Tuesday, December 13, 2011

Perez Hilton: The Face of Gun Control

A more current pic:I'm sure a Hollywood gossip columnist is quite informed on the topic.

Unorganized Militia GearUnorganized Militia Gear
Follow TrailerDays on Twitter
Unorganized Militia Gear


Smokey Behr said...

He's a complete moron. I used to follow him until he went after the Miss America contestants.

FightinBluHen51 said...

^ Why would you do that to yourself? That is someone that DOES NOT deserve ANY shred of attention.

If Canada is so great, then why the hell doesn't he go back there? I'm sure the Northern Neighbors don't claim a statute of limitations on citizenship once you hang out in the US for any length of time. After all, they would have gladly taken Peter Jennings back.

Braden Lynch said...

...and we also see a lot less of criminal violence in Switzerland, which is armed to the teeth. Your point?

These comparisons are always suspect until you start looking at the laws, firearm ownership levels, the total crime/violence rates and some other factors and confounders.

The extremes help a bit, such as in the country formerly known as Great Britain, where, due to the strict laws no one could defend themselves during the riots. That is a good take away lesson!

Pyrotek85 said...

Yeah I'm sure our little drug war has nothing to do with our violent crime rates. Nope.

I can't take any of these comparisons seriously when they ignore such an obvious factor.

Weer'd Beard said...

He's an expert in violent crime because Will I Am played some sweet chin music on him when he called him a "Faggot".

Sigivald said...

Making fun of looks? Cheap shot.

(It's not fair or polite when they do it, and it's likewise not fair or polite if we do it.

So we shouldn't.)

He is, however, a bona fide self-revealed moron in all kinds of areas.

Has nothing to do with his looks, though - you might be surprised how many gun rights supporters look at least as freaky.

Matthew said...

Most of you know this (and I probably got it from Joe), but something to point out when you hear these kinds of comments is that typically our homicide rates (traditionally tracked pretty well even in the early modern era) were ALWAYS higher than the other country often when neither had, effectively, any real gun controls.

The meaningful comparisons then become between those old ratios and ones today, since the other countries have for the most part steadily increased restrictions while we, for the most part, have removed what few basic ownership and, particularly, public carry laws we ever developed.

If the difference has gotten closer and the numbers show them increasing and us staying stable or going down, which they uniformly do, then they shouldn't be touting their gun control efforts as effective.

Fer instance, London in 1900 and New York in 1900 both had little to no effective gun control. NYC had 8 homicides for every 1 in London IIRC. Today NYC, even though restrictive, still allows ownership and even carry while in London both are effectively banned and the ratio is now something like 4-1. (Again, I am probably off onteh numbers from memory.)

If we were always worse, but have gotten better without improvement on their part, it isn't about gun control.