A blog dedicated to the rational discussion of politics and current events.
Monday, January 28, 2013
Yeah that RARE intruder........
Gun Porn Parody Because guys who need penis substitutes don't have pretty girlfriends, so they need masturbatory images; for them, those are equally images of the guns and the girls. Gun nuts = gun fetishists
I can't find any evidence that Kellerman doesn't stand behind his studies, plural, despite efforts to debunk him. What I can find however other studies that support his findings:
and there appears to be a clear correlation to both states and countries having more guns have more gun related deaths and more gun related injuries, and the states with the most lax or most lenient gun laws have the worst rates of gun violence as well, as was noted by the head of Johns Hopkins Center for Gun Policy and Research, Daniel Webster, citing multiple studies in this Discovery.com article.
The science and the facts are not on your side Weerdy Beard; and neither is public opinion from the current indicators.
You overstate the Kellerman study criticism, you ignore all of the other studies which support it, while your side tries to promote the very genuinely debunked junk studies done by Lott.
Tsk tsk tsk - you have to do much better than that to make a valid argument or criticism. The NRA tried to shut down Kellerman and the CDC; that era is over. And the NRA is quaking in their boots that now that studies will no longer be banned, there will be even more support for effective public safety and public health laws that won't be favorable to gun nuts who make fetish objects out of them.
interesting, the wording for the Branas study is quite specific He argues that possession of a gun does not protect you from being shot. I believe he is right. body armor of cover protect you from being shot. Also he's studying crime. isn't that the job of a criminologist? Trying to correlate guns with disease vectors is not possible, because guns don't act like diseases...because they are hunks of metal. in any case he made the same mistakes that Kellerman made with his study. He didn't try to interview successful defensive firearm use. The Oxford article references Kellerman and Wintemute, both who have been thoroughly debunked and both of whom received their funding from the Joyce Foundation. once again these crime studies were done by doctors, who have no training in doing crime studies. Show me a Criminologist who did these same studies and you will see different results. OH yes and the Lott debunking, was done by people on the Joyce Foundations payroll.
Facts are facts. There are too many people who have access to too many guns in too many public places leading to too many senseless shootings. That's inconvenient to the NRA lobbyists and those who believe them. Debunking facts used to work but it isn't any more because the general public, and most especially, the media and now our politicians have been awakened. The majority is now speaking out while before they were silent. When 20 little children are massacred, it's too much for Americans. The collective grief over the death of these children will result in action at long last. And studies will now continue and they will show what we've all known for a very long time. More guns do not and have not made us safer. Dog gone is right. All we need to do is look to the low rate of gun deaths in almost every other democratized country in the world and realize that stronger gun laws are working quite well. They are models for what the U.S. should be doing. What the gun rights extremists haven't shown through any facts is how reasonable gun laws would affect law abiding gun owners. Maybe that's where the studies should begin.
Weerdy, unlike the junk science you lot like to cite to--Kellerman's methodology was CONSISTENT in its results. Not to mention he was able to produce his data.
Unlike John Lott.
Thing aren't looking too good for the "pro-gun" side since the sunlight is finally shining on you and forcing you back under your rocks.
The pro-gun side works best with ignorance since ANY scrutiny of its argument fall apart.
But, the nice thing is that the people exposing that viewpoint are keyboard warriors like yourself who just spout the party line without question.
Anyway, new laws will allow for accurate data and an intelligent discussion of the issue. That means you will be left pouting on your own.
Try not to hurt yourself as these are real firearms: NOT BLANK GUNS with plugged barrels.
The image shown here is mine -- used without either permission or a credit to me. So the same people who want to steal our guns are already stealing intellectual property.
I suggest Oleg that publishing your info - which I did not previously have - gives you that credit, on the basis of the claim not proof.
I did have the permission of the source from which I got the content; if they did not have your consent, which at this point is still an 'If', given that the work was additionally modified, and may therefore come under fair use heading. They were comfortable putting their name on it. Please feel free to pursue them if you think you have a case, and let us know how that goes.
So while you may have a beef with someone else over the intellectual property, not knowing the specifics, I'm not taking sides on that, and my point in publishing it still stands.
Oleg, please provide your copyright documentation, which of course must predate the use made by any other site.
Please also provide you argument that this is not appropriate respect for your content under fair use rules either, since we are not profiting from your content, and since so far as I am aware we are not in any other way violating the law, much less engaging in any form of theft.
