TOTALLY GEEKED!

mediamatters.org/blog/2015/06/18/discredited-gun-researcher-john-lott-botches-sc/204052

From the article:

Discredited gun researcher John Lott falsely claimed that guns are "banned" in South Carolina churches to blame the mass shooting at Emanuel African Methodist Episcopal Church on "gun-free zones."

On the evening of July 17, a gunman opened fire during a bible study meeting at the church, killing nine people.

Lott, who invented the debunked "more guns, less crime" hypothesis and is a frequent source of conservative misinformation on gun violence, quickly blamed "gun-free zones" for the shooting. On the website of his group, Crime Prevention Research Center, Lott wrote, "Not surprising that yet another mass public shooting has taken place where guns were banned. Yet, again, the ban only ensured that the victims were vulnerable." Lott titled his article, "Another Shooting in a Gun-free Zone: Nine Dead at the Emanuel African Methodist Episcopal Church in Charleston, South Carolina."

Lott then offered a "synopsis" of South Carolina law - taken from an article on CriminalDefenseLawyer.com - that suggested guns cannot be carried in churches and some other locations.

Lott's synopsis linked to S.C. Code Ann.§ 23-31-215, which says that individuals with concealed carry licenses can bring guns into churches with the permission of a church official.

Here is what the actual law says:

M) A permit issued pursuant to this section does not authorize a permit holder to carry a concealable weapon into a:

[...]

(8) church or other established religious sanctuary unless express permission is given by the appropriate church official or governing body;

According to an analysis of mass shootings between January 2009 and July 2014 conducted by Everytown for Gun Safety, "Seventy-seven of the 110 incidents (70%) took place wholly in private residences. Of the 33 incidents in public spaces, at least 18 took place wholly or in part where concealed guns could be lawfully carried."

flan

flan327 wrote:

---

mediamatters.org/blog/2015/06/18/discredited-gun-researcher-john-lott-botches-sc/204052

From the article:

Discredited gun researcher John Lott falsely claimed that guns are "banned" in South Carolina churches to blame the mass shooting at Emanuel African Methodist Episcopal Church on "gun-free zones."

On the evening of July 17, a gunman opened fire during a bible study meeting at the church, killing nine people.

Lott, who invented the debunked "more guns, less crime" hypothesis and is a frequent source of conservative misinformation on gun violence, quickly blamed "gun-free zones" for the shooting. On the website of his group, Crime Prevention Research Center, Lott wrote, "Not surprising that yet another mass public shooting has taken place where guns were banned. Yet, again, the ban only ensured that the victims were vulnerable." Lott titled his article, "Another Shooting in a Gun-free Zone: Nine Dead at the Emanuel African Methodist Episcopal Church in Charleston, South Carolina."

Lott then offered a "synopsis" of South Carolina law - taken from an article on CriminalDefenseLawyer.com - that suggested guns cannot be carried in churches and some other locations.

Lott's synopsis linked to S.C. Code Ann.§ 23-31-215, which says that individuals with concealed carry licenses can bring guns into churches with the permission of a church official.

Here is what the actual law says:

M) A permit issued pursuant to this section does not authorize a permit holder to carry a concealable weapon into a:

[...]

(8) church or other established religious sanctuary unless express permission is given by the appropriate church official or governing body;

According to an analysis of mass shootings between January 2009 and July 2014 conducted by Everytown for Gun Safety, "Seventy-seven of the 110 incidents (70%) took place wholly in private residences. Of the 33 incidents in public spaces, at least 18 took place wholly or in part where concealed guns could be lawfully carried."

flan

---

 Not about private residences. 

You are not listing anything.

Where? 

 

lilyofcourse wrote:

---

flan327 wrote:

---

Oh, so now you're upset because I answered a question from NAOW?

I've tried to be nice, especially given your grandmother's health problems. You, however, seem to have a hard on the size of Antarctica.

Maybe you should volunteer at your local library?

flan

---

 You were responding to my question.

As for the "being nice" crap, no you havent. And my grandmother has nothing to do with this.

I've said it before and I will say it again.

You are a joke.

 

---

 So this is MEAN?

Lily --

How is your grandmother holding up emotionally? Is she is any physical pain?

I know how close you are to her, and I'm sorry that your family is going through this.

Wishing you strength & peace.

flan

flan327 wrote:

---

lilyofcourse wrote:

---

flan327 wrote:

---

Oh, so now you're upset because I answered a question from NAOW?

I've tried to be nice, especially given your grandmother's health problems. You, however, seem to have a hard on the size of Antarctica.

Maybe you should volunteer at your local library?

flan

---

 You were responding to my question.

As for the "being nice" crap, no you havent. And my grandmother has nothing to do with this.

I've said it before and I will say it again.

You are a joke.

 

---

 So this is MEAN?

Lily --

How is your grandmother holding up emotionally? Is she is any physical pain?

I know how close you are to her, and I'm sorry that your family is going through this.

Wishing you strength & peace.

flan

---

 Again, what does my grandmother have to do with this?

Yes, you posted a nice comment on the thread in the break room.

But this is not that thread.

This thread and that thread are two completely different issues.

