The Ideology Of Powerlessness

In a post over at GLPiggy about “The Soapboxroom” and Aaron Sorkin’s deliberate distortion of gun control statistics, a thought occurs about the mentality of the type of people whose natural reflex is to default to excusing thugs and disarming potential victims.

This mentality is the ideology of powerlessness. When faced with a threat, a person with this child-like psychological profile instinctually resorts to finding ways to strip power from himself and others, and to elevate helplessness to a noble virtue. People who think this way share commonalities with equalists, some liberals, leftists and women. Stockholm Syndrome is an extreme manifestation of the powerlessness ideology.

Those pointing to statistics purporting to demonstrate the downsides of power — in this case, the power inherent in owning a gun and its implication in accidental shootings — miss the point: the downsides of power are still better than the downsides of powerlessness. Do you want to leave your fate in the hands of the powerful, who often don’t have your interests in heart, or do you want power for yourself so that you may exert a measure of control over your own life?

Anyone who wants more control and power over the trajectory and outcome of his life needs to avoid powerlessness peddlers like the plague.





Comments


  1. Yeah, fuck those people in that movie theater not carrying live firearms that could pierce Holmes’ head-to-toe body armor. Morons!

    Let’s get rid of drivers license requirements too since freedom > danger.

    Totally logically consistent that carrying switchblades and nunchakus is a felony as well.

    Also, let’s talk about more social issues because this stuff really matters. http://www.drudge.com/news/159621/ex-gop-operative-tells-all

    Like


    • He wasn’t wearing any body armor.

      Like


      • “Holmes’ outfit blew these jokers away. He wore a ballistic helmet, a ballistic vest, ballistic leggings, a throat protector, a groin protector, and tactical gloves. He was so well equipped that if anyone in that theater had tried what the National Rifle Association recommends—drawing a firearm to stop the carnage—that person would have been dead meat.”

        http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/human_nature/2012/07/the_aurora_shooting_bulletproof_vests_swat_gear_and_body_armor_refute_the_nra_.html

        Like


      • You suck cock don’t you.

        So dead meat while fighting back (possible distraction so more may live) versus dead meat and sitting duck.

        Like


      • Fuck shooting back if the guy ain’t in your direction.

        A handgun is for PERSONAL protection, and wouldn’t be very accurate at theater range. At best, you’d kill him. At worst, you’d nail someone’s baby, or draw fire from him or the SWAT team. Fuck that.

        Just do what Bill Clinton or JFK would do: let the whores & fatties take the bullets while you sneak out the back door, alive and free to fuck another day.

        p.s. Three idiot boyfriends took a bullet for their girlfriends. How many girlfriends did the same? BTW, no husbands took bullets for their wives.

        Like


      • Did I say run to the front of the theater with guns blazing?

        Like


      • Hambone… even with armor, getting shot pretty much knocks you back, if not out, and renders you hors de combat for more than a moment.

        Assuming no face shots, of course.

        Like


      • This is what I would have done- gone for a body shot or two and then tried to finish the job. Even with body armor, being hit is like someone hitting you in the chest with a baseball bat. This guy was kind of a pussy and I think he would have gone down easily once he met serious resistance. He surrendered to the cops without trouble for instance.

        Like


      • Ballistic gear, made of ballistic nylon, is not body armor, nor is it particularly bullet-resistant. Was he wearing body armor or ballistic gear?

        Like


      • on August 7, 2012 at 1:40 am Libertardian

        So, according to Slate, because one lunatic wears body armor, we should all just give up on defending ourselves. Got it. I’m sure the almighty State can do a better job, just as with everything else.

        Like


      • And you believe Slate? They wouldn’t even know what body armor is. He wasn’t wearing body armor: http://www.defensivecarry.com/forum/news-good-bad-ugly/145123-counter-media-misinformation-james-holmes-not-wearing-ballistic-vest.html

        Like


      • And exactly why do people not carry ammunition designed to defeat the kind of lightweight body armor Holmes was wearing, again? Because of freedom, or because the progtardicrats have decided, to loud applause from the powerlessness ideologists, that such niceties are for them, and their paid mercenaries, only?

        Sadly, even most self proclaimed “conservatives” have bought into this ideology; perhaps only to a marginally lesser degree. So now you have “second amendment advocates” who still wants to ban people from owning the kind of weapons that are actually meaningful for what the second amendment was put in place to preserve: The ability to take the fight to, or at the minimum defend oneself against, an overgrown Federal Government and it’s privileged agents. But the mealy-mouths love nothing more than bending over for those guys. All the while clinging to their little peashooters in some petty symbolic gesture, while cheering the Leviathan on as he grows ever larger and more omnipotent; just as long as he is, today, a little bit meaner to someone else than to themselves.