My understanding of copyright law is that when you make it public, which would include appearing on your web site, that you are making it available to the public use. You deserve attribution and consistent with our blog policy you have it.
This seems a consistent pattern from the pro-gun folks, an exaggerated claim of being victims, and accusations which are not appropriate, accurate or correct legally. The right wingers are such whiners, and consistently see themselves as poor put-upon victims who want more leniency to shoot people that offend them or disagree with them.
Making false accusations has its own consequences Oleg; perhaps you should be more careful before throwing stones, like the ones comprising the building in the photo on your web site. You appear to be living in more of a glass house than you realize. (cool stone building though)
This is the original image dating back to early 2009: http://olegvolk.net/gallery/technology/arms/protection1272.jpg.html?g2_imageViewsIndex=1
My use policy is this: Reproduction of the unaltered images in electronic media or print is permitted and encouraged, provided that a by-line is given and that the images are used to promote responsible gun ownership. Please check with me first: some of the images have other conditions attached to them. If you wish to produce graphics based on my posters or photographs, make sure to obtain permission from me first. Many images have conditions attached to them. Organizations or individuals promoting restrictions on ownership and use of firearms are prohibited from using any images from this site.
(Note the last sentence)
It is protected by copyright at creation time -- according to the US copyright laws. You may have a fair use defense as a parody.
What image is yours? Was it posted on the internet? Was it protected by copyright or even the fair use doctrine? Please back up your claim. If it is indeed yours, and you can substantiate it was gained improperly, we obviously will stop using it. Any unintentional misuse was just that, unintentional. THEFT is the wilful taking of someone else's property. Perhaps, before leveling that kind of accusation, you may want to check your facts. So apparently, those who believe crazy people should have nuclear weapons and biological poisons, also believe slander and libel are valid forms of argument. We are happy to attribute anything, and have done so, your claim is false. Mine on the other hand, given that you didnt' bother to check your facts, seems to be true. (Obviously I'm joking about the nuclear weapons, I'm sure you don't want crazy people to have dangerous weapons, that would be, well.. crazy).
So Oleg, I understand you are known for fetish and gun porn?
Bwahahahaaaahaaaaaaaaaaaaa
Don't worry; I'm not interested in posting any of your BDSM shots here. I'm not interested in your efforts to degrade women, or to portray women performing parody fellatio on firearms.
I just enjoy the PARODY, which is perfectly legal.
You are certainly associated with fetish photos, and appear to have been the topic of DU discussion for what certainly seems legitimately descriptive as BDSM when reference to photos of guns pressing into women's genitalia and nipple torture, etc. It is my understanding that you may have moved some of this to friends only access now, but clearly this is a kind of photography that is part of your reputation based on what I have read of your work dating back into the previous decade.
Or is it your contention I am confusing you with another Oleg Volk, or are you simply trying to split hairs about what is and is not BDSM?
I'm sorry Oleg, but I don't think your restrictions on use hold any water. They allow for MY judgment of what constitutes supporting the responsible use or owning of guns. Consequently, it's ambiguous (at best) and therefore doesn't have a chance of holding up as grounds for objection in court. Further, and more important, there is no way, at all, to attach copyright "at time of creation" without filing such a copyright claim. Have you done so? If so, please provide such evidence. Lastly, we didn't reproduce YOUR image, we reproced an image which, while perhaps being sourced from an image you created, was modified, thus making it ANOTHER image and no longer having copyright protection attached (from you). I'm happy to receive your letter identifying that you're making an allegation of copyright infringement. You need to include the specific copyright and then you need to show me an image that has the verbiage included on the image we posted to which YOU have copyright. In short, sorry, but no sale - you made a false claim that we violated your IP, which seems to be a. not true and b. an irresponsible allegation from someone who bitches about the conduct of others as being hypocritcal.. irony, thy name is Oleg.
Also, Oleg, where on your site does it say images are under copyright protection and aren't to be used without your express approval?
YOU indicate above the images are free to use so long as they promote responsible gun ownership. I believe our use fully complies with that requirement AND we didn't use YOUR image, we used an image from Facebook which I will agree was from your source, a source you say is open to the public but which you now say has to have your permission. Which way is it? Should the Facebook user have gotten your permission? That makes it private, not public - so you have contradicted yourself on use.
Regardless, our use is covered by fair use and the fact that it was modified. I await your apology for your false accusation.
