Slog

Slog Music

Music, Nightlife,
and Drinks

Sunday, January 5, 2014

Hunter With Popular TV Show Fired For Saying Something Controversial!

Posted by on Sun, Jan 5, 2014 at 12:27 PM

Did you hear about the hunter with a popular TV show who loves guns and lives in the sticks? He said something that pissed off some intolerant people and then there was a big outcry about his controversial comments and then he was fired from his TV show and lost all his sponsorships?!? Just for having an opinion! But unlike that other hunter with a popular TV show who loves guns and lives in the sticks, no one on the right is coming to this guy's defense. Sarah Palin and Rush Limbaugh and Fox News and homocons aren't screaming about his 1st Amendment rights or about how every American has a sacred right to their beliefs and a popular TV show too. Because this guy didn't say insulting, demeaning, ignorant things about black people under Jim Crow or gay people and our anuses or Japanese and Muslim people and their faiths. He said this:

In the column that led to his dismissal, [Dick Metcalf] said that too many gun owners believed that the constitution prohibits any regulation of firearms. He noted that all rights are regulated, like freedom of speech. “You cannot falsely and deliberately shout, ‘Fire!’ in a crowded theater,” he wrote. “The question is, when does regulation become infringement?” he continued. Mr. Metcalf ended the column arguing that requiring 16 hours of training to qualify for a concealed carry license was not an infringement.

The reaction was swift:

Just days after the column appeared, Mr. Metcalf said, his editor called to tell him that two major gun manufacturers had said “in no uncertain terms” that they could no longer do business with InterMedia Outdoors, the company that publishes Guns & Ammo and co-produces his TV show, if he continued to work there. He was let go immediately.

So Dick Metcalf, "one of the country’s pre-eminent gun journalists," lost his column and his TV show because he believes that asking someone to get 16 hours of firearm training before allowing him to carry a concealed weapon onto a playground isn't an infringement on that gun lover's sacred constitutional right to bear arms under our sacred 2nd Amendment. And there's no outcry from the right... because I guess the 2nd Amendment trumps the 1st in the exact same way that the 2nd trumps reason, rationality, common sense, and basic human decency.

Of course... this could just be rightwing absolutism where constitutionally protected rights are concerned. Phil Robertson has an absolute right to his offensive opinions (and a TV show!) under the 1st Amendment. Guns, gun nuts, and gun manufacturers have an absolute right to be protected from Dick Metcalf and his fascist ideas about firearm safety training under the 2nd Amendment. And American women have an absolute right to obtain an abortion under the 14 Amendment. That's why you would never see conservatives trying to place limits on free speech, gun ownership, or access to abortion... right?

[Jesus—sorry about all the typos. Never blog before you've had your second cup of tea.]

 

Comments (85) RSS

Newest First Unregistered On Registered On Add a comment
85
The gun industry ought to get the PR award of the century
Posted by BOBKELLERMAN@AOL.COM on January 13, 2014 at 3:15 AM · Report this
Knat 84
@venomlash: He's also a shameless quote miner, coward, and hypocrite. Don't forget those qualities.
Posted by Knat on January 9, 2014 at 3:34 PM · Report this
83
@82
"There is no such thing as a negative suicide, but there is such thing as a negative correlation."

My internet stalker who makes thinly veiled suggestions that I kill myself, you are using that term incorrectly.
A negative correlation in statistics means that as one factor decreases the other factor increases.
It does not mean that they are not correlated.
In this discussion it would mean that as gun ownership increased, suicide decreased.

You were claiming a positive correlation. Guns = suicide.
To contradict that I only have to show that it is not correct.
I do not have to show that more guns = less suicide.

The example of England causes your CoC to drop by 2.51 points (71.83 v 69.32).
You have repeatedly claimed that England supported your claim that guns = suicide.

"You add in another number and the average goes down. This doesn't mean that the number you added was negative,"

There are no negative suicides.
But there is a lower CoC.
Posted by fairly.unbalanced on January 9, 2014 at 12:59 PM · Report this
venomlash 82
@81: Those three cases say nothing about whether or not the example of England supports my point, and don't actually have any meaning. The coefficient of correlation doesn't mean what you think it means; it's only useful when you're looking at a data set as a whole, and trying to interpret the change from adding single points is meaningless to the point that nobody with a decent understanding of statistics would do so. But we already knew you don't understand statistics...
There is no such thing as a negative suicide, but there is such thing as a negative correlation. To get a correlation, you need multiple data points BY DEFINITION. You can't glean correlation from a single point.
And you still can't explain the trend clearly shown by the numbers I've run and in here. (Bonus points: explain why the UK having lower rates of gun ownership and suicide means that low rates of gun ownership and suicide don't tend to occur together.)
Posted by venomlash on January 9, 2014 at 12:03 PM · Report this
81
@80
"You are an idiot who doesn't understand statistics."

Again, my internet stalker who makes thinly veiled suggestions that I kill myself, there are three and only three cases.

If the CoC goes up, then the example supports your claim.
If the CoC stays the same, then the example still supports your claim.
If the CoC goes down, then you claim that that also supports your claim.

I've shown how the CoC drops when England is included (71.83 v 69.32).
There are no such things as negative suicides.
Posted by fairly.unbalanced on January 9, 2014 at 10:27 AM · Report this
venomlash 80
@78: Again, my internet stalkee who doesn't know what sudoku is, I will spell it out for you:

You are an idiot who doesn't understand statistics.

I'm about done here. You've embarrassed yourself nicely in this thread, and I need only link people here in the future in order to demonstrate your inability to read or reason. I believe yo momma has some flap-jacks for me...
Posted by venomlash on January 9, 2014 at 10:14 AM · Report this
79
@77: If only someone less dendritic had spent the time to educate him many threads ago.
Posted by Hanoumatoi on January 8, 2014 at 7:30 PM · Report this
78
@77
"You're ENTIRELY WRONG with regard to your claims on the coefficient of correlation, and "

Again, my internet stalker who makes thinly veiled suggestions that I kill myself, I will spell it out for you.

If the CoC goes up, then the example supports your claim.
If the CoC stays the same, then the example still supports your claim.
If the CoC goes down, then you claim that that also supports your claim.

Now you can keep claiming that all three cases (and there are only three cases) confirm your claims but you are wrong.
Even Japan (which you claim is completely different) does not have negative suicides.
I've shown how the CoC drops when England is included (71.83 v 69.32).
There are no such things as negative suicides.
Posted by fairly.unbalanced on January 8, 2014 at 6:40 PM · Report this
ɥsɐןɯouǝʌ 77
@75: It's almost as though you don't understand how the study of statistics works. OH WAIT. It's EXACTLY as though you don't understand how the study of statistics works. You're ENTIRELY WRONG with regard to your claims on the coefficient of correlation, and I'm starting to believe that you're not actually aware of how wrong you are, that you actually believe the garbage you post, which is pretty scary.
Try as you might, you can't refute the trend clearly shown here. Nobody here will ever take you seriously even for a moment. EVER. Go away and embarrass yourself in public somewhere else!
Posted by ɥsɐןɯouǝʌ on January 8, 2014 at 4:53 PM · Report this
76
@75: "Tis but a scratch!"
Posted by Hanoumatoi on January 8, 2014 at 4:06 PM · Report this
75
@74
"This is not, in fact, true."

My internet stalker who makes thinly veiled suggestions that I kill myself, you are wrong.
If the CoC goes up, then the example supports your claim.
If the CoC stays the same, then the example still supports your claim.
If the CoC goes down, then you claim that that also supports your claim.

"This doesn't mean that the number you added was negative, just that it was lower than the previous numbers."

So you are correct until I can provide an example with negative suicides?
You don't know anything about statistics, do you?
If the CoC goes down that means that the example contradicted your claim.
There are no negative suicides.

Japan's suicide rate is 21.7 per 100,000.
America's suicide rate is 12.0 per 100,000.

Japan's gun ownership rate is 0.6 per 100.
America's gun ownership rate is 89 per 100.
Posted by fairly.unbalanced on January 8, 2014 at 3:03 PM · Report this
ɥsɐןɯouǝʌ 74
@72: "When an example makes the coefficient of correlation go up then it supports your claim.
When an example makes the coefficient of correlation go down then it contradicts your claim."

This is not, in fact, true. As I explained in my previous post, the coefficient of correlation declining means ONLY that the evidence added was weaker than the previous evidence. Think of it this way:
You have some numbers averaged together. You add in another number and the average goes down. This doesn't mean that the number you added was negative, just that it was lower than the previous numbers.
Posted by ɥsɐןɯouǝʌ on January 8, 2014 at 2:52 PM · Report this
Backyard Bombardier 73
@72 allworkandnoplaymakesjackadullboyallworkandnoplaymakesjackadullboyallworkandnopl
aymakesjackadullboyallworkandnoplaymakesjackadullboyallworkandnoplaymakesjackad
ullboyallworkandnoplaymakesjackadullboyallworkandnoplaymakesjackadullboyallworkan
dnoplaymakesjackadullboyallworkandnoplaymakesjackadullboyallworkandnoplaymakesj
ackadullboyallworkandnoplaymakesjackadullboyallworkandnoplaymakesjackadullboyallw
orkandnoplaymakesjackadullboyallworkandnoplaymakesjackadullboyallworkandnoplaym
Posted by Backyard Bombardier on January 8, 2014 at 1:28 PM · Report this
72
@70
"(The drop in the coefficient of correlation just means that it's not as strong as the rest of the evidence, numbskull.)"

So I need to explain statistics to my internet stalker who makes thinly veiled suggestions that I kill myself.
I can do that.
When an example makes the coefficient of correlation go up then it supports your claim.
When an example makes the coefficient of correlation go down then it contradicts your claim.

"The United Kingdom has less gun ownership and less suicide than the United States of America."

That is true. That is why I chose that example. Because it would show your errors.
While the rates are lower, the rate of suicide is not low enough.
When that one example is added to your claims the CoC drops (71.83 v 69.32).
A lower CoC means that it contradicts your claim.

"You see, THEY AREN'T GOOD MUSLIMS."

Were you told that by the people who assign you your "caseload"?
Because if you do the research, you'll find that it happens a lot in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Whether you consider them "good" Muslims or not.
Posted by fairly.unbalanced on January 8, 2014 at 1:05 PM · Report this
71
I think f_u is doing his Black Knight impression.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zKhEw7nD9…
Posted by Hanoumatoi on January 8, 2014 at 11:40 AM · Report this
venomlash 70
@69: Islam unequivocally prohibits suicide. From the Koran:
And do not kill yourselves, surely God is most Merciful to you.
(Sura 4, ayat 29)
From the Hadith:
Narrated Abu Huraira: The Prophet said, "He who commits suicide by throttling shall keep on throttling himself in the Hell Fire (forever) and he who commits suicide by stabbing himself shall keep on stabbing himself in the Hell-Fire."
(Sahih al-Bukhari, 2:23:446)
Al-Qaeda also commits mass-murder both against Muslims and non-Muslims, which is also strongly prohibited in Islam's founding scriptures. You see, THEY AREN'T GOOD MUSLIMS.

The United Kingdom has less gun ownership and less suicide than the United States of America. This is evidence IN FAVOR of my claim. (The drop in the coefficient of correlation just means that it's not as strong as the rest of the evidence, numbskull.)
Either admit you're incorrect on this issue and a filthy liar in general, flee from the SLOG to avoid getting your ignorant ass handed to you some more, or continue to face my puckish mockery.
Posted by venomlash on January 8, 2014 at 9:26 AM · Report this
69
@66
"Shameful display, commit sudoku."

My internet stalker is now making thinly veiled suggestions that I kill myself.
Dan, what was your objection in the article that you posted?

"Japan has a long-standing cultural tendency towards suicide; whereas the Abrahamic tradition in which much of the Western world is steeped prohibits self-termination"

The Abrahamic tradition? Such as Judaism and Christianity and Islam?
You might want to look up "9/11".

Anyway, now that you've claimed it is the Abrahamic tradition that determines whether guns are the determining factor in suicide, let's put England's stats into your chart.
England
Guns per capita 6.2
Suicide rate 11.8

Here's your previous claim about the coefficient of correlation.
http://www.thestranger.com/slog/archives…

But with England added it drops by 2 points (71.83 v 69.32).
And that is per capita and not percent of population owning guns. By percentage the variation would probably be higher.
Or are you now going to claim that the Church of England is not Abrahamic?
Posted by fairly.unbalanced on January 8, 2014 at 7:58 AM · Report this
68
As is usual my Unbalanced friend's logic eludes.

According to him America's rate of suicide by gun is "USA (58.7%) being an outlyer." see #63. i.e that is 58.7% of American suicides are committed by gun.

Japan is also an outlyer with an unusually high rate of suicides per 100,000, 21.7 per 100,000. see #61 he doesn't mention how many are committed by gun but seems to imply that Japan too is an "outlier"

Ok maybe there is a logic here. Americans are less culturally prone to suicide then the Japanese. But American's are also less imaginative then the Japanese so we use guns a whole lot more then the rest of the world to commit suicide. Where as the Japanese are much more imaginative and determined then the rest of the world to commit suicide. Ergo we can conclude that while both America and Japan are outliers when it comes to guns and suicide.

The Japaneses are imaginative and kill themselves while American's have guns and kill themselves.
Posted by Machiavelli was framed on January 7, 2014 at 10:49 PM · Report this
67
@66: I busted up. I think from now on I'm going to include sudoku in all my dendritic posts.

@64: If you look through the threads, it becomes obvious at a certain dendritic point that not only can he not hold two idea in his head at the same time, he doesn't bother to actually read the posts we (venomlash) make explaining things like statistical analysis to him.
Posted by Hanoumatoi on January 7, 2014 at 7:56 PM · Report this
venomlash 66
@61: England, in comparison to the USA, supports my claim. The UK has lower rates of gun ownership and of suicide than the USA. Japan has a long-standing cultural tendency towards suicide; whereas the Abrahamic tradition in which much of the Western world is steeped prohibits self-termination, it is commonly seen as the proper way to die with dignity in Japan, and in light of this it is not surprising that Japan has an uncommonly high suicide rate. Now explain these data.

This has been explained to you several times across several threads. Every time that has happened, you immediately claim that it was not explained to you and that nobody dares explain it to you. I predict that you will respond to this post to the effect that I still don't want to address the (non-)issues of Japan and England.
Shameful display, commit sudoku.
Posted by venomlash on January 7, 2014 at 3:40 PM · Report this
65
@64
So you cannot explain why America is different.
America just is different.
You might want to look up "American Exceptionalism".

Hey, Dan. You might want to read this thread the next time you want to talk about the 1st Amendment.
Posted by fairly.unbalanced on January 7, 2014 at 2:54 PM · Report this
Backyard Bombardier 64
@63: Okay, so, unable to hold two ideas in your head at the same time. Got it. That explains a lot.
Posted by Backyard Bombardier on January 7, 2014 at 2:25 PM · Report this
63
@62
May I again recommend that you read what you are referencing?
Your quote included "homicide".
This discussion was about how Dan did not understand the 1st Amendment.
Then my internet stalker brought up suicide.
Now you are trying to introduce homicide.
I'll repeat the quote from your link.

"The reason for the low impact of gun ownership on total suicide rates probably is the generally modest proportion of suicides which are committed with a firearm, the percentage ranging in the 18 countries from 2.4% in the Netherlands to 31.9% in Canada, with the USA (58.7%) being an outlyer."

Now you are claiming that America is different from all of those other examples because America just is.
Explain why it is "cultural" in other countries but not "cultural" in America.
Posted by fairly.unbalanced on January 7, 2014 at 2:17 PM · Report this
Backyard Bombardier 62
@61: Is it possible for you to hold two ideas in your head at the same time?

If so, try to do so with these two ideas:

One factor affecting suicide rates is the availability of guns. For evidence, my link from @52. "Substantial correlations were found between gun ownership and gun-related as well as total suicide and homicide rates."

Another factor affecting suicide rates is local cultural attitudes towards suicide. For evidence, chew on this. "There are large cultural differences in the incidence of suicidal behavior, and culture influences also the methods used for committing suicide and the reasons for doing so.

In the case of countries with significant cultural differences, such as Japan and the USA, the effect of culture outweighs the effect of gun ownership. Hence your two lonely data points.

Where the culture is largely homogeneous, such as between states within the USA, the effect of gun ownership is expressed more clearly. Hence Venomlash's scattergraph.

Two ideas... one brain... try it out.
Posted by Backyard Bombardier on January 7, 2014 at 1:30 PM · Report this
61
@59
My internet stalker, again you keep avoiding the examples of Japan and England.
Because you cannot address the examples of Japan and England.
So you keep avoiding them.

Japan's suicide rate is 21.7 per 100,000.
America's suicide rate is 12.0 per 100,000.

Japan's gun ownership rate is 0.6 per 100.
America's gun ownership rate is 89 per 100.

"No, you do not have your own internet stalker; you're just part of my caseload."

So there is someone assigning you to stalk me? I feel so special now. I understand that you have to stalk others, too.
And this thread was originally about Dan's problem understanding the 1st Amendment.
Posted by fairly.unbalanced on January 7, 2014 at 1:18 PM · Report this
dwightmoodyforgetsthings 60
@8- I think the government should buy people guns because otherwise poor people wouldn't be able to serve in the well-regulated militia the 2nd Amendment is talking about.

Posted by dwightmoodyforgetsthings http://www.reddit.com/r/spaceclop on January 7, 2014 at 12:57 PM · Report this
venomlash 59
@58: If gun ownership has no effect on the rate of suicide, then why do states with higher gun ownership rates have higher rates of suicide as well? DUBS CHECKEM
Posted by venomlash on January 7, 2014 at 12:11 PM · Report this
58
@57
"That, for example, the difference in rates of gun suicide"

I'm not talking about "gun suicide".
I'm talking about suicide.
And how gun ownership has no effect on the rate of suicide.

Japan's suicide rate is 21.7 per 100,000.
America's suicide rate is 12.0 per 100,000.

Japan's gun ownership rate is 0.6 per 100.
America's gun ownership rate is 89 per 100.

You want to claim that it is "cultural" in Japan but not "cultural" in America.
Posted by fairly.unbalanced on January 7, 2014 at 11:53 AM · Report this
Backyard Bombardier 57
@54: Has it crossed your mind that perhaps suicide rates are affected by more than one factor? That, for example, the difference in rates of gun suicide from one country to another could be explained in part by cultural factors, in part by rates of gun ownership, and in part by various other factors we have not explored?

Posted by Backyard Bombardier on January 7, 2014 at 10:23 AM · Report this
Dirtclustit 56
Hell even dipshit franko K journoterrorists have a right to publish their racist and often sarcastic views about rape, it isn't funny and they're lucky that being a racist misogynistic asshole isn't against the law, so we have to let it slide.

It's so true that there will always be stupid motherfuckers, like K , who aren't man or woman enough to take responsibility for their words and actions, but for every journoterrorist like dipshit, there are countless Human Beings who honestly are exercising their rights and living responsibly.

You can't enforce certain behavior and there will always be extremely subtle ways that make it under the radar.

You cannot fix stupid and some people choose to be an asshole, and when said stupid assholes have money and meddle with people's lives it is more than annoying

Right wing fuckheads and angry atheists are in our midst, and hopefully we can leave them there as we carry on, because these are the same stupid assholes who claim outlawing wrongful discrimination is not being tolerant
Posted by Dirtclustit on January 6, 2014 at 10:26 PM · Report this
55
@49 5280,

I see your Mediaite:

"Author of Gun Control-’Demolishing’ Study Also ‘Proved’ Forced Ultrasound Laws ‘Work’"

Found HERE

Peace
Posted by Married in MA on January 6, 2014 at 10:12 PM · Report this
54
@52
Maybe you should really read the material you're linking to. Here's the relevant section.

"The reason for the low impact of gun ownership on total suicide rates probably is the generally modest proportion of suicides which are committed with a firearm, the percentage ranging in the 18 countries from 2.4% in the Netherlands to 31.9% in Canada, with the USA (58.7%) being an outlyer."

And you may notice that Japan is not included in those statistics.
And you still have not explained why it is "cultural" in Japan but not "cultural" in America.
Posted by fairly.unbalanced on January 6, 2014 at 6:25 PM · Report this
venomlash 53
@45: Honey, don't flatter yourself. No, you do not have your own internet stalker; you're just part of my caseload.
By all means, keep trying to bring up Japan. It doesn't change the facts that you keep trying to ignore.
Posted by venomlash on January 6, 2014 at 5:56 PM · Report this
Backyard Bombardier 52
@51: No, I did not use it incorrectly. But your posting history suggests you don't understand statistical concepts so I can see why you would think I did. You don't know any better.

If your point is that "gun ownership has no effect on suicide rates," that point is demonstrably incorrect. Venomlash has shown that time and again. And don't take just his word for it either:
The present study, based on a sample of eighteen countries, confirms the results of previous work based on the 14 countries surveyed during the first International Crime Survey. Substantial correlations were found between gun ownership and gun-related as well as total suicide and homicide rates. Widespread gun ownership has not been found to reduce the likelihood of fatal events committed with other means. Thus, people do not turn to knives and other potentially lethal instruments less often when more guns are available, but more guns usually means more victims of suicide and homicide.

http://www.unicri.eu/documentation_centr…

But please, continue to use statistics from two countries in an attempt to refute statistical evidence from an academic study of eighteen countries. It should be entertaining.
Posted by Backyard Bombardier on January 6, 2014 at 4:35 PM · Report this
51
@48
This discussion was originally about Dan's lack of understanding of the 1st Amendment.

But since you bring it up, my point in that other thread was that gun ownership has no effect on suicide rates. Neither increasing the suicide rate nor decreasing it.
You are claiming that the suicide rate is based upon culture in Japan.
But then you seem to be claiming that it is not based upon culture in America.

And you used the word "correlation" incorrectly there.
Posted by fairly.unbalanced on January 6, 2014 at 3:38 PM · Report this
50
@47 - it should be noted that number of guns per capita is not the same as the rate of gun ownership. I've tried figuring out just what the Canadian rate of gun ownership is and have found a lot of conflicting stats. None of them indicated that we have a higher rate of legal ownership than the US, though.
Posted by teamcanada'sforgottenpassword on January 6, 2014 at 3:33 PM · Report this
Fifty-Two-Eighty 49
I'll just leave this here, in case anybody's interested.

http://www.mediaite.com/online/new-study…
Posted by Fifty-Two-Eighty http://www.nra.org on January 6, 2014 at 3:17 PM · Report this
Backyard Bombardier 48
@45: You are comparing suicide rates in Japan and the USA solely against gun ownership rates, while ignoring significant cultural differences. This makes any conclusions you draw highly suspect.

Why not compare nations that have very similar cultures but very different rates of gun ownership? Say, the USA and Canada?

Oh look, I already did that @47. The money shot:

The rate of gun ownership in the USA is 2.9 times that in Canada.

The rate of suicide by gun in the USA is 3.5 times that in Canada.

There's a correlation you can hang your hat on.
Posted by Backyard Bombardier on January 6, 2014 at 2:43 PM · Report this
Backyard Bombardier 47
@46: People keep posting this "fact". I keep correcting them. The USA has the highest number of guns per capita in the world, by a significant margin.

Guns per 100 persons:

USA - 89
Canada - 30.8

And the correlated rate of firearms deaths, per 100,000 population

USA - 10.3 total of which
Homicide - 3.60
Suicide - 6.3
Unintentional - 0.3
Undetermined - 0.1


Canada - 2.38 total of which
Homicide - 0.5
Suicide - 1.79
Unintentional - 0.08
Undetermined - 0.01
Posted by Backyard Bombardier on January 6, 2014 at 2:37 PM · Report this
46
@42
A notable point of interest: Canadian per capita gun ownership is higher than in the USA.
Posted by Fairhaven on January 6, 2014 at 1:07 PM · Report this
45
@44
I have my own internet stalker now.
How nice.
So the personal attacks are just part of the internet stalking?

Japan's suicide rate is 21.7 per 100,000.
America's suicide rate is 12.0 per 100,000.

Japan's gun ownership rate is 0.6 per 100.
America's gun ownership rate is 89 per 100.
Posted by fairly.unbalanced on January 6, 2014 at 12:23 PM · Report this
venomlash 44
@24, 27: Oh look, it's YOU again.
It is still far too soon for you to come back here after the way you embarrassed yourself in this thread. You say that high rates of gun ownership don't correlate to high suicide rates in this country; if so, how do you explain these data?

Everyone, read through my links if you're thinking of taking f.u seriously. He's a filthy liar who doesn't know a thing about what he's saying. Present him with evidence proving him wrong and his response is to ignore it and claim that he's being personally attacked.

Nulla ignorantia est, scientia est.
Posted by venomlash on January 6, 2014 at 11:44 AM · Report this
JonnoN 43
@40 check a mirror. You and the other gun nuts should leave slog forever, we'd all be happier.
Posted by JonnoN http://www.backnine.org/ on January 6, 2014 at 11:26 AM · Report this
42
@18 - no measurable impact? Wrong. Here in Canada we have had mandatory safety training for gun owners for years now (yes, Virginia, Canadians own guns). After the courses were brought in the rate of accidental injury and death from firearms PLUMMETED. It is now very rare to hear of that kind of tragedy here, and when accidents do occur the person involved gets charged. Gun safety courses work, period.
Posted by teamcanada'sforgottenpassword on January 6, 2014 at 10:09 AM · Report this
41
So the NRA militants want fully armed forces without training to engage in killings!! No training so not shoot themselves as they hug their loving guns??? Well then what loving thoughts that Mr. Metcalf haves for the gun loving killing forces!!!!.................................. joe
Posted by joseph logston on January 6, 2014 at 10:03 AM · Report this
NopeNope 40
@fnarf

Dude, you sound like a fucking idiot. You might as well be a fucking fifth grader. The funniest thing is what must be the huge disparity between how you interact with others on the internet vs. real life. You're a fucking chump hiding behind a keyboard and it's pretty obvious to every SLOG commenter.
Posted by NopeNope on January 6, 2014 at 9:44 AM · Report this
39
How dare Dick Metcalf suggest that people LEARN HOW TO USE THEIR TOYS before they carry them around everywhere they go! Freedom isn't free because apparently I can't do whatever I want whenever I please!!
Posted by treehugger on January 6, 2014 at 8:58 AM · Report this
38
Given that the actual text of the 2nd amendment is as follows: "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." I am mystified that the part about "well regulated" continues to be understood by some as "no regulations are allowed"...
Posted by heartfelt on January 6, 2014 at 8:33 AM · Report this
Knat 37
The guy who "removed the threat" posed by his neighbor - and saw the trial end in deadlock *twice* before being dismissed due to the nature of the state's self-defense laws - is clearly the guy to put in charge of a magazine for gun nuts. He's in step with the culture and as pointed out @11, he shares their mindset (and rap sheet).
Posted by Knat on January 6, 2014 at 8:04 AM · Report this
36
Danny seems to be perpetually buttsore.
Posted by is it a gay thing? on January 6, 2014 at 7:48 AM · Report this
Some Old Nobodaddy Logged In 35
24, 27, you just really haven't been paying attention, have you? you're a little more than 'fairly' unbalanced.
Posted by Some Old Nobodaddy Logged In on January 6, 2014 at 12:18 AM · Report this
34
@4 (Un?)Fortunately, black people don't quite scare the 2nd Amendment Absolutists quite like they used to...

I think it's time to form gay mutual protection societies in the bile belt.

I think I'll name mine "Gays With AKs".
Posted by Pink Triangle Center Ring on January 5, 2014 at 9:18 PM · Report this
33
People an unbalanced friend explained all this too me in a comment section on this very blog. Your just not getting it.

With regards to the 2nd amendment. "Well Regulated" refers to the object i.e. the gun not the "Militia" i.e. people, that is until it doesn't. Say like "regulating" cartages or god-forbid safety features.

Militia of course refers to groups of one individual regardless of its of it's more common use in English, That is referring to more then one individual organized in accordance to some set of rules.

Thus being the case the 2nd Amendment is undefinable and thus unenforceable thus we all need to be armed to the teeth and shoot first. Only then will we be fully compliant with the 2nd Amendment.
Posted by Machiavelli was framed on January 5, 2014 at 9:14 PM · Report this
32
@24,

So you're alright when we say loud & proud:

FLUSH RUSH!!!