        In all honesty, the fifth columnists in the latter group, share at least as much fault in our fall from a civilized society to the dystopia we currently live in, as the more obvious idiots in the former.

        Like


    • Hey stupid. What do you know about firearms? Oh what’s that? Absolutely nothing? Fuck off, moron.

      Even against armor, being struck with a modestly powerful round like a 9×19 parabellum is still like being punched hard in the chest. If you go up from 9mm to .357/.44, it’s like being hit with a baseball bat swung full force at the torso. Body armor doesn’t make you invincible. Furthermore, even if there is no penetration and no knockdown of the gunman, it will still draw fire off the unarmed persons in the vicinity.

      Guns give you options. Maybe not the option of completely nullifying the threat immediately with one shot, but there are options. No guns = no options, other than death at the hands of crazy people.

      Like


      • A 40oz bat swung at 60mph has several times the momentum of even the hottest .44mag hunting loads. More like an elephant rifle.

        The kind of soft, light armor most people refer to as “bullet proof vests”, does not do a very good job at spreading the load out until it has deflected quite a bit, so one can get pretty bruised even if the bullet does not penetrate. But “knocked back” is a bit of hyperbole. Harder rifle/trauma plates actually do a pretty good job of neutralizing the effect of handgun rounds, and if heavy and thick enough, actually makes being hit with a baseball bat a bit of a non event as well. But hose aren’t particularly concealable nor comfortable for daily wear.

        Still, as far as momentum to knock someone back, there is no substitute for a simple bumrush/tackle. The momentum of an NFL player at full stonk, is an order of magnitude or two greater than the vaunted .44mag. No wonder those on the receiving end of that, are a bit queasy about the supposed “health benefits” of shedding the 20-40lbs of spine protecting core muscles, going off the juice would likely entail 🙂

        Like


      • You are right that knock back is bullshit. It would actually be a good thing because I’d rather be knocked back than to absorb the energy in the form of tissue damage.

        But if you are talking 44 the big loads are going to penetrate a lot of body armor. Usually anything over 1500 feet per second is an issue. Don’t know about that ceramic military grade stuff but…

        Like


    • Actually, Clinton and the Obasmotron would sneak away, most likely. But not JFK. Regardless of his politics, he had guts, his war record shows it. (And Kerry would vanish through a rathole).

      Nevertheless, it is idiotic to denigrate guns (or anything else) because they are not a perfect solution. Nothing is. But looking at any kind of cost/benefit, gun ownership is a good thing. Except for government powercrats.

      Thor

      Like


    • on August 7, 2012 at 9:40 pm Dan Fletcher

      Careful, your strawman might fall down that slippery slope….

      Like


  2. This pervades our society at every angle. I saw recently that the branches of an apple tree were trimmed because it dropped messy fruit on the entrance to a PADS shelter. You get me? Its for the poor and destitute and they are pruning the food. Some fat broad in an SUV thought I lost my mind when I was picking free feed stock for my own brew from another perfectly usable fruit.

    When ever anyone says something needs to be done like gas guzzling , that does not mean that are going to drop one foot on the sidewalk. It means some institution is to do something. We as individuals don’t intend to do shit.

    Not only do I want to defend myself, I see fit to tap in the primer and seat the slug.

    Like


  3. nobody’s black or white, all-powerful or powerless. that which yields is not weak, Heartiste.

    sometimes having real power means remaining powerless and defenseless. when you manage a project team, they develop the most when you’re not looking, asking the least questions, and exert the minimum control. room to breathe, expand, experiment and make mistakes is needed.

    if you set boundaries too strictly, make too many rules no one will respect you and them. better to let the ‘kids’ get burned – get killed with guns they don’t know how to use, or were wrongly allowed to carry.
    if I yield someday to my future husband’s career needs – I’m not weak, powerless. I’m his rock he can rely on for support and understanding, strong enough to give the best of me to him.
    if a man makes a decision based solely on his impulse, without asking for my input, he’s weak, like a child who can’t help himself from doing something. Making a decision looking at all the elements of the bigger picture is being strong.

    and finally: affairs – an act of mindless, passive violence? or maybe a cry cause you’re against the wall with too many mental scars and injuries?

    Like


  4. on August 6, 2012 at 6:13 pm Adam And Eve Reboot

    This is something that concerns me and the worst offender of this is the nanny state mayor Bloomberg who is the worst thing to happen to ny since humidity. This man is used to getting what be wants, including an unconstitutional third term and has all the time and resources in the world to strip citizens of their constitutional right to defend themselves since a gun prohibition would only benefit criminals who never get their arms legally in the first place.