Oleg, I assume, since the NRA has, at times, promoted restrictions on gun ownership (by advocating for the enforcement of laws restricting felons from owning guns) that you prohibit them (the NRA or any of it's members or leaders) from using your images? Furher, I assume that most of the manufacturers whom you sell to ALSO support and have promoted (verbally) keeping guns out of the hands of violent felons, so I have to assume you also prohibit them from using your photos.
Seriously Oleg, your policies aren't published, are self-contradictory, and unenforceable. Good luck, but I am still awaiting your apology for making a libelous accusation of theft of IP. I'll not hold my breath, but your next post better be more thoughtful.
So Oleg, isn't this one of your shots, in series with other photos of an unclothed woman, presumably the same woman, variously with guns and with handcuffs? Usually being voluntarily locked in handcuffs is considered a form of bondage play. http://65.55.237.107/att/GetInline.aspx?messageid=c2ab8522-6b29-11e2-bbd0-001e0bcb3590&attindex=3&cp=-1&attdepth=3&imgsrc=cid%3apart4.08050104.03090408%40hotmail.com&cid=6bbb487a0dba423e&shared=1&blob=M3xvbmhlcnRvZXMuanBnfGltYWdlL2pwZWc_3d&hm__login=limerance4u&hm__domain=hotmail.com&ip=10.15.144.8&d=d6297&mf=0&hm__ts=Wed%2c%2030%20Jan%202013%2023%3a05%3a31%20GMT&st=limerance4u&hm__ha=01_81650900eeeccda20f099cbec6336e2b5f2afaee6fa112b97640a9453647d246&oneredir=1
Oleg, on another point, your original content talks about the fact that President Obama has various forms of personal protective services, in which you include law enforcement. Of course, as President, like President Bush before him, he is given this protection because of the national security risk in any allowance of harm to come to him (power transition, disruption of government, etc..) and further, in that there are various crazies, like Timothy McVeigh or other anti-government freaks) who would seek to do him harm which are far more numerous than crazies who would specifically target YOU personally Oleg - so we have some reasons for this security.
Yet, you ask the question who guards you? You answer it with implying only YOU guard you. What utter and complete BS that is.
You have roughly what, 3 Million members of law enforcement at the state, local and federal level, you have the 2 Million members of our armed services charged with safeguarding the country and, by extension, YOU personally, Oleg. Are you saying they AREN'T safeguarding you and your liberty? Your poster implies this very thing, which is pretty darned insulting to their service and sacrifice.
The fact is, you have MANY people safeguarding you, there just isn't anything like a similar need to do so quite so proximately as there is for the President or a very small number of other high officials and it CERTAINLY isn't the case that President Obama somehow invented and magically decided his life was worth more than yours. You are a poor guard of your safety (if you are an average person and/or average gun owner). You are FAR more safe relying upon the police than relying upon having a firearm for you are 20 to 30 times more likely to have that weapon accidentally shoot someone or be used on you or BY you to illegally bring harm to someone than you are to ever use it in your defense.
There are folks who protect you Oleg, including those, like DG and humbly, me, who help to safeguard your liberties by arguing vociferously for such liberties (like due process, guarantees of Habeaus Corpus, and protecting your right to vote). It is in fact these VOICES which are far more important in providing those gaurantees than it is any access to firearms. Germans (non-Jews) had full access to guns, it was their silence and complicity which traded away their freedoms for supposed safety, not the failure to have access to guns.
Precisely Pen; while the gun nuts like to disparage law enforcement, entertaining delusions that private citizens can routinely out-shoot them, which is not demonstrably true at all, or that they have cooler, calmer judgement, the reality is that the public is less safe and less trustworthy with firearms than law enforcement. The gun owners among the general public lack the insurance that backs up the decisions - and compensates for failures - that law enforcement and the military provide.
Our national guard, and our law enforcement are there not only for the RARE home intruder, but for all forms of disaster, conflict and crisis, often doing more to avert violence than civilians with guns.
The reality is that while the gun fools like to whine and wail that law enforcement is not always there, or where people like the ones who buy into the fake claim that law enforcement does NOT protect them, wrongly citing cases where courts found that law enforcement did not have a greater duty to one person over another, but rather that they have a general duty to protect the public, where one person cannot sue if there is a problem. We have different forms of public entities having very limited immunity from being sued. That doesn't equate to them not defending us, not even remotely, as the long list of arrests and convictions and interventions and daily responses demonstrate.
