving” has, to be anything the government wants.

    Instead, just stop meddling in the ability of ANYONE to own and to carry a weapon, anywhere, openly or concealed, without ever asking permission, and the aggressive monsters will be Darwinized- “mentally ill” or not.

    • msalzbrenner

      December 27, 2012 at 10:03 am

      Exactly! The government needs to stay the HELL OUT OF MY LIFE! I have the right, the responsibility, and the choice, to take care of my life has I see fit. So stay the hell out of my way and let me do it!

  12. ian1775

    December 27, 2012 at 10:03 am

    Google Drapetomania.

    • Scott

      December 31, 2012 at 8:52 am

      ian1775….I googled it, history is a great tool. No compromise

      • ian1775

        December 31, 2012 at 9:55 am

        Yes, it is. “For my part, whatever anguish of spirit it may cost, I am willing to know the whole truth — to know the worst and to provide for it. I have but one lamp by which my feet are guided; and that is the lamp of experience. I know of no way of judging of the future but by the past.” -Patrick Henry, in his famous “Liberty or Death” speech:

      • ian1775

        March 10, 2014 at 9:28 am

        “I have but one lamp by which my feet are guided; and that is the lamp of experience. I know of no way of judging of the future but by the past.” -Patrick Henry

  13. Ole Vet.

    December 28, 2012 at 7:57 pm

    If you truly want the law-abiding to obey gun laws, just make a law! They will obey! If you truly want the law-BREAKER to obey gun laws, you have to make his/her alternative WORSE that he/she is WILLING to chance.

    Just what this could be varies. At this time, apparently, death isn’t enough of a deterrent, as people STILL are using guns in commission of murders, right?, So, EXECUTION doesn’t seem to be the answer!

    Perhaps, another alternative should be considered for manslaughter, calculated murder! I propose they, instead, be placed in a solitary cell, no parole, no release, with absolutely NO contact with ANYONE! No TV, no radio, no reading, not even noise! Food, sanitation, all can be done without human contact, other than a video monitor..

    Currently, this would be considered ‘cruel and unusual’ punishment; however, the DEATH they caused was cruel to the victim, the victim’s family and the victim’s friends, so I, personally feel nothing for a murderer! Isolating him/her from society seems to be the best. In solitary, they will NEVER do it again.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: