Over at MikeB's place he is having one of his usual gun crime of the day posts.
As is his norm, he's trying to spread the responsibility for some thugs shooting to everyone as much as possible.
Here is part of the story he is talking about
LAS VEGAS -- A 19-year-old Las Vegas man accepted a plea deal today in the case of a drive-by shooting that left a high school freshman dead.
Authorities said Williams drove a car while his passenger, 17-year-old Gerald Davison, shot and killed Privett as he and three friends walked home from Palo Verde High School.
In a police report, it was revealed that before the shooting, Privett and his friends got into an argument with a girl riding in Williams’ car. She told police Privett flashed a gang sign at the car, prompting Davison to shoot at them.
First, note that the victim flashed a gang sign..likely that the victim and the criminals were members of gangs. Hardly upstanding law abiding, honor students and choir boys and girls....but that is a subject for another day.
MikeB always tries to argue that as gun owners we share in the responsibility for criminal actions like this shooting. Why, you ask? Because we own gun and do not cooperate with the gun banners to remove guns from the streets.
Simply because we own firearm and don't work to pass every restrictive laws...we share responsibilty. Once again, that URL is http://mikeb302000.blogspot.com/.
But something he said in the postcaught my eye. See if you see the logical inconsistency in his argument.
From the original post
What's interesting to me is the shared responsibility. Apparently the courts felt the older teenager who passed the gun to Davison shared in the guilt for this murder. What about the girl? The story says there was a girl in the car as well who had gotten in an argument with the dead boy earlier in the day. Does she not share in the responsibility?Okay, I figure everyone got it but to make sure...here is the sentence that undermines his entire argument for our responsibility
Maybe there's only so much guilt to go around. Direct involvement like passing the murder weapon immediately before the incident counts, but less direct involvement like whatever happened between the girl passenger and Privett is too far removed. In which case, whatever parental or societal influences might have played a factor couldn't possibly be mentioned as excuses or mitigation.
but less direct involvement like whatever happened between the girl passenger and Privett is too far removed.
So, a person merely sitting in the car but knowing what is about to happen, a person who apparently does nothing to stop the crime -- is too far removed from the responsibility for the murder.
Doesn't that statement means those of us who are law abiding gun owners who don't know the criminals, who didn't break the law to sell them fireams (if any laws were broken) -- are even further removed from the responsibility in the crime?
If, as MikeB say that " In which case,whatever parental or societal influences might have played a factor couldn't possibly be mentioned as excuses or mitigation" than how can our responsibility be anything but so far removed as to be
NON-EXISTENT??
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Update -My reponse to MikeB's comment
MikeB,
What an absolute hypocrite you are
Bob, The repetition of the words "child pornography" by you and all your friends is becoming a bit too much for me now.You've repeated your accusation that we are responsible for any and all firearm related crime for months now. Then when we point out an valid analogy you get pissy.
Sorry. I'm trying to discuss a sliding scale of responsibility about gun violence that I believe in and keep providing evidence and illustrations to back it up.No, you aren't willing to provide evidence to back it up. We are trying to discuss the sliding scale of responsibility but YOU will not discuss it. You avoid it and will not take ownership of a crime when you expect us to take ownership of a crime.What utter and total hypocrisy. I'm not surprised but to have you get your nose out of joint when you've slandered gun owners for months is disgusting.
You guys respond with an accusation that you don't believe in, not because you think it's so valid a comparison and necessary to make your point, but because you know I don't like it.If you believe that if I am responsible for gun crime, then you are responsible for child porn.
Second, it is an absolutely valid comparison.
Third, how does it feel to have people make accusations about you that you don't like?
You've done this and MORE, repeatedly and without cease for almost as long as I've been reading your blog. We've explained, we've provided proof, we've provided illustrations, we've provided moral & legal arguments against your viewpoint and you low life piece of garbage have continued to make the accusations against us.
Then you have the absolute gall to try to tell me what I believe and don't believe. You have the arrogance to try to dictate what argument I should and shouldn't make...especially because it might or is hurting your little feelings!!!
And I guess some of you think you can smear my name by repeating it over and over again.No more or no less then you are smearing the names of my friends, my family, my fellow bloggers by repeating your "theory" over and over again. Fair is fair, isn't it MikeyBoy?
It's not a very admirable arguing method. It speaks volumes for you guys and for your argumentIt isn't very admirable of you to continue to accuse us....but then avoiding answering the countering argument.
That is the purpose of the argument....to make you show WHY you aren't responsible for child porn-- something you've failed to do REPEATEDLY. You've just have gotten all BUTT HURT and snippy because I have found a counter to your argument.
YOU DON'T LIKE THE ARGUMENT MIKEB? PROVE IT TO BE INVALID.