Peace
Posted by Married in MA on January 5, 2014 at 9:04 PM · Report this
Fnarf 31
@27, funny how that argument doesn't apply when it's a backwoods white supremacist pedophile who's not getting paid. Them fellers need the protection of freedom warriors like you and Sarah Palin.
Posted by Fnarf http://www.facebook.com/fnarf on January 5, 2014 at 6:16 PM · Report this
30
@20- They most explicitly do NOT have a 'No Fuckheads' policy. Perhaps you've never lived near a base?
Posted by Chris Jury http://www.thebismarck.net on January 5, 2014 at 6:16 PM · Report this
Fnarf 29
@25, go fuck yourself. I've been around this merry-go-round many, many times with better assholes than you. Respect? Get fucked. Gun assholes have a thousand reasons why the conversation should go a certain way, but I'm not interested. We're not debating here. There isn't any debate. What we're doing here is shitting on you.
Posted by Fnarf http://www.facebook.com/fnarf on January 5, 2014 at 6:13 PM · Report this
28
@24: You dendritic moron. Congrats on missing his entire point.
Posted by Hanoumatoi on January 5, 2014 at 4:44 PM · Report this
27
@26
"Uh -- he lost EVERY source of income -- was completely blackballed."

So?
http://www.facebook.com/georgehtakei/pos…

"and that his employer, who had approved in the editorial process the column, were incredibly cowardly?"

Whether private individuals or companies were whatever doesn't matter. He's still free to say what he wants and the government is not infringing upon his 1st Amendment rights.
Posted by fairly.unbalanced on January 5, 2014 at 4:41 PM · Report this
26
@24

Uh -- he lost EVERY source of income -- was completely blackballed. Yet when the DuckF**k was "suspended" from his show, the right wing went ape on the "freedom of speech" rights being curtailed. They didn't get the point you just made.

And don't you think that the gun manufacturers were vicious? and that his employer, who had approved in the editorial process the column, were incredibly cowardly?
Posted by Lindie on January 5, 2014 at 4:30 PM · Report this
NopeNope 25
@Fnarf

I bet hurling insults on the internet towards someone who had made a statement that contradicts your own views makes you feel like a tough-guy, huh?

First of all, I don't believe in capitalism to begin with. But certainly not as a barrier to access constitutional rights.

Secondly, if capitalism is the way things are going to keep running, I think it makes sense to have to pay for something that requires quality materials, craftsmanship and hard work to create. Teaching a 16 hour class is significantly less taxing, both physically, mentally and in the amount of resources used.

Lastly, I pictured something along the lines of the free hunting-safety classes offered by the government that are required in order to purchase a hunting tag. In any case, it would certainly be better, in the eyes of most gun-control proponents, to offer free classes on gun safety than nothing at all. If we can come up with the funds to buy back hundreds of busted old guns than I'm sure the funds to teach a free gun safety course can be found as well.

In any case, that's how I feel about the subject. You're free to disagree, but can you do so while showing a little more respect/civility? I don't see the reason for all the hostility other than to compensate for lack of actual ability to convey your stance, or to gratify some brave or convicted self-image you have of yourself (on the internet anyway).
Posted by NopeNope on January 5, 2014 at 4:23 PM · Report this
24
"And there's no outcry from the right... because I guess the 2nd Amendment trumps the 1st in the exact same way that the 2nd trumps reason, rationality, common sense, and basic human decency."

No, Dan. No one is infringing on his 1st Amendment rights. He just isn't being paid any more. Do you know what the difference is?
Posted by fairly.unbalanced on January 5, 2014 at 4:16 PM · Report this
23
@20
And ironically, military bases and ships have incredibly strict and overwhelming controls on the possession and use of weapons and ammo within their confines...and for damn good reasons.
Posted by Fairhaven on January 5, 2014 at 2:55 PM · Report this
Ph'nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn 22
@18

Ah. So the reason they rushed to defend the free speech rights of Phil Robertson was because his insights on the anus and the vagina were so fucking intelligent?

It beggars the imagination to wonder what he would have had to say to be too stupid for the wingnuts to be willing to save him.
Posted by Ph'nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn http://youtu.be/zu-akdyxpUc on January 5, 2014 at 2:19 PM · Report this
Ph'nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn 21
@19

Because going Godwin always fixes everything, doesn't it?
Posted by Ph'nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn http://youtu.be/zu-akdyxpUc on January 5, 2014 at 2:13 PM · Report this
Ph'nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn 20
@8

Boys, boys. You're BOTH right. The US Government is happy to give you not only free training and free guns, but three hots and a cot too!

It's a beautiful day when we can all win. Of course, they've got a "no fuckheads" rule but what responsible gun owner has a problem with that?
Posted by Ph'nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn http://youtu.be/zu-akdyxpUc on January 5, 2014 at 2:11 PM · Report this
19
I'll be impressed when liberals nut up and start referring to these reich wing jackasses as the fascists that they are.
Posted by jeffinfremont on January 5, 2014 at 2:09 PM · Report this
meanie 18
@11 They are both policies designed to make the action more difficult or, without any measurable impact on the with the perceived issues with the action.

