<< FULL NOTES, FLAT LINCOLN ~ MAIN ~ "NO ONE JET POOLED" >>
HOW GUN LAWS WORK
Computer instructor Tim Lambert explains:
If the law disarms attackers, then it can make self defence possible where it would have been impossible if the attacker was armed.
So, when confronted with an armed attacker, do I just read the magical incantation and he’ll be disarmed, or do I throw the statute at him, thereby disarming him, or do I sic the law on him?
And what if he’s gun disarmed, but much bigger/stronger than the victim, and wielding a lead pipe or cricket bat, or pointy stick?
Sounds like the same old crap he’s been spewing since he posted on talk.politics.guns back in the mid-90s or so.
Posted by Patrick Chester on 2007 04 27 at 01:07 PM • permalinkThink of the kind of intrusive police state it would require to disarm criminals. As opposed to the law-abiding, who are much easier to disarm.
Tim Lambert is an idiot. This is the kind of govt power over other’s lives that he is trying to push through global warming fright propaganda.
One thing history has shown is that you cannot give a head of state this kind of minute power over people’s lives without creating a monster. Of course “Computer Scientist” Lambert no doubt has a mathematical model to show that history would be different this time.
Well, I’m convinced. A robber wouldn’t dare break a gun law while breaking down an old lady’s door, and now he’ll be helpless against the old lady. It’s perfectly logical.
Lambert’s as brilliant as the college officials (can’t remember where) who just implemented a gun-free campus rule in the wake of the VT massacre, saying they’ve made the campus safer. Because somebody planning to murder thirty people wouldn’t dare ignore a campus gun statute.
These people consider themselves intellectuals.
Fortunately, these statutes are published in large books. When someone has an illegal weapon, you’re supposed to throw the book at him.
Posted by JDFlanagan on 2007 04 27 at 01:56 PM • permalinkLambert hasn’t changed in 15 years on this topic.
He still wants to make the world safe for violent criminals; after all, why should a 6’3”, 250lb thug be threatened by a 5’2” 100lb grandmother when he wants to break a few things, pick up some free money, and so on?
It’s a despicable attitude, but it seems to be all that Lambert has.
C’mon guys. He’s right. They have severe gun control laws in Washington, D.C., New York City, and Chicago, and none of the bad guys there have guns. It’s all peaceful-like, and if someone should happen to accost you, all you have to do is yell “Go away!!” at them and they do. Sweet.
Posted by JorgXMcKie on 2007 04 27 at 03:14 PM • permalink#18 91B30, interesting op-ed. No doubt Dan Simpson is a Democrat, because only a Democrat would suggest creating yet another big-government tax-funded bureaucracy to keep guns out of the hands of law-abiding citizens while doing absolutely nothing to keep criminals from having them. $1000 fine and a year in prison? What hard-core criminal is afraid of that? These people really live in an alternate reality.
#4 triticale
If the law prohibits attacks, then why do we need to defend ourselves from attackers?
Great way to put it, and finely elaborated on by several other commenters.
#22 Bashir Gemayel. Regarding the shooting at Coliseum Pizza, it’s hard to be sure if it’s the same sort of joint, but maybe the robbers should have considered what might happen to them if, say, they tried to hold up Satriale’s, New Jersey.
#18 91B30
Naturally, the random house raids and body searches will have to continue indefinitely in order the pick up any new guns entering the country. You wouldn’t mind, would you?
And before anyone starts to hyperventilate and think I’m a crazed liberal zealot…
No, we just think you’re completely nuts. (And, were you in some position of influence, more dangerous than the Virginia Tech gunman himself).
Line up and hand ‘em in? Not a freakin’ chance, pal.
Amen!
Up yours, Lambert. You wouldn’t know a subroutine from a submachine gun, nor a victim from a violin.
Posted by The_Real_JeffS on 2007 04 27 at 05:57 PM • permalink#9 Dave S,
It was actually VT that brought in the gun prohibition on campus, while concealed guns were allowed around the rest of the state.
Posted by Wimpy Canadian on 2007 04 27 at 07:37 PM • permalink#12 Flanagan, you owe me one nasal spray of red wine.
Posted by Wimpy Canadian on 2007 04 27 at 07:48 PM • permalink#21 RebeccaH, so true. We’ve just been shafted with that idiotic notion in Canada. Just google “gun registry” and “billions” and “dollars”. Pathetic.
And people still get shot by criminals. I am shocked, I tell you, just shocked. NOT.
Posted by Wimpy Canadian on 2007 04 27 at 07:54 PM • permalinkwas there any mention of the magical pink unicorn or candy rainbow in the description of how this was supposed to work?
Posted by thefrollickingmole on 2007 04 27 at 09:08 PM • permalinkI was inspired by that logic.
So much so, that I just added a new .40 Glock 23 to my unnecessary and completely irrelevant home defense system (since crimes are, well you know, outlawed).
Posted by Holden McGroyn on 2007 04 27 at 09:33 PM • permalinkIf the law disarms attackers
It won’t.
then it can make self defence possible where it would have been impossible if the attacker was armed.
The official magazine of the NRA has a page every month devoted to citizens successfully accomplishing the “impossible” task of defending themselves against armed attackers.
Does Lambert know how to think critically?
Iowahawk has it all under control
The bloke writes a nice chunck of satire.
Posted by thefrollickingmole on 2007 04 27 at 10:54 PM • permalinkLambert appeared on some firearms-related sites back in the late 90s after the “stealback” fiasco. I’d already seen his warped “logic” before, and put up a notice warning others not to waste their time in so-called “debate” with him.
Wow! Did he chuck a hissy fit! He was almost frothing at the keyboard that someone had the temerity to tell others he was a fruitcake.
#22 Bashir Gemayel. From the “no defensive firearm use” article:
“He did not comply with the demands and probably, for that reason, was shot,” De La Campa said.
Give the man a Darwin Award. He selflessly gave his life trying to protect the night’s takings.
Posted by flying pigs over mecca on 2007 04 28 at 06:16 AM • permalink#39 continued. From the first article:
The second victim of the shooting was the son of the pizzeria owners, Rullamas reported. He was in stable condition at a local hospital.
And easily could have been killed. Lesson from the two articles - guns or no guns, just hand over the money. The consequences of not doings so just aren’t worth it. (I’m only talking about robbery here, not other crimes. And, of course, it might not be obvious that robbery is a crim’s sole intent.)
Posted by flying pigs over mecca on 2007 04 28 at 06:23 AM • permalinkAlas Sir Tim Lambert, the clueness knight as part of the three knighties, two of whom played signficant roles in Monty Python’s Search for the Holy Grail, seems not to understand what he wrote.
Disarmed attackers (Those whom are armless and thus a little like the Black Knight) would allow us to defend ourselves as we still have arms with which to grasp weapons to cause grief to our armless attacker.
I suspect Lambert will only notice these comments as flesh wounds, much as the Black Knight insisted his wounds were.
Lesson from the two articles - guns or no guns, just hand over the money. The consequences of not doings so just aren’t worth it.
That sounds like a splendid idea! So the next step (for you, at least) is to hang a big sign right outside your door that says, “Rob me - I won’t shoot back!”.
You’ll have to excuse me, however, if I refuse to participate…
Posted by Bashir Gemayel on 2007 04 30 at 09:52 AM • permalink
Page 1 of 1 pages
Members:
Login | Register
| Member List
Tim Lambert couldn’t explain anything if his life depended on it. Not sure what to make of this comment from Posse Incitatus, though:
“So you’ve got a dead kid. It’s sad. Get over it.” ??? Am I the only one who got this impression?