Reasonable Gun Regulation cuts down on Mass Shootings!!!

I'd like to send out a challenge to most gun supporting conservative voters; make sense of and explain what the following ideas mean when arguing against any attempt to reasonably regulate guns.

Let's start with the real enemy of empty platitudes, "resource wasting knowledge" and studies that "don't add anything." Note: Fortunately, Lott's book "More Guns, Less Crime" wasn't titled "More Guns, Less Mass Shootings":

1. John Lott, a controversial researcher whose book “More Guns, Less Crime” downplayed the role of federally funded research ... “It’s important that we don’t waste valuable resources on studies that don’t add anything to our knowledge,” he said.

Avoid "quick fixes and simple solutions" that would saves lives now, because it would just create political anger and division? You can't make this up...:

2. The subcommittee’s ranking member Republican Rep. Tom Cole's open(ed) with a paean to “true freedom from despotism,” which he implied could only be achieved through gun ownership. And he appeared to refer to federal investigation of gun violence of the kind Democrats support as “quick fixes and simple solutions” that would only worsen political divisions.

Still, Gun Regulation isn't perfect, so lets change...Human Nature First?: That means waiting for these gun toting neanderthals like Cole and Lott to evolve. Still, "broader and more inclusive" does not include quick fixes like background checks and banning high velocity weapons:

3. “More funding for the Center for Disease Control and Prevention will not, by itself, solve our systemic problems. Our response must be broader and more inclusive,” Cole said. 

A "Broader" response oddly means ignoring guns, but debating the topic of Mental Health:

4. To that end, he stressed the importance of mental health funding. Supporters of gun rights often argue that psychiatric maladies, not guns, are at fault for gun violence. Statistics, however, indicate that the only factor that correlates with America’s extraordinary incidence of mass shootings is the rate of gun ownership. Other countries with similar rates of mental illness have many fewer mass-shooting events.

New Study on Mass Shootings proves regulation saves lives:  

The new study on mass shootings, in particular, seems to call into question whether guns do make people safer. That does not appear to be the case on the whole, according to the study, “State gun laws, gun ownership, and mass shootings in the US: cross sectional time series,” published in the British Medical Journal and authored by researchers from Columbia University, New York University and other institutions.

Gun rights advocates have long held that mass shootings could only be prevented by the proverbial “good guy with a gun.” But the new study finds that, in fact...

1.  States with less restrictive gun laws are more likely to experience mass shootings, defined as a shooting in which four people or more were killed. “States with more permissive gun laws and greater gun ownership have higher rates of mass shootings,” the researchers conclude. “There is a growing divergence in recent years as rates of mass shootings in restrictive states have decreased and those in permissive states have increased.”

2. The worst shooting in American history — the murder of 58 people at a country music concert in Las Vegas — took place in a state, Nevada, with a notorious lack of restrictions on gun ownership. The second-deadliest shooting — that claimed the lives of 49 at a nightclub in Orlando — happened in another state, Florida, known for its gun-related permissiveness.

3. The researchers also find a clear correlation between looser laws, the resultant increase in gun ownership and the subsequent rise in mass shootings. “A 10% increase in gun ownership was associated with an approximately 35% higher rate of mass shootings after adjusting for key factors,” they found.

Washington Times Headline Lied, reporter Lied, saying Matt Damon called for Gun "Ban and Confiscation."

Right wing media is doing everything it can to not just continue the gun carnage, but make it worse.

I just ran across this amazing example of media lying that is clearly meant to incite violence from frightened gun owners. Just so you know, Australia did not "confiscate" or "ban" guns, a ridiculous fiction. They have registration, a need to own provision, etc.:

 ‘Jason Bourne’ star Matt Damon calls for U.S. to ban guns ‘in one fell swoop’ By Douglas Ernst -The Washington Times - Tuesday, July 5, 2016: Hollywood actor Matt Damon used a press conference in Australia over the Fourth of July weekend to discuss his desire for a massive confiscation of U.S. guns.

Matt Damon did not discuss confiscation either, see for yourself:

“You guys did it here in one fell swoop and I wish that could happen in my country, but it’s such a personal issue for people that we cannot talk about it sensibly. We just can’t.

Obviously mass shootings aren’t going to do it. There have been so many of them at this point. Sandy Hook, when those children were murdered, if that didn’t do it, you know, I just don’t know. Maybe we just need to evolve further before we can have that conversation, I don’t know.”

And this is the kind of message gun happy protectors of the 2nd Amendment drool over. And none of it is true. But as we all know, Black Lives Matter is really to blame.

The issue has always been "regulation," not confiscation. The fact that slightly fewer people are killed every year doesn't make the 10,000 plus that die, okay. But if that's your attitude, than maybe you should be on the list Republicans want to make targeting the mentally ill, because you fit the profile. Note: The mentally ill are being unfairly targeted, since their percentage of gun crimes is fractionally small. They're a scapegoat for NRA fire breathing conservatives. Big surprise.   

Gun Lobbyists Wrong; it's not guns that are being taken away, it's "laws already on the books!"

We should not call them the "NRA" anymore, we should just call them what they are, "Gun Lobbyists." They are profiteers okay with death and injury to sell more guns. 

Funny how Republicans argue that taking a little time our - making the effort - to get a voter photo ID is no big deal. And yet they blow a gasket over getting their background checked to buy a gun? Hey, how else do you think we're going to stop the mentally ill from getting guns. Scott Walker and every other Republican said that's our biggest gun problem.

Republicans like Paul Ryan are saying the administration is putting more burdens on "law abiding" Americans. Really? What about the burden Republicans have put on law abiding voters? Oh, that's different.

You can't have it both ways, and "control" and regulations don't take our guns away, and never have. The "slippery slope" argument is actually slipping the other way, with gun deregulation.

The Oregon militia exposed the right wings true intentions: Guns are meant to intimidates people.

It's time Democrats and President Obama take common sense regulation people back.

What about enforcing the gun laws on the books? That's a bullshit distraction, since Republicans and the NRA are quietly neutralizing those laws in the form of budget "riders." The photo here (click to enlarge) shows you how dramatic the attack on those great "laws on the books" has been over the years. It's another GOP/NRA lobbyist con job--->

Conclusion: On many occasions the leadership of the NRA has claimed to support vigorous enforcement of the gun laws on the books. By way of illustration, during his recent testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee, Wayne LaPierre, CEO and executive vice president of the NRA, said, “We support enforcing the federal gun laws on the books 100 percent of the time against drug dealers with the guns, gangs with guns, felons with guns. That—that works.” Despite this rhetoric, no organization has done more to inhibit the law-enforcement functions of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives and other federal agencies than the NRA. No other area of federal law enforcement suffers from so many legislative barriers to action. It’s time to start with a clean slate. It’s time for President Obama to lead by delivering to Congress a budget that removes these unnecessary and dangerous riders and cancels the future effect of riders included in prior budgets. - The Center for American Progress.

No Tears for 20 first-graders: That's right, gun loving Republicans are even scoffing at Obama's gut wrenching tears for the 20 bullet riddled first-graders at Newtown:

Like most Americans, President Obama's frustration came to the surface. JS:

The president struck a combative tone as he came out with plans for expanded background checks and other modest measures that have drawn consternation from gun rights groups, which Obama accused of making Congress their hostage. Palpable, too, was Obama's extreme frustration at having made such little progress on gun control since the slaughter of 20 first-graders in Connecticut confronted the nation more than three years ago.

"First-graders," Obama said woefully, resting his chin on his hand and wiping away tears as he recalled the 2012 massacre at Sandy Hook Elementary School. "Every time I think about those kids, it gets me mad."

Here's an itemized list of trashed "laws already on the books:"

After Pregnant Woman Shot, GOP Protect Gun Range from Liability. Another “free market” big government gift!

Shooting ranges need protection, not the general public? That's the first reaction from our ghoulish Republican majority. 

It must be so hard to survive in the “free market” without Republican style big government protection. I have to admit, this is the first time I've run across this legislative sop to gun losers everywhere.

The following legislation is another angry over-the-top GOP response to…believe it not, a pregnant woman getting shot outside a restaurant in Delafield by an errant bullet from a nearby gun range:

jsonline: Existing shooting ranges would be grandfathered in place and be free from new local ordinances as well as certain lawsuits, under legislation passed by the Assembly Tuesday. The proposal now goes to Gov. Scott Walker.

Just another law restricting the rights of local citizens. And unlike a real free market situation where no one is protected artificially from responsibility, Republicans continue their fantasy that consumers have an unfair advantage over businesses. This is so ridiculously sick:

The bill also makes the owners, board and employees of shooting ranges immune from lawsuits based on the negligence of a shooter at the range.

The legislation results from a case in Delafield in which a pregnant woman dining outside at a restaurant a quarter mile from the Hartland Sportsmen's Club was struck by a pistol round. The bullet created a bruise on her abdomen and scratched her, drawing some blood. She was treated at a local hospital; doctors said her baby was fine.

How do they sleep at night...I don't really know.

Walker's gun regulation dodge focusing on mental illness just means we'll see a bloody trail of more victims.

Instead of seriously debating the use of sensible gun laws in Wisconsin, that may make it harder for walking time bombs from getting guns, Scott Walker wants to treat mental illness. He knows that's BS, because I know it's BS.

Since latching onto the do nothing excuse to treat mental illness, Republicans have pretty much gotten most of their constituents off their back (I'm hoping to be wrong).

But reality stepped in; what happens when the most conservative county in the state, filled with officials dead set on getting government out of the way, fail to detain a guy who's parents believe is dangerous? He went on to kill three retired farmers.

Walker's complete lack of empathy and the inability to identify a major public safety problem, means his promise to get serious about treating mental illness is yet another deadly dodge.

Mental illness laws are difficult to impose, because they can easily infringe on a person rights. That's why the Republican promise to crack down on mental illness is an empty gesture. Even when someones parents were desperate for help. This story is just scary:

WSJ: The parents of a man accused of killing three retired farmers in southwestern Wisconsin warned Waukesha County officials just before the murders that their son was delusional and potentially dangerous, but county mental health professionals disagreed and did not detain him ... his parents are saying the tragedy uncovered April 28 never would have happened if Kuester had been hospitalized as they asked. “Our son is going to spend the rest of his life behind bars because they wouldn’t help him even though we repeatedly asked,” said his mother, Kathleen Kuester of Waukesha.

The head of the Waukesha County mental health system stands by the April 25 assessment from one of its most experienced crisis managers that Kuester didn’t meet any of the criteria defined by state law that would have allowed the county to detain him against his wishes. “We felt we responded in the ways we could,” said Peter Schuler, director of Waukesha County Health and Human Services.

Schuler doesn't appear to think a review of this evaluation failure is even necessary. Even with the following history?

Besides the Waukesha County mental health crisis worker, employees at the Waukesha Police Department and Waukesha County jail, where he was detained briefly on April 26, also declined requests to admit his son to a mental hospital, Jim Kuester said.

Four years ago, Kuester, under a delusion that a high school classmate had been killed, ventured aimlessly for 16 hours through a wooded marsh … Kuester showed signs of paranoia and told them somebody was trying to kill him, Kathleen Kuester said … he eventually wound up at Waukesha County Mental Health Center, she said. “It’s been like this ever since,” said Kathleen Kuester,

“He would come to his brother’s place that is across the hall from my apartment and spend hours talking about the demons all around him. He said they were following him everywhere.” The Kuesters became alarmed and sought help, Kathleen Kuester said.

Jim Kuester asked Robert Walker, a clinical social worker and crisis manager for the Waukesha County Mental Health Clinic, to admit his son to a mental hospital … The Kuesters thought the sum of his erratic behavior that week would be convincing evidence to have their son hospitalized. “He was talking about getting his dead dog back, he was talking about Satan, he’s talking about demons, he’s talking about people following him trying to kill him, he’s talking about messages God was giving him,” Kathleen Kuester said. “I can’t help but feel that Jaren was a victim, too, and that he was let down by Waukesha County Mental Health, the Waukesha city police department and the Waukesha County jail.”

The Rise of Guns and Mass Shootings still not enough to protect life. Instead, we protect guns.

Mother Jones has done a great job following the gun issue, including this recent story, along with charts:

The research confirms that: Public shooting rampages have spiked in particular over the last few years … Many of the attackers were heavily armed … None of the shootings was stopped by an ordinary citizen using a gun.

Author of the study, Pete Blair, advises law enforcement officials … gathered data on 84 "active shooter events" (ASEs) between 2000 and 2010 in which the killer's primary motive appeared to be mass murder. Notably, the jump in attacks in 2009 and 2010 was prior to the massacres in Tucson, Aurora, Oak Creek, Newtown, and numerous other locations during the last two years. Although Blair's research does not cover 2011 and 2012, he concludes that "our tracking indicates that the increased number of attacks continued in those years." As our own investigation showed, there were a record number of mass shootings in 2012.

Does the rise in gun ownership and the loosening of state laws over the last four years effect increase the carnage? Of course:

The unprecedented spike in these shootings came during the same four-year period, from 2009-12, that saw a wave of nearly 100 state laws making it easier to obtain, carry, and conceal firearms. (We mapped those laws here.)

And do armed citizens come to our rescue now that concealed carry is so common? No.

While our study examined cases in which four or more people were murdered, Blair's dataset includes less lethal rampages in which the median number of victims shot was four and the median number of those killed was two. Blair found that at least 41 percent of the attackers carried multiple weapons. We found that a majority of mass shooters carried multiple weapons, and that more than half of them used assault weapons and high-capacity magazines. 

Moreover, our investigation made clear that so-called "good guys with guns" do not stop public shooting rampages. Likewise, Blair's data couldn't be any clearer when it comes to the National Rifle Association's favorite myth: He found just 3 cases out of 84 in which an armed individual who had been on the scene used a firearm to stop the shooter. And none of the three were ordinary citizens.