Seriously. 

It's as if you atempted to use my grandmother as a weapon.

Why would you do that? 

If you can not separate issues, that's your problem. 

My grandmother and your "being nice" on that thread has absolutely NOTHING to do with this thread.

Divine Geek wrote:

---

flan327 wrote:

---

I know what to do_sometimes wrote:

---

Now look up massacres by WMD and see what turns up. That would be people killed by a tyrannic government who previously took all their guns away.

---

 Please explain how your handgun is going to stop a "tyrannic government."

flan

---

 Explain how sitting back and doing nothing stops a tyrannical government? Maybe my handgun alone would not stop them, but my neighbors and friends with their's, and their neighbors and friends, and so on and so on. 

The surest way to make sure the people don't fight back is to take away their ability to. 

---

 Oh, my handguns,  my rifles, my shotguns...they would arm plenty of people. And my semiautomatic guns will take down more people than they would. ...all legally unregistered.  An Army would have to come to my house....

Divine Geek wrote:

---

flan327 wrote:

---

I know what to do_sometimes wrote:

---

Now look up massacres by WMD and see what turns up. That would be people killed by a tyrannic government who previously took all their guns away.

---

 Please explain how your handgun is going to stop a "tyrannic government."

flan

---

 Explain how sitting back and doing nothing stops a tyrannical government? Maybe my handgun alone would not stop them, but my neighbors and friends with their's, and their neighbors and friends, and so on and so on. 

The surest way to make sure the people don't fight back is to take away their ability to. 

---

 DG is correct.  Protection in numbers.  BTW who said I have just a handgun?

Flan seems to think we live in an era of benevolent governments. And, maybe we have been very fortunate thus far. But, Hitler was able to take command of a nation in the matter of a few years. It can happen there, it can happen here.

What about the guns that were purchased legally?

flan

Lawyerlady wrote:

---

Divine Geek wrote:

---

flan327 wrote:

---

I know what to do_sometimes wrote:

---

Now look up massacres by WMD and see what turns up. That would be people killed by a tyrannic government who previously took all their guns away.

---

 Please explain how your handgun is going to stop a "tyrannic government."

flan

---

 Explain how sitting back and doing nothing stops a tyrannical government? Maybe my handgun alone would not stop them, but my neighbors and friends with their's, and their neighbors and friends, and so on and so on. 

The surest way to make sure the people don't fight back is to take away their ability to. 

---

 Exactly.  I totally don't get her attitude.  You don't just roll over and let them do whatever they want.  Good grief.  

---

 Explain how your pathetic "arsenal" is going to stop a trained military...

Tear gas? Poison in the water? In the air? A missile? Likely they have resources that none of us know about.

That is simply delusional.

flan

flan327 wrote:

---

Lawyerlady wrote:

---

Divine Geek wrote:

---

flan327 wrote:

---

I know what to do_sometimes wrote:

---

Now look up massacres by WMD and see what turns up. That would be people killed by a tyrannic government who previously took all their guns away.

---

 Please explain how your handgun is going to stop a "tyrannic government."

flan

---

 Explain how sitting back and doing nothing stops a tyrannical government? Maybe my handgun alone would not stop them, but my neighbors and friends with their's, and their neighbors and friends, and so on and so on. 

The surest way to make sure the people don't fight back is to take away their ability to. 

---

 Exactly.  I totally don't get her attitude.  You don't just roll over and let them do whatever they want.  Good grief.  

---

 Explain how your pathetic "arsenal" is going to stop a trained military...

Tear gas? Poison in the water? In the air? A missile? Likely they have resources that none of us know about.

That is simply delusional.

flan

---

 But I'd go down fighting

“The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing.”

Don't really care about your thoughts.

No one knows what they would do in a situation until it happens.

flan

flan327 wrote:

---

Don't really care about your thoughts.

No one knows what they would do in a situation until it happens.

flan

---

 Sooo, if you have no way to defend yourself, then you have no choice in what you will do.

Lawyerlady wrote:

---

flan327 wrote:

---

Don't really care about your thoughts.

No one knows what they would do in a situation until it happens.

flan

---

 Some of us actually do.  

---

 Nope. You like to tell yourself that you do know, but in your example, hindsight is obviously 20/20.

flan

Again.

Know your history.

None of the dictators stormed down main street with tanks demanding obedience.

Compliance was given.

flan327 wrote:

---

Lawyerlady wrote:

---

flan327 wrote:

---

Don't really care about your thoughts.

No one knows what they would do in a situation until it happens.

flan

---

 Some of us actually do.  

---

 Nope. You like to tell yourself that you do know, but in your example, hindsight is obviously 20/20.

flan

---

 No.  Killing off an entire race of people is not something I would find acceptable.  I would not sit by and do nothing.  If you think you might, that says a lot about YOU - not anyone else. 

Lawyerlady wrote:

---

flan327 wrote:

---

Lawyerlady wrote:

---

flan327 wrote:

---

Don't really care about your thoughts.

No one knows what they would do in a situation until it happens.

flan

---

 Some of us actually do.  

---

 Nope. You like to tell yourself that you do know, but in your example, hindsight is obviously 20/20.

flan

---

 No.  Killing off an entire race of people is not something I would find acceptable.  I would not sit by and do nothing.  If you think you might, that says a lot about YOU - not anyone else. 

---

 I'm too tired for this.

When did the Germans know? How many knew the truth?

Many here would likely have no problems killing innocent Muslims...

flan

flan327 wrote:

---

Lawyerlady wrote:

---

flan327 wrote:

---

Lawyerlady wrote:

---

flan327 wrote:

---

Don't really care about your thoughts.

No one knows what they would do in a situation until it happens.

flan

---

 Some of us actually do.  

---

 Nope. You like to tell yourself that you do know, but in your example, hindsight is obviously 20/20.

flan

---

 No.  Killing off an entire race of people is not something I would find acceptable.  I would not sit by and do nothing.  If you think you might, that says a lot about YOU - not anyone else. 

---

 I'm too tired for this.

When did the Germans know? How many knew the truth?

Many here would likely have no problems killing innocent Muslims...

flan

---

 Study some history, flan.  They knew.  Some of them - the ones that wouldn't sit by - were hiding Jews and helping them flee.  

Lawyerlady wrote:

---

flan327 wrote:

---

Lawyerlady wrote:

---

flan327 wrote:

---

Lawyerlady wrote:

---

flan327 wrote:

---

Don't really care about your thoughts.

No one knows what they would do in a situation until it happens.

flan

---

 Some of us actually do.  

---

 Nope. You like to tell yourself that you do know, but in your example, hindsight is obviously 20/20.

flan

---

 No.  Killing off an entire race of people is not something I would find acceptable.  I would not sit by and do nothing.  If you think you might, that says a lot about YOU - not anyone else. 

---

 I'm too tired for this.

When did the Germans know? How many knew the truth?

Many here would likely have no problems killing innocent Muslims...

flan

---

 Study some history, flan.  They knew.  Some of them - the ones that wouldn't sit by - were hiding Jews and helping them flee.  

---

 WE know NOW. At the time...

The Holocaust is a clear example of two factors at work. One is described by the "boiling frog" theory, which says that an enormous change will not be noticed if it occurs in gradual steps. The other factor is the primal and powerful mechanism of herding, which has its home in the limbic system and ensures that individuals conform to the group.

flan

flan327 wrote:

---

Lawyerlady wrote:

---

flan327 wrote:

---

According to an analysis of mass shootings between January 2009 and July 2014 conducted by Everytown for Gun Safety, "Seventy-seven of the 110 incidents (70%) took place wholly in private residences. Of the 33 incidents in public spaces, at least 18 took place wholly or in part where concealed guns could be lawfully carried."

flan

---

 I'm sorry - mass shootings took place in private residences?  

 

List, please.

---

 It's a 43-page document.

flan

---

 Someone shoots an entire family.

And before you try to argue anymore, flan -the role of American journalism burying the news of Nazi Germany and how long our government ignored what was happening was the topic of my 25 page senior thesis in college. And I took honors courses throughout on the Holocaust. It was the emphasis of my history major.

Lawyerlady wrote:

---

And before you try to argue anymore, flan -the role of American journalism burying the news of Nazi Germany and how long our government ignored what was happening was the topic of my 25 page senior thesis in college. And I took honors courses throughout on the Holocaust. It was the emphasis of my history major.

---

 Yes, you've told us that several times now.

I wrote hundreds of pages in college and grad school. No one cares.

So, if I DON'T answer a question, I get mocked, and if I DO answer a question, I get lectured. Got it.

flan

lilyofcourse wrote:

---

Everytown for Gun Safety is a pro Hillary, pro LGBTQ, anti gun money grubbing group of liberals.

They talk about supporting limits on how many guns, the kind of guns, ammo, zero carry and restrictions that would basically remove everyone's ability to own a gun.

---

 Deflect, deflect, deflect...

That is what I get told when I comment on the authors' bias of CONSERVATIVE articles here.

TELL ME AGAIN how limits on semi-automatic weapons is equal to taking away your precious guns? It's not.

flan

flan327 wrote:

---

Lawyerlady wrote:

---

And before you try to argue anymore, flan -the role of American journalism burying the news of Nazi Germany and how long our government ignored what was happening was the topic of my 25 page senior thesis in college. And I took honors courses throughout on the Holocaust. It was the emphasis of my history major.

---

 Yes, you've told us that several times now.

I wrote hundreds of pages in college and grad school. No one cares.

So, if I DON'T answer a question, I get mocked, and if I DO answer a question, I get lectured. Got it.

flan

---

 You are the one mocking the truth of of history.

Of course, you are right - YOU probably wouldn't have known what was going on.  You would have lived in purposeful denial, just like you do about the issues of government corruption now.

And if you haven't read "Backing Hitler: Consent and Coercion in Nazi Germany", it gives a good insight into the everyday German and what they did and didn't know.

The Gestapo relied heavily on the people for information related to where Jews were hiding, and to report the actions of their neighbors.

There's also "What we knew: Terror, Mass Murder, and Everyday Life in Nazi Germany."