    Like


    • And of course he gets about a half dozen heavily armed bodyguards for free 24/7 who obey him absolutely. If he is willing to provide this benefit to every American the 2nd Amendment would indeed be obsolete.

      Like


  5. Two things about accidental discharges of a firearm. First, it is against the law. Let me say this again. The authorities have passed a law against it happening; therefore, the problem must have been solved. Second, these are absolutely preventable. Speaking about such things as a matter of statistics is always misleading. Dumb choices drive these events. Nothing random about it.
    What is funny is fuck is the rate at which LE in accross the board generate accidental discharges. Even SS agents. I give them a slight break on this because they are ordered to carry large heavy weapons on defcon one alert. Merely the act of retrieving them from a holster can be make them go bang if done wrong. One of the best things on utube is the Cop shooting himself in his thigh right after lecturing some kids how about only experts like him can handle certain types of guns. Rhyms with clock.

    Like


  6. Our society is out of balance in terms of its gender perspective and its influence on how it operates and what its values are officially allowed to be. It has become too skewed towards a feminine perspective and feminine virtues and by extension, neurotic obsessions, are now exalted. We didn’t have a lot of these pussy attention seekers shooting up innocent people in crowds when masculinity was seen as a virtue. Real men don’t do stuff like that.

    Like


  7. No wonder cuckold play is today’s version of swinging… people have lost their ballz and got off on that.

    Like


    • Swinging is nothing but cuckold play.
      Show me a real man who likes to see his woman getting shafted by random cocks.

      Like


  8. The whole point about gun control is to make certain groups of men powerful, and the rest powerless. That is the whole point, nothing more or less.

    Like


  9. I’ve noticed that male gun control proponents are cut from the same chartreuse lace as the wussies who decry game as ‘manipulating sainted virgins’. And hey! Women are repulsed by both! What a freaking coincidence.

    Like


    • Not always. My old boss was a semipro hockey player. But i mentioned having a bbgun and he acted like i said i had an atom bomb. I did not think to mention my shotguns and 1911 and my 306.

      Like


      • You’re likely not from the US or if so, from NYC or Boston. The other explanation is that he came from a family that for some reason made an issue of guns. Maybe somebody got murdered. Most masculine guys at least like shooting, even if they don’t actively pursue it as a hobby. Maybe no one ever took him?

        Like


      • I believe most women would find his reaction to be less than attractive. Particularly since it was a reaction to what most people consider a toy, rather than a ‘real’ weapon.

        Like


      • Any gun…even a bbgun is not a toy.

        Like


      • That’s because in the 21st century, the Safety Nazis have made all toys safe and boring. A hundred years ago, there were plenty of dangerous toys. Chemistry sets… fireworks… oh yes, bb guns…

        Like


      • Actually, most of this happened in the last FIFTY years. And then people wonder about childhood obesity. It is not just about funky eating habits. More to the point, fifty years ago kids, even teenagers, did fun stuff, including bike riding in ways that would be shocking today, mostly the off-road part (traffic is TRULY dangerous). And chemistry sets. And bb-guns.

        Thor

        Like


  10. If you are in the USA, join the NRA and donate to its political arm, the NRA-ILA.

    At 4.3 million members, they are the only group large enough to defend your rights politically. If you do nothing, your rights *will* erode, as evidenced in other countries.

    Like


  11. on August 6, 2012 at 8:29 pm Dr. Zoidberg

    “People who think this way share commonalities with equalists, some liberals, leftists and women.”

    Fuck that. “Conservatives” are the biggest beta pussies today. Millions of tea partiers in this country do nothing but whine and bitch about how “oppressed” they are as conservatives and how the liberal media is out to get them. If the whining victimhood-loving brats Sarah Palin and Michelle Bachman are the leaders of your cause, you are fucked. Tea party protests are one big bloody tampon cry-in. At least OWS has the balls to fight cops and smash shit up.

    Like


    • I guess he cut a little close to the bone. If the shoe fits and all that ….

      Like


    • Victimhood is good, victimhood is powerful, particularly when it’s true. Conservative refusal to embrace victimhood is their manifestation of Stockholm Syndrome. Being silent, lying, about taking it up the ass in order not to aggravate the vicious opponent who completely dominates them. Taking anything in the name of security, trying to keep the system together and their material comfort intact. If they pretend they’re not victims they can pretend their victimizers don’t exist and avoid confrontation. They’re the little battered wife who pretends everything is normal while the old bastard is upstairs raping the children. Cowards led by crooks. Someday even they will have to abandon the system that is destroying them. Someday even they will have to embrace their victimhood.

      Like


      • That’s sort of what I think of the Democrats. I’ve noticed the first thing they did was repeal the Patriot Act and eliminate body searches at the airport and go to some smarter, less invasive, less labor intensive system. The Republicans may increase the power of LE, but its always been the Democrats who expand its breadth as well as its scope and still go along with the expansion of LE since it gets votes from the folks back home. I’m far more afraid of what can happen when you get a zealous social worker involved in a personal crusade to save you from yourself than I am of a cop bothering me in my own home over something my kid said in class.

        What exactly should the Republicans do?

        Like


    • Fail. Libtards are beta feminist pussies who tuck their balls and accuse us of “waging a war on women”. Feminism and the feminine imperative are completely institutionalized on your (feminist-fascist) side of the aisle, because you’re a bunch of pussies who think the government can live your life for you.

      Additionally, because you are too incompetent and weak to stand on your own two feet like a man, you whine about how the evil 1% has exploited your worthless, unexploitable asses. You are parasites craven enough to assert the moral obligation of a host to feed you. You are terrified little children afraid of facing the big boy world (because it belongs to conservatives and libertarians), so you crawl on your belly to any cynical thug, any faceless herd, any disembodied collective you think can protect you from reality. Your collectivist herd can’t protect you, because they all have the same idea about you. Apart you survive, together you drown each other.

      Ayn Rand is the leader of our cause, bitch. And you aren’t half the man she was.

      Now go back to watching some faggot snark on the Daily Socialism Show on Communism Central, so all the little libtards can nod in unison and pat each other on the back for being such “independent thinkers” (useful idiots).

      Like


    • Tea party protests are one big bloody tampon cry-in. At least OWS has the balls to fight cops and smash shit up.

      Fair point… I’ll give you that round.

      Like


    • The anarchists smashed shit up. The OWS granola eaters danced around and smoked dope while sleeping in piles of their own shit.

      Like


      • And what did that accomplish? So you’re admitting that these anarchists are merely smashing shit up in order to indulge masculine destructive urges? You’re right, we should return to subsistence farming and learn to coexist at starvation level. That would never become violent or expoitative, would it?

        Like


  12. “This mentality is the ideology of powerlessness. When faced with a threat, a person with this child-like psychological profile instinctually resorts to finding ways to strip power from himself and others, and to elevate helplessness to a noble virtue.” (CH)

    Correct. This is slave morality. It takes real spirit and heart to be a free man. Despite what people may think, it’s actually easier to be a slave than a King. Real “Royalty” is the refusal to be enslaved. Most people who lower their heads to the multicultural power structure are slaves inside. They live in fear. Fear is their operating emotion. They may have billions of dollars and anything they want but spiritually they are slaves. Those men who overcome the current globalist elite will be the least slave like inside.

    Like


  13. most of the pseudo intellectual SHIT i see spewed out on this particular blog is disgusting. when “thoughtful” writing gets too ambiguous it’s garbage: the language is a joke. i can smell the bullshit. who wants the first free punch in the mouth? anyone that likes hearing themself spew, needs a punch in the mouth. chi-town Xclampa and reboot are the three biggest offenders of sounding like nancy fags. are you a fucking WOMAN XClampa? i don’t even have to read these posts because i can smell them.

    Like


    • You are just an illiterate dumb fuck. Using the term “pseudo intellectual” is as teetotaling as it gets, and said from same. I don’t look around for low riders and pimps when I hear it. So then you offset sitting on a doily with SHIT to let us know how tough you are. We have a new variety of tin plated bullshit in cyberspace, in the mama’s basement tough guys with a wad of wet tissue paper, popping his veins on da Internet. That’s what you are, little man.

      Like


  14. Once again, Master and Slave morality

    “People who think this way share commonalities with equalists, some liberals, leftists and women.”

    And Christians.

    Like


  15. I don’t know about handguns, etc, but for what reason does someone need a machine gun? You think Holmes could’ve found all the stuff he needed on the black market? Most of these lonely beta males would have no idea where to look. He also had gas canisters, which are perfectly legal. If these have a legitimate use I’m not aware of, please let me know.

    Like


    • Holmes didn’t have a machinegun. I see machineguns about two thirds of the time I go to the range. They cost an arm and a leg and you have to get a federal background check and be approved by the local police. They’re a millionaire’s toy. NFA licensed weapons are almost never used in crimes. I believe only twice since the act was passed in 1934.

      Holmes had a semi-automatic AR-15 rifle with a drum that holds about 100 rounds. I have one too. He should have used 30 rounds magazines instead. They are reliable. He also carried a semi-automatic shotgun and a semi-auto pistol. Since he used smoke or CS gas and had on a bulletproof vest and wore a gas mask, it would have been tough to engage him successfully even if you were armed and capable of fighting back.

      Holmes should have joined the military instead of being a douche. He could have paid his debts, worked in his field and got to play with guns too. He had his head deeply up his ass it would seem.