Of course, the minute you prove you aren't responsible for the criminal actions of those producing child porn, you also prove we aren't responsible for the criminals misuse of firearms.
SO EITHER PROVE IT OR STOP WHINING LIKE A PRISSY 5 YEAR OLD.
21 comments:
I repeat it only because it's deeply important, and Mike doesn't want to discuss it.
But doesn't a man who financed criminals and supported the black market firearms market have a LOT more blood on his hands than lawful gun owners like ourselves?
Weer'd,
I agree just like MikeB doesn't want to discuss his responsibility for child porn.
Now, if he is not responsible for that...are we responsible for something as remote of a crime like the shooting in Vega?
You really didn't expect him to be consistent, did you Bob? :-)
Yep Pistolero I do expect him to be consistent....IF he is just trying to make society better.
If he is just another gun banner, he'll try to wiggle out of it.
So, either he re-evaluates his position or he comes out as just another person trying to restrict our rights -- While keeping his rights to enable those who do child porn.
Bob, you know as well as I do which side of that particular fence MikeB will come down on. He wants to blame all of us gun owners because we are gun owners, and that is simply that. He does not understand that such logic can and will be applied to other situations... in fact, he intentionally decides not to understand that possibility, exactly because it would weaken his position.
At any rate, he already is consistent - he consistently wants to take away everyone's naturally-granted, Constitutionally-protected rights to self-defense and to bear arms. This whole "shared responsibility" schtick is nothing more than a specious means to an end, like the 90% myth.
Bob, I don't see the inconsistency you're talking about. I was being facetious when I said the girl and the society have no responsibility in this. They all do, but the courts have to draw the line somewhere. The guy who handed the murder weapon to the shooter, is guilty. It ends there as far as the law goes. I say the girl who argued with the dead kid is also responsible. I say the society in which these young people grew up has a part in it. And, yes, I say all you guys who fight so hard for your "naturally-granted" rights, as Linoge called them, the result of which is a super-abundance of handguns on the street, also share in that responsibility.
Where would you draw the line Bob? Would you agree the girl had a hand in it but that's it?
MikeB,
So you are admitting then that you have responsibility for the child pornography produced because you are a part of the over abundance of computers and cameras?
I expect a statement on your blog accepting your responsibility for child porn because you are not working with the people who want to take away your 1st amendment rights.
The inconsistency is right where I thought it would be...in your statements.
And, yes, I say all you guys who fight so hard for your "naturally-granted" rights, as Linoge called them, the result of which is a super-abundance of handguns on the street, also share in that responsibility.
I assume, given your prolific writing on your own weblogs and on the comments at other weblogs, that you enjoy and appreciate your right to free expression, and support the continuation of that right?
As such, why do you therefor support child pornography and the KKK? After all "freedom of expression" results in the super-abundance of kiddie porn and hate speech, and if you have done anything, ever, to support or defend that freedom, then you share in the responsibility for the kiddie porn and the hate speech.
At least, that is how the world would work if we abided by your horrifically twisted form of logic.
The simple fact is, I bear no more responsibility for someone else pulling the trigger and committing a crime than I do for ensuring that someone else gets out of bed in the morning.
I.e. "none". No responsibility. No shared responsibility. No twisted form of societal responsibility. Nothing.
Period.
On another note, can I say I told you so, now, Bob? ;)
MikeB, your illigal guns, how did you get them? Was there a "Super Abundance" of them on the streets? Did you pick "Assault weapons" over more conventional guns for street cred? Who (as in what kind of person) did you sell them too when you left the country? Did you buy them "on the street" or did you buy them from an "Unscrupulous Gun Dealer" who had an FFL?
You should share these details, as none of us here have actually participated in the black market of guns that you talk about every day.
Meanwhile you have, and admit to it. You could share some VERY valuable information on loopholes that can be closed. You could save lives.
That is, as BobS says: "If you're trying to make society better."
Without further proof the evidence points that you want to make it worse. It's why I have no respect for you, and consider you lower than dirt.
Linoge,
You can say it.
I knew it would happen. I just wanted it out there for everyone to see.
Could anyone tell me if they detected in facetiousness in MikeB's post?
I didn't detected it. It honestly sounded as if he was letting a participant in a murder off the hook because she was "just sitting in the car".
Anyone else read it any other way?
Why do you enable child pornography, MikeB? What the hell did those kids ever do to you?
Bob, The repetition of the words "child pornography" by you and all your friends is becoming a bit too much for me now. Sorry. I'm trying to discuss a sliding scale of responsibility about gun violence that I believe in and keep providing evidence and illustrations to back it up. You guys respond with an accusation that you don't believe in, not because you think it's so valid a comparison and necessary to make your point, but because you know I don't like it. And I guess some of you think you can smear my name by repeating it over and over again.
