And now they are truly lost...

 

Oh, the gnashing of teeth and crying of bitter tears.  The long-awaited Mueller Manifesto that would bury Trump is nothing more than a small fart in a hurricane. The report they thought wold vindicate their insanity has left them in limbo, with nowhere to turn be even crazier land.

But we can see that the madness is upon them, that no data, no facts, no lack of data can make a dent in the delusional architecture. 

 

The bizarre spectacle of those who, in their strong belief that there is no way HRC could possibly have lost without some kind of illegal influence is funny and frightening. It is clearly pathological.  It is the only way to explain how a group of people can be so disappointed that there is no evidence that the sitting US President colluded with a foreign power to win the election, that they would have preferred such behavior, feeling it would have justified their loss.

Bring in the clowns...

Man, I hate to give hateful, liberal dumb asses any space in my life or blog, but sometimes idiocy just takes the life right out of you.

Enter Chris Murphy (D - shocking) Connecticut.  There are, in large terms, two kinds of people; those who do not know anything about teh subject at hand, so they just shut the hell up, and those who know nothing about the topic at hand and think it important that everyone else know. In the second group, we find a subset who want to use their ignorance as a blunt instrument to blame everything on others.

Hence, Chris Murphy, tweeted thusly over the weekend:

***********************

Nobody needs an AR-15 to hunt.

Nobody needs a semi-automatic rifle to defend their home.
But mass shooters NEED these weapons in order to murder as many people as efficiently as possible.
And so nobody will miss them when they are illegal – except for the killers.
— Chris Murphy (@ChrisMurphyCT)
***********************

I bet he really thought he was being clever (perhaps he wants to compete with "Beto"), but how stupid is he?  Let me count the ways.

- I do not hunt, but I need an AR 15.  Why? Because I want one and I have done nothing that would lead to the conclusion that I cannot have one.  I carried an M16 in the Army and enjoyed firing that platform. Hence, I need it because I want it and he and no one else can really tell me otherwise.
- I need one to defend my home or property should the need arise.  From here I could reiterate point 1; I have done nothing to suggest that I should not have one. I am of age, responsible, well-trained, and have the right.  I have many things that others have misused, abused, or employed to hurt others.  My car, my kitchen knives, the gasoline that powers my cars and lawn mower, my axe, my machete, the fertilizer for my lawn, and so on.
- As has been noted elsewhere, his point 3 is simply not true.  There are several modern examples of handguns and other weapons being used in mass killing events (Oklahoma City, Virginia Tech, Nice FR). Mass killers use knives, explosives, trucks, etc.
- I will miss mine (well, I won't because I will still have them, no matter what he does). But the notion that those who own these rifles, who want these rifles and would miss them IF they were taken, are killers is insulting. I am not sure who he thinks he is convincing with this line of ill reasoning. Some people cannot help but show their ignorance and contempt

Chris Murphy is your prototype know-it-all, telling others how to live, talking about things he knows little or nothing about. He and his ilk will keep inciting violence, running their mouths, calling large number of their fellow citizens deplorables or killers, thinking this will solve the problems. All they are doing is creating enemies.

So, let's note the conundrum here:  When a group like ISIS or Al Qaeda or Boko Haram or just some homegrown yahoos commit an atrocity in the name of Allah, we are told that this is not Islam or all Muslims, but just a small minority.  When a small group of Muslims fly planes into buildings and kill thousands, we do not condemn all Muslims nor do we ban airplanes.  But, when an owner of a long gun (or really any gun) commits a killing of some sort, it becomes the fault of all gun owners (and really white males) and guns themselves. 

It's all about incrementalism

It is not unusual to hear Second Amendment advocates respond to suggested or pending gun control legislation by noting that "This new law could not have done anything to prevent previous mass killing events." They are, of course, quite correct.  Recent legislation passed in the US House that would require "universal background checks" would not have done a thing to stop any of the recent mass killings, be it Newtown, Parkland, Orlando, or Las Vegas.

An important point that must be noted in the passage of such legislation is that those passing it do not care if it is effective or not.  Their point is incrementalism.   In psychology we could call this desensitization. For instance, in theories of suicide risk and commission, one fact that is considered is how certain experiences may desensitize the individual to eventual lethal self-harm.  In the suicide literature this is referred to as acquired capability. So, experiences that decrease one's sensitivity to violence or might include self-harm, whether cutting or even the use of injectible drugs, might play one part in suicidal actions. Of course there are others and this is simply one example of how small increments in risky behavior can lead to large leaps over time. Similarly, va small changes, even inconsequential ones, we become desensitized to attempts to infringe on our rights as each becomes the new normal. This is also likely why it has been suggested that with these small irrelevant bills, they will let things stand for a while - expecting that everyone will adapt to teh new normal.  Thankfully, these house bills are unlikely to become law - but even teh gesture has relevance.

With regard to gun control legislation we see this process in what is often called "boiling the toad".  Turning up the heat by small degrees until it turns deadly. Turn it up too quickly and the toad will leap from the pan.  In social psychology and sales, this is called "foot in the door". Don't ask for too much too soon, but make a small request and once compliance is gained, add a bit onto it.  At that point, each escalation is a small step in relation to the last, while obviously a large leap from point A. Of course, each small request is seen as "reasonable" and "common sense". We retreat a step at a they advance a step at a time.

Conversely, those who are quick to say :We are not coming for your guns" may be using a bit of the old "door in the face" approach, which entails asking for a large favor and when rebuffed noting, "Well , how about just this little bit then". Ask to borrow $100 and when you get the WTF response, say, "All right, how about 5?"  So when they say "No one is coming for your guns" they are implying the large demand, but then they follow with "Okay, how about this small reasonable, commonsense thing then?"

It doesn't matter that the small thing will not work - it is simply a small step toward the ultimate goal, one more degree added to the water in the pot. Remember - the water is never fine!