      Like


      • Why would such a smart guy use an AR-15, which is known for jamming, and did indeed jam with a 100 round drum?

        I’d expect a neuroscientist to know that AK-47’s are designed for people with minimal training and are highly reliable.

        Like


      • We don’t develop our smart people for sense… only to know and spout-off a bunch of technical B.S. or other “book learning” (for Alphas to make use-of, of course). Depraved lunatics of a practical bent and knowledge of their limited skillz would’ve picked the AK (cheap, effective, rugged) but you can’t expect a guy who’s spent all his time a lab to realize what he don’t know w/o experience.

        Like


    • on August 7, 2012 at 9:43 pm Dan Fletcher

      but for what reason does someone neeeeed a machine gun? *squeeky beta-bitch SWPL squeal*

      Because fuck you.

      Like


  16. RA
    You are a fucking idiot. Machine guns have been virtually outlawed in this country since 1934. Holmes is also fucking idiot, if that gives you comfort. He chose to use a ridiculous after market magazine that was sure to jam.

    Like


    • He also didn’t know enough to disassemble and clean the bolt properly… what he had was the signature jam of the Jammin’ Jenny that gave the M16 a bad name in ‘Nam. Cruddy bolt + bad mag = big time jam… what he gets for learn his gun know-how off of the Internet between Japanimation porn whack-sessions.

      Like


  17. Powerless. No way. Wife and kids know the first priority is to protect the Family. We’ll hire good lawyers to take care of it if we have to go down that road.

    Like


  18. It’s funny, the recent shootings in america are held up as the prime reason we should hold on to our own draconian gun laws here in Aus.

    FYI, we’re only allowed bolt action rifles and handguns with a magazine capacity of no more than 10 rounds. All because some nutjob went postal in Port Arthur in the 90s.

    Like


  19. Surprised at this post. I think there is an ideology of powerlessness and would’ve like to read more about it.

    But guns make a poor example. For a blog that so often resorts to statistics, facts and science there is the blatant and inconvenient fact that gun ownership makes one and one’s family MORE likely to be hurt by a gun, not less.

    Kellermann, Arthur, and DT Reay, “Protection or peril? An analysis of firearm-related deaths in the home,” New England Journal of Medicine, June 12, 1986, Vol. 314 No. 24, pp. 1557-60.

    A homeowner’s gun is 43 times more likely to kill a family member than an intruder therefore “the advisability of keeping firearms in the home for protection must be questioned.”

    _____ et al., “Gun Ownership as a Risk Factor for Homicide in the Home,” New England Journal of Medicine, October 7, 1993, Vol. 329 No. 15, pp. 1084-91.

    In homes with guns, a member of the household is almost three times as likely to be the victim of a homicide compared to gun-free homes.

    (Full disclosure. I found these stats on a pro gun control website but they refer to reputable NEJM studies)

    If you want to make gun ownership about a FEELING of power, I can’t argue there. But if it’s about actual power or safety, it’s self delusion.

    Like


    • We don’t choose stats over rights around here. Fewer people die walking than driving a car. Outlaw cars??? Just saying.

      Fucking commie.

      Like


    • That’s the beauty of the internet… SOMEbody, SOMEwhere has always come up with a study to show how up is really down.

      Like


    • That’s because criminals avoid houses where they know there are guns or can safely assume there are guns. Overall crime rates are far lower in states with liberal gun laws than in those with restrictive laws. Around here we have tornados and hurricanes. Sometimes people’s houses are severly damaged and we get looters. Being armed is a good thing in those situations.

      Like


    • I think the ideology of pacifism and helplessness was/is seen as a form of virtue in some Christian denominations or ministers. Quakers and Methodists come to mind. It is an age old debate that got new credence after WWII. We have reached its limitations at this point. An example of this ideology before WWII can be found in the book and film Sandpebbles in the form of the Missionary and his daughter.

      Like


    • on August 7, 2012 at 11:09 am RappaccinisDaughter

      The Kellermann study is, in a word, horseshit.
      http://www.guncite.com/gun_control_gcdgaga.html

      Look, if you don’t want a gun, don’t like guns, don’t get one. That’s your right. Just leave my rights alone.

      Like


    • on August 7, 2012 at 9:46 pm Dan Fletcher

      Jesus. That shit was debunked so fucking long ago. Why don’t you share your Geocentric solar system model with us while you’re at it?

      Like


  20. 80% of all shootings occur in self-defense; I believe it’s around 6800 on average per annum. But you will never hear about it from the Marxist media, because self-defense and individual sovereignty do not fit the collectivist-statist narrative. Self-defense is doubleplus ungood.

    Like


    • Who give a fuck whether guns save lives? That’s their frame and it shouldn’t be yours.
      Your rights are your rights regardless of the social consequence.