It's not a very admirable arguing method. It speaks volumes for you guys and for your argument.
If one defines "evidence" and "illustrations" as blaming good people for shit they didn't do, well, yeah, you've provided that in spades. And what does it say for YOUR side that they resort to using the arguments of a drug-addled rock star in an attempt to bolster their own argument?
MikeB,
What an absolute hypocrite you are
Bob, The repetition of the words "child pornography" by you and all your friends is becoming a bit too much for me now.
You've repeated your accusation that we are responsible for any and all firearm related crime for months now. Then when we point out an valid analogy you get pissy.
Sorry. I'm trying to discuss a sliding scale of responsibility about gun violence that I believe in and keep providing evidence and illustrations to back it up.
No, you aren't willing to provide evidence to back it up. We are trying to discuss the sliding scale of responsibility but YOU will not discuss it. You avoid it and will not take ownership of a crime when you expect us to take ownership of a crime.What utter and total hypocrisy. I'm not surprised but to have you get your nose out of joint when you've slandered gun owners for months is disgusting.
You guys respond with an accusation that you don't believe in, not because you think it's so valid a comparison and necessary to make your point, but because you know I don't like it.
If I believe that if I am responsible for gun crime, then you are responsible for child porn.
Second, it is an absolute valid comparison.
Third, how does it feel to have people make accusations about you that you don't like?
You've done this and MORE, repeatedly and without cease for almost as long as I've been reading your blog. We've explained, we've provided proof, we've provided illustrations, we've provided moral & legal arguments against your viewpoint and you low life piece of garbage have continued to make the accusations against us.
Then you have the absolute gall to try to tell me what I believe and don't believe. You have the arrogance to try to dictate what argument I should and shouldn't make...especially because it might or is hurting your little feelings!!!
And I guess some of you think you can smear my name by repeating it over and over again.
No more or no less then you are smearing the names of my friends, my family, my fellow bloggers by repeating your "theory" over and over again. Fair is fair, isn't it MikeyBoy?
It's not a very admirable arguing method. It speaks volumes for you guys and for your argument
It isn't very admirable of you to continue to accuse us....but then avoiding answering the countering argument.
That is the purpose of the argument....to make you show WHY you aren't responsible for child porn-- something you've failed to do REPEATEDLY. You've just have gotten all BUTT HURT and snippy because I have found a counter to your argument.
YOU DON'T LIKE THE ARGUMENT MIKEB? PROVE IT TO BE INVALID.
Of course, the minute you prove you aren't responsible for the criminal actions of those producing child porn, you also prove we aren't responsible for the criminals misuse of firearms.
SO EITHER PROVE IT OR STOP WHINING LIKE A PRISSY 5 YEAR OLD.
Well played, Bob, Well played!
You guys respond with an accusation that you don't believe in, not because you think it's so valid a comparison and necessary to make your point, but because you know I don't like it.
Well, in my case, that statement is false, and it just goes to show that you should never make assumptions.
I keep repeating the accusation because it is exactly the same as your accusation that we are somehow responsible for the actions of criminals just because they use firearms. Using that very same logic, you are responsible for child pornography, and any hate speech from the KKK, simply because both you and those groups are both using their right to freedom of expression.
Accusation A and accusation B are both exactly the same, logically speaking. If you do not hold B to be true (no matter the terminology used to describe it), then you cannot hold A to be true, given that the two arguments are exactly the same, just using different words. That you continue to somehow hold to A and throw away B either indicates that you are mentally unbalanced, or willfully obstinant. Take your pick.
And I would say that I told you so, Bob, except that last comment was a masterpiece, so you get a bye ;).
Bob said, "You've repeated your accusation that we are responsible for any and all firearm related crime for months now."
Not true. I've always said you share in that responsibility.
"YOU will not discuss it."
Also false. Before activatiing the comment moderation on my blog, I vainly attempted several times to do just that, to discuss it, to explain why I feel it's an invalid comparison. Here's the short version.
If computers and cameras are being abused by a small percentage of users, which I admit, and if the legitimate users were actively blocking efforts at bans and restrictions which would lessen the criminal activity, then those lawful computer and camera users would share in the responsibility of the abuse.
Does that sound familiar, Bob? Have you heard that from me before? Are you lying when you say I will not discuss it? Or was that just a convenient memory lapse?
I don't expect you or any of your friends to agree with my idea, but with a modicum of honesty you could admit it has logic, it's not the absurdity you've been saying it is. And with just a scrap of honesty, you could avoid saying I don't discuss it.
You could learn something from kaveman. He recently commented on my blog that we share a common enemy, that we need not work against each other. You seem to think I'm the enemy and in this war all is fair.