The reality is that, as this poster says, people who keep guns are more likely to harm themselves and the people around them, while rarely engaging in legitimate defensive shooting. The numbers of deaths and injuries from so-called 'celebratory gunfire' alone justifies reducing the number and limiting the kind of guns and related equipment in private ownership. The increase in bad homicides and bad gun injuries under shoot first laws is just one example of the epic failure of our gun culture. The DAILY examples of suicides and murder / suicides, and of accidental killings, crippling and maiming PROVE that the armed civilian is a menace to themselves and public safety on a level that law enforcement and the military are not, without the benefits.
If we had fewer people with guns, fewer people would be shooting each other. That would include criminals lacking guns, as well as the avoidable stupid joe-average gun owner shootings. THAT would make US ALL SAFER, as well as making law enforcement and our military (which has their own problems with suicide, a majority of them by firearm) safer as well.
The reason for the parody is that the gunner side of the argument is poorly reasoned, and factually flawed. We are safer by having fewer guns and relying more on law enforcement. But that doesn't sell guns. The gun nuts like to think their guns make them independent, and free. They don't. They make us less free, they make more of us dead and injured, and they trick and deceive the pro-gunners into acting against their real self-interest and into acting like 'sheeple'. They are fools.
I notice that they are also liars. Oleg hasn't shown up to deny that he took the images of women as victims of nipple torture, or a naked woman on all fours in hand cuffs under the heading 'keeping her on her toes'. That is a particularly degrading kind of porn (not 'art'), one that is targeting the gun goons, and which puts the gunners in a more accurate context than their false heroic claims.
I also notice that bullshitting KarlSchneider isn't producing his address or his proof of having $5k to his name.
THAT is the fanatic pro-gunners; bullshitters and deluded fetishists who take $174 billion with a b out of our economy every year, effectively stealing that money from it, so they can have their little thrill and jack off their little penises.
Yep, Keep quoting Artur Kellerman's junk study. He won't even stand behind those numbers anymore.
ReplyDeleteI can't find any evidence that Kellerman doesn't stand behind his studies, plural, despite efforts to debunk him.
DeleteWhat I can find however other studies that support his findings:
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/09/090930121512.htm
http://aje.oxfordjournals.org/content/160/10/929.full
and there appears to be a clear correlation to both states and countries having more guns have more gun related deaths and more gun related injuries, and the states with the most lax or most lenient gun laws have the worst rates of gun violence as well, as was noted by the head of Johns Hopkins Center for Gun Policy and Research, Daniel Webster, citing multiple studies in this Discovery.com article.
The science and the facts are not on your side Weerdy Beard; and neither is public opinion from the current indicators.
You overstate the Kellerman study criticism, you ignore all of the other studies which support it, while your side tries to promote the very genuinely debunked junk studies done by Lott.
Tsk tsk tsk - you have to do much better than that to make a valid argument or criticism. The NRA tried to shut down Kellerman and the CDC; that era is over. And the NRA is quaking in their boots that now that studies will no longer be banned, there will be even more support for effective public safety and public health laws that won't be favorable to gun nuts who make fetish objects out of them.
interesting, the wording for the Branas study is quite specific He argues that possession of a gun does not protect you from being shot. I believe he is right. body armor of cover protect you from being shot. Also he's studying crime. isn't that the job of a criminologist? Trying to correlate guns with disease vectors is not possible, because guns don't act like diseases...because they are hunks of metal. in any case he made the same mistakes that Kellerman made with his study. He didn't try to interview successful defensive firearm use. The Oxford article references Kellerman and Wintemute, both who have been thoroughly debunked and both of whom received their funding from the Joyce Foundation. once again these crime studies were done by doctors, who have no training in doing crime studies. Show me a Criminologist who did these same studies and you will see different results. OH yes and the Lott debunking, was done by people on the Joyce Foundations payroll.
DeleteFacts are facts. There are too many people who have access to too many guns in too many public places leading to too many senseless shootings. That's inconvenient to the NRA lobbyists and those who believe them. Debunking facts used to work but it isn't any more because the general public, and most especially, the media and now our politicians have been awakened. The majority is now speaking out while before they were silent. When 20 little children are massacred, it's too much for Americans. The collective grief over the death of these children will result in action at long last. And studies will now continue and they will show what we've all known for a very long time. More guns do not and have not made us safer. Dog gone is right. All we need to do is look to the low rate of gun deaths in almost every other democratized country in the world and realize that stronger gun laws are working quite well. They are models for what the U.S. should be doing. What the gun rights extremists haven't shown through any facts is how reasonable gun laws would affect law abiding gun owners. Maybe that's where the studies should begin.