      Like


      • on August 7, 2012 at 9:48 pm Dan Fletcher

        Agreed. The 2nd Amendment has no clause stating “This is only valid if guns can be shown to decrease crime”.

        Like


  21. Nati
    There several deep problems with the Kellerman, et al approach to this issue. First, they treat all households as if they are the same in regard to their response to having guns around. That is wildly misleading. Most examples of gun crime committed within the home occurs within dirt-bag families. Rarely indeed is a tax paying, bill paying community of largely intact families create
    even measurable amounts of gun crime.
    I live a town of about 12,000 souls in Texas. In the last 30 years the number of our citizens who have committed a gun crime could be rounded off to zero.
    That waving Kellermans thesis around here would be taken as a brutal, and unprovoked, and unjust insult, since guns of all types out-number people and gun crime never
    seems to occur, Another problem with Kellermans appraoch is that he ignores the effects of prevention of crime by the presence of civilian owned guns and focuses his metric of the rate of legitimate self defense killings.
    Let us takl about Law Enforcement. They very rarely use their weapons to kill a bad guy or stop a crime in progreess. They display a forminably higher rate of accidental discharges, shooting the wrong guy, shooting while drunk etc. ;;that the numbers of crimes they prevent using handguns.compares unfavorably with the gun crimes they commit themselves.
    Just Sayin

    Like


  22. That is why i am moving out of maryland. The government is at war with anything resembling power and freedom.

    Like


  23. Getting it done unless there is always better unless there is woman you happen to care about,.

    Like


  24. (Shakes head sadly)

    Still buying something Piggy says, eh, Heartsie? Pretty foolish. If tomorrow, Aaron Sorkin threw twenty grand at Piggy and made him the head writer at The Newsroom , he’d start spitting out far-left platitudes against all comers. As he himself has admitted, he does not write because of his beliefs or to engage in discussions; he writes only for fame and money.

    Like


  25. Just don’t live around black people and mexicans, and you’ll live a safe life.

    Visit the DOJ crime statistics website if you don’t believe me.

    Like


  26. “The average number of people killed in mass shootings when stopped by police is 14.3

    The average number of people killed in a mass shooting when stopped by a civilian is 2.3. ”

    http://dailyanarchist.com/2012/07/31/auditing-shooting-rampage-statistics/

    Like


    • That was priceless, especially seeing them all run out- straight of
      L’il Rascals. Oh lawdy I seen a ghost!

      Like


  27. Nothing makes me want to vomit more than the comments section of the New York Times.

    Like


  28. but isn’t it also a feeling of powerlessness that drives men to kill like that guy in wisconsin who shot a bunch of innocent sikhs at worship? army vet who couldn’t find a decent job, had his home foreclosed, was something of a drifter – obviously the guy was frustrated and blamed his problems on foreigners. that feeling of powerlessness can explain a lot of these violent acts by individuals who lash out at society, and no one mentions it, instead we get a false debate about gun control.

    Like


  29. Fucking spot on Heartiste. People need to do some introspection when their first inclination when faced with hardship is to figure out how it isn’t their responsibility to take action. A man is already three hundred yards up the hill while the dirtbag is still complaining about who put the mountain there.

    Like


  30. the shooters don’t stop until someone else shows up with a gun.

    Like


  31. on August 7, 2012 at 10:04 am Holden Caulfield

    Is it powerlessness or raw stupidity that causes mental health professionals to make such re-cock-ulous statements? Examine the following:

    “In my psychiatric office, if Pattinson were to insist on jettisoning Stewart from his life exclusively because she had expressed herself sexually with another man, I would tell him he had never truly loved her. And I would be right.”

    Makes me wonder if this psychiatrist has raised another man’s kid. . .

    Note: The quoted section was taken from the full article which is posted on Heartiste’s twitter.

    Like


  32. on August 7, 2012 at 10:20 am Tdotinthahouse

    In Canada, that question has been rendered moot. Gun control is extremely strict here, with rules stipulating that a gun owner – assuming he or she has survived the Sisyphean quagmire of various layers of background check regimes – is required to keep their gun disassembled and locked away in a gun cabinet (fancy, overlarge toolbox monstrosity).

    As if that weren’t bad enough, the gun owner is further required to keep the various constituent parts of the gun dispersed from one another at a minimum distance. Which, as a practical matter, means owning several gun cabinets, which for most is cost prohibitive.

    Taking everything into consideration, just picture the ridiculous scenario this codifies. Murderer bearing down on your front door, uttering threats, while you frantically scramble to fetch all of the disparate parts of the gun and assemble it before your house is breached, all the while yelling out to you or your family’s would-be killer, “Come on, let up, will you? Give me a chance to make it a fair fight”.