"If computers and cameras are being abused by a small percentage of users, which I admit, and if the legitimate users were actively blocking efforts at bans and restrictions which would lessen the criminal activity, then those lawful computer and camera users would share in the responsibility of the abuse."
So to take this to the next step, would you support legislation where all digital cameras require serial numbers, waiting periods, and cannot be bought or owned by persons under 21?
Same with Computers?
You'll note that I offer no proof that this will stop Child Pornography, but I believe it would.
Would you support this law and advocate for it on your blog?
MikeB,
Offering a statement ONCE isnt' discussing it.
Not offering proof or evidence of HOW legally, morally and ethically we are responsible or share responsibility for firearm related crime isn't discussing it.
You've never offered anything to support your position other then your own statements.
You've never provided any evidence to show that our actively blocking efforts at bans and restrictions which would lessen the criminal activity
Can you show ANY EVIDENCE THAT BANS AND RESTRICTIONS would lessen criminal activity??
Your theory isn't evidence. I have a theory that some of the child porn is being produced overseas by ex-patriots.
I've stated that theory to show that I can make a theory up but have zero evidence to support it.
I can't show a shred of evidence that any actions directed at ex-patriots would lessen the criminal activity. So would you support bans and restrictions on your 1st amendment rights based only on a personal theory that can not be proven?
I don't expect you or any of your friends to agree with my idea,
We don't agree and we show you why we don't agree.
Here is another example. The thugs in your post used a car during the commission of the crime, right?
Cars are used often in crime, especially drunken driving. So, because the Auto industry actively opposes alcohol ignition interlocks does that make everyone who works in the manufacturing plants responsible for alcohol related traffic crimes?
Nope. just as you pointed out the girl in the car was too far removed from the crime, so are the workers.
You've also stated that people like us should be working with those who want to ban or restrict our rights....else we are part of the problem, remember that?
So, if you aren't working with the people who want to restrict your first amendment rights, you are part of the problem, YES?
BY your very own reasoning, one way or another you are part of the child porn problem MikeB?
Dagnabit, We've been saying for longer than Kaveman that you are focusing on the wrong thing.
I've repeatedly have made statements that instead of focusing on the TOOL (firearm, not you) instead of the criminal you are not addressing the issue.
Isn't the issue reducing VIOLENCE? To address only firearm related crime ignores the vast majority of the violence that is happening in America.
To continue to focus on firearm crime, you are aiding and abetting the criminals.
To work to restrict our rights to keep and bear arms, you are working to make the criminals lives easier. That is again aiding and abetting the criminals.
Why are you trying to make the criminals lives easier? Because NOT ONE IDEA (of the very few you've suggested) will reduce the availability of firearms to the criminals while allowing the law abiding to continue to possess firearms.
In short MikeB, you share responsibility NOT only for child porn but in your efforts to restrict our rights you actually share GREATER RESPONSIBILITY FOR THE VIOLENT CRIMES COMMITTED BY CRIMINALS.
MikeB, do not go mincing words. No matter how you want to go splitting hairs, "responsible for" is still equivalent to "share in that responsibility". The former does not actively preclude the possibility of someone else also being "responsible for" an event, and the latter obviously allows for it outright, but the two phrases are effectively identical.
You have been saying that we law-abiding firearm-owners are responsible for crimes committed with firearms throughout the past few months. The sooner you admit that simple fact, the sooner this discussion could be terminated.
Unfortunately, when the situation boils itself right down to the brass tacks, there is absolutely no proof that the following statement is true: "bans and restrictions which would lessen the criminal activity". Even most-recently, the Assault Weapon Ban had no discernable impact on crime, and yet gullible morons like you, MikeB, are screaming for us to bring back the same exact ban "to reduce crime". Uhm, if it did not reduce crime before, what makes you think it is going to reduce crime now?
In a similar vein, waiting periods (one of the favorites of hoplophobic anti-rights folks like you, MikeB) accomplish absolutely nothing, and, in fact, waiting periods can kill.
No matter what regulations and restrictions you might want to add, Mike, even though a lot of them are inherently flawed, there are still some simple facts you have to overcome: It is illegal for felons to own guns. It is illegal for anyone to sell a firearm to a felon. It is illegal to use a firearm in the execution of a crime. It is illegal to murder/injure/assault another person with a firearm (exceptions allowed for self-defense). The list of things that it is illegal to do with firearms is massive... and yet criminals just keep on doing them. Criminals do not obey laws. Period. So how are more laws going to stop them?
"Not true. I've always said you share in that responsibility. "
Well then that means that YOU, MikeB, also share responsibility for child porn. You own the tools that enable it, therefore you share responsibility.
Why don't you advocate restrictions on free speech because of this "shared responsibility?"
Post a Comment