ReplyDeleteWeerdy, unlike the junk science you lot like to cite to--Kellerman's methodology was CONSISTENT in its results. Not to mention he was able to produce his data.
ReplyDeleteUnlike John Lott.
Thing aren't looking too good for the "pro-gun" side since the sunlight is finally shining on you and forcing you back under your rocks.
The pro-gun side works best with ignorance since ANY scrutiny of its argument fall apart.
But, the nice thing is that the people exposing that viewpoint are keyboard warriors like yourself who just spout the party line without question.
Anyway, new laws will allow for accurate data and an intelligent discussion of the issue. That means you will be left pouting on your own.
Try not to hurt yourself as these are real firearms: NOT BLANK GUNS with plugged barrels.
The image shown here is mine -- used without either permission or a credit to me. So the same people who want to steal our guns are already stealing intellectual property.
ReplyDeleteI suggest Oleg that publishing your info - which I did not previously have - gives you that credit, on the basis of the claim not proof.
DeleteI did have the permission of the source from which I got the content; if they did not have your consent, which at this point is still an 'If', given that the work was additionally modified, and may therefore come under fair use heading. They were comfortable putting their name on it. Please feel free to pursue them if you think you have a case, and let us know how that goes.
So while you may have a beef with someone else over the intellectual property, not knowing the specifics, I'm not taking sides on that, and my point in publishing it still stands.
Oleg, please provide your copyright documentation, which of course must predate the use made by any other site.
DeletePlease also provide you argument that this is not appropriate respect for your content under fair use rules either, since we are not profiting from your content, and since so far as I am aware we are not in any other way violating the law, much less engaging in any form of theft.
My understanding of copyright law is that when you make it public, which would include appearing on your web site, that you are making it available to the public use. You deserve attribution and consistent with our blog policy you have it.
This seems a consistent pattern from the pro-gun folks, an exaggerated claim of being victims, and accusations which are not appropriate, accurate or correct legally. The right wingers are such whiners, and consistently see themselves as poor put-upon victims who want more leniency to shoot people that offend them or disagree with them.
Making false accusations has its own consequences Oleg; perhaps you should be more careful before throwing stones, like the ones comprising the building in the photo on your web site. You appear to be living in more of a glass house than you realize. (cool stone building though)
This is the original image dating back to early 2009: http://olegvolk.net/gallery/technology/arms/protection1272.jpg.html?g2_imageViewsIndex=1
DeleteMy use policy is this:
Reproduction of the unaltered images in electronic media or print is permitted and encouraged, provided that a by-line is given and that the images are used to promote responsible gun ownership. Please check with me first: some of the images have other conditions attached to them. If you wish to produce graphics based on my posters or photographs, make sure to obtain permission from me first. Many images have conditions attached to them. Organizations or individuals promoting restrictions on ownership and use of firearms are prohibited from using any images from this site.
(Note the last sentence)
It is protected by copyright at creation time -- according to the US copyright laws. You may have a fair use defense as a parody.
What image is yours? Was it posted on the internet? Was it protected by copyright or even the fair use doctrine? Please back up your claim. If it is indeed yours, and you can substantiate it was gained improperly, we obviously will stop using it. Any unintentional misuse was just that, unintentional. THEFT is the wilful taking of someone else's property. Perhaps, before leveling that kind of accusation, you may want to check your facts. So apparently, those who believe crazy people should have nuclear weapons and biological poisons, also believe slander and libel are valid forms of argument. We are happy to attribute anything, and have done so, your claim is false. Mine on the other hand, given that you didnt' bother to check your facts, seems to be true. (Obviously I'm joking about the nuclear weapons, I'm sure you don't want crazy people to have dangerous weapons, that would be, well.. crazy).
ReplyDeleteSo Oleg, I understand you are known for fetish and gun porn?
ReplyDeleteBwahahahaaaahaaaaaaaaaaaaa
Don't worry; I'm not interested in posting any of your BDSM shots here. I'm not interested in your efforts to degrade women, or to portray women performing parody fellatio on firearms.