    Now, that’s powerlessness.

    Like


    • You don’t have to have the gun in a case — trigger-locked is enough for the law. And there’s no requirement at all to disassemble the gun. You are however supposed to store the ammunition separately. In practice these rules are often ignored, with little adverse social consequence. I live in a part of Canada awash with guns but with very little crime; as always, crime is determined by culture.

      Like


  33. It seems like the utility/risk associated with gun control/proliferation could be measured. If 20% of the population were armed, (which I think would be a high statistic, even if conceal carry were allowed everywhere), would there be more accidential shootings and heat-of-the-moment shootings that would not have occurred had the shooter been unarmed than we have victims of gun violence now?

    And most of the victims of gun violence now could not have been saved even if conceal carry were allowed everywhere. I don’t know, let’s say 20% of shooting victims could have been saved had conceal carry been in place.

    I honestly don’t know the answer, but I think it should be fairly doable to estimate the two numbers and see which policy has the most social utility.

    Like


    • “Social utility”…. Pools/TVs/chef’s knives/carpets, etc. etc.: how many killed in accidents vs. how many lives saved by these objects? Lucky we can’t divide by zero or the absurdity of your metric would be obvious. But while we are looking down on society from our lofty position, how about we get to the root of the problem and just liquidate all mental defectives and minority political parties. The Social Utility is unquestionably positive.

      Like


  34. on August 7, 2012 at 12:40 pm Holden Caulfield

    We rarely hear from the children of gay parents. Well, now we do. bit.ly/NiM2Ro.

    Big shock – it was a fucking disaster. When are the dipshits going to realize a traditional family upbringing is not a bad thing?

    Like


  35. “Do you want to leave your fate in the hands of the powerful, who often don’t have your interests in heart, or do you want power for yourself so that you may exert a measure of control over your own life?”

    False Dichotomy AND Argument from Adverse Consequences. Is this a Jezebel guest post? I expect better.

    Like


  36. Sidewinder
    Concealed carry laws were enacted in many parts of the US in the mid to late 1990s. Results were followed closely, for obvious reasons. Two stats have become starkly apparent. First, the incidents of impulsive, illegal handgun use by licensed carriers has been very close to zero. Second, crime rates steadily have decreased.
    Does this help?
    I do not blame you for being un-aware. The mainstream media treats these findings as if they were state secrets.

    Like


    • Most concealed (and open) carriers will tell you (and I corroborate) that, when bearing arms, they find themselves MORE patient and MORE polite, less inclined to heat-of-the-moment altercations.

      The reason being, it doesn’t take much for some “citizen” to dial 911 and report a man-with-a-gun incident… at which point, rightly or wrongly, you will find yourself being governed.

      Like


      • Indeed.

        In the same vein, shooting ranges are some of the friendliest places on earth.

        Like


      • Open Carry? Yes, it can work,. But in e.g. Ventura Co, California, open carry is technically legal, but extremely problematic. If you do open-carry, expect somebody to call the police. Expect to spend the next hour or two licking asphalt while they sort out that no crime has been committed. UNLESS you happen to be within X feet of anything that has been declared a gun-free zone by federal or state authorities.

        I have contemplated the following procedure:

        1) Get a DBA (fictitious business name) with the word “Security” in it.
        Preferably related to what you do anyway (carpentry, computers,
        consulting…) But the DBA name should be nonspecific as to the
        type of security. LongMan Security. Total Security. Whatever.

        2) Buy a black outfit, shirt pants, jacket. Hat!

        3) Have made gold-and black shoulder pads with the name above,
        and preferably a metal badge with the same name.

        4) Wear uniform during open carry.

        Chances are you will be thought of as a security guard, and nobody will hassle you. HOWEVER, there is a downside. If you happen to be really near a place where some unrelated-to-you crime is going on, e.g. a bank robbery, there is non-negligible probability that the bad guys will just shoot you, before you even know a crime is being committed. Just to get you out of the way, whether they think you are related to or hired by the victim or not.

        If you ever DO get called on it, you have committed no crime, as per above, and it is AFAIK not illegal to wear “company uniforms”, even supermarket checkers do. The difference in wearing the uniform is that you are MUCH less likely to be called upon.

        Thor

        Like


    • I’m not claiming to know the answer. I come from a family of hunters so guns have never been a big deal. I have always realized the ridiculousness of claims that guns cI don’t think anyone in my area has ever felt the need to carry a concealed weapon on them. In my rural area, there are probably more shooting accidents than intentional shootings but I realize that isn’t the case in more urban areas. I really don’t have an opinion on it and would be interested to see some numbers. I’m not sure overall crime rate is going to give you an accurate indication of the effect of conceal carry, just as higher crime rates in states with the death penalty likely have nothing to do with one another.