The author used poorly though out rhetoric from the opposing view to seem try to seem more moderate or relevant. It cost him his job.

Since being stupid isn't as politically cool as being gay is right now, no one jumped to save him.

Basically he pulled a David Brooks, and forgot he wasn't rich enough to ride out the fallout.
Posted by meanie http://www.spicealley.net on January 5, 2014 at 1:57 PM · Report this
rob! 17
You a barefoot hiker, Scott @16, or just mudlarking along the river?
Posted by rob! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QZBdUceCL5U on January 5, 2014 at 1:56 PM · Report this
Call me Scott 16
Tea? Seriously gay, bro.
Posted by Call me Scott on January 5, 2014 at 1:52 PM · Report this
15
You can find the criteria the right uses when deciding whether to support the constitution here:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TuQC5hhhq…

@8 Good point, requiring private citizens to purchase their own guns amounts to a tax on the second amendment! I demand a publicly funded firearm allowance! $2000 per year should do it. I'm not greedy.
Posted by Ken Mehlman on January 5, 2014 at 1:48 PM · Report this
14
Unrelatedquestion Dan, where do you get your tea?
Posted by ProstSeattle on January 5, 2014 at 1:46 PM · Report this
13
Thanks Dan for the new and improved!
Posted by SASS on January 5, 2014 at 1:33 PM · Report this
Fnarf 12
@10, spell-check would have have caught none of the examples you give. Ironically, spell-check should have flagged you for "spellcheck".
Posted by Fnarf http://www.facebook.com/fnarf on January 5, 2014 at 1:32 PM · Report this
Max Solomon 11
The money quote: ” “The time for ceding some rational points is gone.”

@9: wrong. more false equivalency.
Posted by Max Solomon on January 5, 2014 at 1:19 PM · Report this
10
"and thn there was", "every American has a to their", "before being allowing", "same what that", "from the Dick Metcalf". Holy shit Dan, turn on spellcheck and hire a proof reader.
Posted by SASS on January 5, 2014 at 1:16 PM · Report this
meanie 9
I would assume that the reaction would be pretty similar in other controversial topics if someone who wrote for women's lib magazine ( imaginary ) wrote an op ed about how mandatory vaginal ultrasound were actually pretty reasonable.

The content to clickbait ratio on the stranger is getting pretty bad.
Posted by meanie http://www.spicealley.net on January 5, 2014 at 1:12 PM · Report this
Fnarf 8
Gun assholes gotta asshole.

@6, I fully support your right to go fuck yourself. Next you'll be asking for the government to be buying your guns for you.
Posted by Fnarf http://www.facebook.com/fnarf on January 5, 2014 at 12:56 PM · Report this
7
They're willing to get rid of all the amendments BUT the 2nd:

http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/wed-ap…
Posted by LMcGuff http://holyoutlaw.livejournal.com/ on January 5, 2014 at 12:56 PM · Report this
NopeNope 6
I fully back gun-safety classes as a requirement of being able to attain a concealed permit provided that it was a free.
Posted by NopeNope on January 5, 2014 at 12:46 PM · Report this
passionate_jus 5
I propose that before anyone can own a gun they have to take a gun safety course and they have to demonstrate they know how to safely use a gun.

You can't drive a car without a license and you shouldn't be able to own a gun without one either.
Posted by passionate_jus on January 5, 2014 at 12:41 PM · Report this
passionate_jus 4
Seems like a good time to remember when the NRA and then Governor Reagan supported gun control.

See, when Tea Party folks carry guns in public it's to defend their rights. When the Black Panthers did it it was bad because they were a terrorist group.

Or something...

http://www.pbs.org/hueypnewton/actions/a…
Posted by passionate_jus on January 5, 2014 at 12:38 PM · Report this
3
Fix the typos.
Posted by Editor on January 5, 2014 at 12:36 PM · Report this
fletc3her 2
The difference is one opinion is perceived to affect the arms dealers' profits while the other is just charming backwoods bigotry and pedophilia.
Posted by fletc3her on January 5, 2014 at 12:33 PM · Report this
1
No no. The reason they don't care is because they disagree with what he said.

There is no logic, just hypocrisy. Hypocrisy is the main feature of the mainstream political parties these days.
Posted by Hanoumatoi on January 5, 2014 at 12:32 PM · Report this

Add a comment

Advertisement
 

Want great deals and a chance to win tickets to the best shows in Seattle? Join The Stranger Presents email list!


All contents © Index Newspapers, LLC
1535 11th Ave (Third Floor), Seattle, WA 98122
Contact | Privacy Policy | Terms of Use | Takedown Policy