I just enjoy the PARODY, which is perfectly legal.
What a tasteless joke you are.
You are confusing my images with somebody else's.
DeletePossibly. But there is no mistaking the naked women posing with firearms, which does qualify as fairly characterized as 'gun porn'.
DeleteYou are certainly associated with fetish photos, and appear to have been the topic of DU discussion for what certainly seems legitimately descriptive as BDSM when reference to photos of guns pressing into women's genitalia and nipple torture, etc. It is my understanding that you may have moved some of this to friends only access now, but clearly this is a kind of photography that is part of your reputation based on what I have read of your work dating back into the previous decade.
DeleteOr is it your contention I am confusing you with another Oleg Volk, or are you simply trying to split hairs about what is and is not BDSM?
I'm sorry Oleg, but I don't think your restrictions on use hold any water. They allow for MY judgment of what constitutes supporting the responsible use or owning of guns. Consequently, it's ambiguous (at best) and therefore doesn't have a chance of holding up as grounds for objection in court. Further, and more important, there is no way, at all, to attach copyright "at time of creation" without filing such a copyright claim. Have you done so? If so, please provide such evidence. Lastly, we didn't reproduce YOUR image, we reproced an image which, while perhaps being sourced from an image you created, was modified, thus making it ANOTHER image and no longer having copyright protection attached (from you). I'm happy to receive your letter identifying that you're making an allegation of copyright infringement. You need to include the specific copyright and then you need to show me an image that has the verbiage included on the image we posted to which YOU have copyright. In short, sorry, but no sale - you made a false claim that we violated your IP, which seems to be a. not true and b. an irresponsible allegation from someone who bitches about the conduct of others as being hypocritcal.. irony, thy name is Oleg.
ReplyDeleteAlso, Oleg, where on your site does it say images are under copyright protection and aren't to be used without your express approval?
ReplyDeleteYOU indicate above the images are free to use so long as they promote responsible gun ownership. I believe our use fully complies with that requirement AND we didn't use YOUR image, we used an image from Facebook which I will agree was from your source, a source you say is open to the public but which you now say has to have your permission. Which way is it? Should the Facebook user have gotten your permission? That makes it private, not public - so you have contradicted yourself on use.
Regardless, our use is covered by fair use and the fact that it was modified. I await your apology for your false accusation.
Oleg, I assume, since the NRA has, at times, promoted restrictions on gun ownership (by advocating for the enforcement of laws restricting felons from owning guns) that you prohibit them (the NRA or any of it's members or leaders) from using your images? Furher, I assume that most of the manufacturers whom you sell to ALSO support and have promoted (verbally) keeping guns out of the hands of violent felons, so I have to assume you also prohibit them from using your photos.
ReplyDeleteSeriously Oleg, your policies aren't published, are self-contradictory, and unenforceable. Good luck, but I am still awaiting your apology for making a libelous accusation of theft of IP. I'll not hold my breath, but your next post better be more thoughtful.
So Oleg, isn't this one of your shots, in series with other photos of an unclothed woman, presumably the same woman, variously with guns and with handcuffs? Usually being voluntarily locked in handcuffs is considered a form of bondage play.
ReplyDeletehttp://65.55.237.107/att/GetInline.aspx?messageid=c2ab8522-6b29-11e2-bbd0-001e0bcb3590&attindex=3&cp=-1&attdepth=3&imgsrc=cid%3apart4.08050104.03090408%40hotmail.com&cid=6bbb487a0dba423e&shared=1&blob=M3xvbmhlcnRvZXMuanBnfGltYWdlL2pwZWc_3d&hm__login=limerance4u&hm__domain=hotmail.com&ip=10.15.144.8&d=d6297&mf=0&hm__ts=Wed%2c%2030%20Jan%202013%2023%3a05%3a31%20GMT&st=limerance4u&hm__ha=01_81650900eeeccda20f099cbec6336e2b5f2afaee6fa112b97640a9453647d246&oneredir=1
Oleg, on another point, your original content talks about the fact that President Obama has various forms of personal protective services, in which you include law enforcement. Of course, as President, like President Bush before him, he is given this protection because of the national security risk in any allowance of harm to come to him (power transition, disruption of government, etc..) and further, in that there are various crazies, like Timothy McVeigh or other anti-government freaks) who would seek to do him harm which are far more numerous than crazies who would specifically target YOU personally Oleg - so we have some reasons for this security.