      It’s tough to measure. We had an incident in a nearby city where a guy held-up three people, one of whom was armed. The robbery victim was able to draw his weapon and wound the robber, who ran off. If that robber had any friends, the deterrant effect of this incident was likely off the charts. But then again, who knows how much rational thinking these thugs are engaging in when planning their crimes. And in the case of nutjobs like Holmes, I don’t know that anything would have deterred him. I’m pretty sure Colorado allows conceal carry.

      Like


  37. Two points:
    1) The shooter had guns and gear worth about USD 20K. This strongly
    suggests that he was set up by somebody. Meanwhile the US senate discusses ratification of a UN Gun Treaty. And remember that many believe (falsely, but it might stick) that treaties trumps the constitution. Connect the dots….

    2) Stockholm syndrome. Guess what, I am there right now. And the whole country has it (not quite everybody but way over 90%, to various degrees. They see little moral problem with government confiscating easily 75% or their incomes, on the margin, counting ALL taxes (income, payroll, VAT etc.). I would not want to live there, as a visitor I get stuck with just the 25% VAT (sortof sales tax).

    Thor

    Like


  38. Appeasers who think powerlessness is the way to get what they want don’t realize that, in prison and anywhere else hardcore, that means being a stronger person’s anal sex slave in exchange… or, maybe, for nothing if the stronger person feels like it.

    Pay attention left/libtards… and think about those raging muslim jihadists you’re so eager to kiss-up to today (they’ll like your son):

    Like


  39. […] “The downsides of power are still better than the downsides of powerlessness.“ […]

    Like


  40. This article is for Jason

    http://blogs.the-american-interest.com/wrm/2012/08/07/california-blue-twilight-on-the-pacific/

    August 7, 2012
    California: Blue Twilight on the Pacific
    Last year, the Supreme Court made waves when it ordered California to release tens of thousands of inmates from its overcrowded prisons on the grounds that the cash-strapped state was keeping them locked up under inhumane conditions. The Supreme Court order has forced California to repurpose county jails—which are intended for short stays, often by people awaiting trial—into makeshift prisons for those with long-term sentences. Now many of these jails are facing severe overcrowding.

    The New York Times reports:

    Ordered by the United States Supreme Court to reduce severe overcrowding in its prisons, California began redirecting low-level offenders to local jails last October in a shift called realignment. Its prison population, the nation’s largest, has since fallen by more than 16 percent to 120,000 from 144,000; it must be reduced to 110,000 by next June.

    Counties with already tight budgets are scrambling to house the influx of newcomers in facilities that were never designed to accommodate inmates serving long sentences, like a man who began serving 15 years for fraud recently in the Fresno jail.

    Fresno County — a sprawling agricultural area surrounding the city, which is also facing financial problems and became a punch line for Conan O’Brien recently — is adding 864 beds to its chronically overcrowded jail. Under a longstanding federal consent decree that requires the Sheriff’s Department to release inmates when the jail reaches capacity, 40 to 60 people are let go early every day.

    Nor do these jails offer the activities that often fill the lives of those in conventional prisons:

    Built for stays shorter than one year, the jail does not offer the kind of activities, work programs and amenities found in most prisons. “You’re stuck in a little cell,” Mr. Diaz said, while prisons with outdoor space provide plenty of “yard time.”

    Once again, California’s dysfunctional governance has utterly failed the state’s residents. California can’t afford to enforce its own laws: an absurd and even insane position for a state to be in. California needs laxer laws that lock fewer people up, or it needs a bigger prison budget but there are no sane grounds on which the status quo can be defended. Forced by the US Supreme Court to do something, the state has acted with its characteristic fecklessness and passed the buck: handing the problem off to local governments, which, we should add, are facing serious fiscal problems of their own and are ill-equipped to deal with new prisoners.

    California is in a hole but can’t seem to stop its compulsive digging. Schools, universities, prisons, pensions, cities and towns: the state has lost the ability to manage even the most basic elements of communal living. But foie gras is now illegal there, grandiose plans for white elephant fast trains built with borrowed money waft through the air, and the state continues to boost the self esteem of affluent and cause-oriented gentry liberals by scattering scarce resources to the four winds, hunting unicorns when the cupboard is bare.

    Someday, perhaps, California will be governed by people who care about governing: that is to say, educating the kids, balancing the books, enforcing the law. Until then, it offers the rest of us a spectacle and a warning. It is some spectacle and some warning. California remains awesome, even in decline.

    Like


  41. […] Heartiste – The Ideology Of Powerlessness, What Happens When. . ., Scientific Proof That Women Love Drama, Why Women’s Sports Get Less […]

    Like