ReplyDeleteYet, you ask the question who guards you? You answer it with implying only YOU guard you. What utter and complete BS that is.
You have roughly what, 3 Million members of law enforcement at the state, local and federal level, you have the 2 Million members of our armed services charged with safeguarding the country and, by extension, YOU personally, Oleg. Are you saying they AREN'T safeguarding you and your liberty? Your poster implies this very thing, which is pretty darned insulting to their service and sacrifice.
The fact is, you have MANY people safeguarding you, there just isn't anything like a similar need to do so quite so proximately as there is for the President or a very small number of other high officials and it CERTAINLY isn't the case that President Obama somehow invented and magically decided his life was worth more than yours. You are a poor guard of your safety (if you are an average person and/or average gun owner). You are FAR more safe relying upon the police than relying upon having a firearm for you are 20 to 30 times more likely to have that weapon accidentally shoot someone or be used on you or BY you to illegally bring harm to someone than you are to ever use it in your defense.
There are folks who protect you Oleg, including those, like DG and humbly, me, who help to safeguard your liberties by arguing vociferously for such liberties (like due process, guarantees of Habeaus Corpus, and protecting your right to vote). It is in fact these VOICES which are far more important in providing those gaurantees than it is any access to firearms. Germans (non-Jews) had full access to guns, it was their silence and complicity which traded away their freedoms for supposed safety, not the failure to have access to guns.
Precisely Pen; while the gun nuts like to disparage law enforcement, entertaining delusions that private citizens can routinely out-shoot them, which is not demonstrably true at all, or that they have cooler, calmer judgement, the reality is that the public is less safe and less trustworthy with firearms than law enforcement. The gun owners among the general public lack the insurance that backs up the decisions - and compensates for failures - that law enforcement and the military provide.
ReplyDeleteOur national guard, and our law enforcement are there not only for the RARE home intruder, but for all forms of disaster, conflict and crisis, often doing more to avert violence than civilians with guns.
The reality is that while the gun fools like to whine and wail that law enforcement is not always there, or where people like the ones who buy into the fake claim that law enforcement does NOT protect them, wrongly citing cases where courts found that law enforcement did not have a greater duty to one person over another, but rather that they have a general duty to protect the public, where one person cannot sue if there is a problem. We have different forms of public entities having very limited immunity from being sued. That doesn't equate to them not defending us, not even remotely, as the long list of arrests and convictions and interventions and daily responses demonstrate.
The reality is that, as this poster says, people who keep guns are more likely to harm themselves and the people around them, while rarely engaging in legitimate defensive shooting. The numbers of deaths and injuries from so-called 'celebratory gunfire' alone justifies reducing the number and limiting the kind of guns and related equipment in private ownership. The increase in bad homicides and bad gun injuries under shoot first laws is just one example of the epic failure of our gun culture. The DAILY examples of suicides and murder / suicides, and of accidental killings, crippling and maiming PROVE that the armed civilian is a menace to themselves and public safety on a level that law enforcement and the military are not, without the benefits.
If we had fewer people with guns, fewer people would be shooting each other. That would include criminals lacking guns, as well as the avoidable stupid joe-average gun owner shootings. THAT would make US ALL SAFER, as well as making law enforcement and our military (which has their own problems with suicide, a majority of them by firearm) safer as well.
The reason for the parody is that the gunner side of the argument is poorly reasoned, and factually flawed. We are safer by having fewer guns and relying more on law enforcement. But that doesn't sell guns. The gun nuts like to think their guns make them independent, and free. They don't. They make us less free, they make more of us dead and injured, and they trick and deceive the pro-gunners into acting against their real self-interest and into acting like 'sheeple'. They are fools.
I notice that they are also liars. Oleg hasn't shown up to deny that he took the images of women as victims of nipple torture, or a naked woman on all fours in hand cuffs under the heading 'keeping her on her toes'. That is a particularly degrading kind of porn (not 'art'), one that is targeting the gun goons, and which puts the gunners in a more accurate context than their false heroic claims.
I also notice that bullshitting KarlSchneider isn't producing his address or his proof of having $5k to his name.
THAT is the fanatic pro-gunners; bullshitters and deluded fetishists who take $174 billion with a b out of our economy every year, effectively stealing that money from it, so they can have their little thrill and jack off their little penises.