Australian gun regulation worked, but Virginia Citizens Defense League remains unconvinced.

Timely and as revealing as any early morning call from my Republican friend in Milwaukee. Gun bans do work. John Oliver wonders how the ban worked in Australia:

Following the Senate's defeat of the Manchin-Toomey amendment, John Oliver tests the theory that government-mandated gun control doesn't work. 

The Daily Show with Jon Stewart
Get More: Daily Show Full Episodes,Indecision Political Humor,The Daily Show on Facebook

Colbert skewers Sen. Cruz and the Republican vote against Background Checks.

Stephen Colbert said what I've been saying all along about gun regulations and the stupid slippery slope argument by paranoid gun enthusiasts, that any rule will result in a registry. Yes, Colbert said it better and funnier.

The Colbert Report
Get More: Colbert Report Full Episodes,Indecision Political Humor,Video Archive

You won't believe the Gun legislation that failed.

Here's a list from the Washington Post that may just stun the senses. It's hard to imagine the following votes were made by adults. I intentionally didn't include the word responsible.

Background checks failed 54-46

The one amendment that would have completely destroyed any real regulation:

Republican gun legislation failed 52-48: The main Republican alternative to gun control, proposed by Sens. Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) and Ted Cruz (R-Ariz.) failed with 52 senators in favor and 48 opposed. It would increase funding for criminal prosecution, school safety, and mental health resources and create a task force to go after felons who fail background checks. It would also criminalize trafficking and straw purchasing and increase the penalties for them. At the same time, the amendment would loosen gun restrictions by making it easier to purchase and carry guns across state lines. The National Rifle Association supported this legislation.

Here are the rest. The Democrats should be ashamed:

Gun trafficking failed 58-42

Expanding concealed-carry failed 57-43, 13 Democrats in favor.

Assault weapons ban failed 40-60

Expanding veterans’ gun rights failed 56-44

A ban on high-capacity magazines failed 46-54, ten Democrats voted against it

Mental health funding passed 95-2

The Brave and the Frightened Cowards

Credo Action

Morning Joe trashes Republican vote on Background Checks, Rubio proposes stopping violence on earth first, and Baseball Player afraid of Crowds.

There's an awful lot of talk about the self destructive nature of the Republican Party. But I'm not convinced. Joe Scarborough thinks so, saying this about the unbelievable rejection of background checks for terrorists, violent rapists and gang members:



I believe Republicans will become more radicalized and emboldened with big wins like the defeat of gun background checks, and the cuts to important spending that would likely produce the economic underpinnings of the next generation.

But just as important, they've destabilized the American psyche. Check out this unfiltered rant from Philadelphia Phillies all-star pitcher Jonathan Papelbon, who's beginning to fear walking through stadium crowds and Obama's attempt to take his guns. It pretty much says it all:



Just for review, the following presents in full view the vacuous and meaningless argument against background checks by Marco Rubio. Even Chris Wallace had a problem with Rubio's grasping at straws lunacy. Two questions stand out; why did Rubio support background checks in Florida; and when Rubio said violence, not guns is the problem, Wallace asked, "How do you stop violence senator?" Good question.

Senate Rejection of 90% of Americans Support of Background Checks Stunning.

My conservative friend in Milwaukee called this morning to hash over last nights disappointment over the Senates filibuster vote on background checks. Out of the blue, he pointed out how little people care about the issue. That surprised me, since I don't listen to right wing media, or remember all the stupid interpretations of the Second Amendment.

I wasn't the only one puzzled by the phony argument. At Mediaite, thankfully, I found my answer: 

There’s a tendency to see what we want to in polls, a tendency that doesn’t often end well. Case in point: a Gallup poll that was cited on this website Wednesday to support the conclusion that “Only Politicians And The Media Care About Gun Control And Immigration.”

That conclusion, particularly where guns are concerned, is belied by several months of Pew polls that show Americans are following, and have been following, the debate over guns more closely than any other news story. 

The Gallup poll cited by my pal Noah Rothman did, indeed, place the issue of guns and gun control ninth on a list of issues, but does that mean that Americans don’t care about the issue? In the January 3-6 survey, 34% of Americans said they were following news on the gun debate very closely, a close second to the fiscal cliff’s 38%. Since then, the gun debate has dominated the survey every time it’s been included: Most recently, the gun debate edged out North Korea, 37%-36%, while immigration remained flat, at 23%, since February. At its peak, the gun debate was being followed either “very closely” or “fairly closely” by 72% of Americans, and remains at 65% of Americans closely following it.

This survey doesn’t necessarily tell us how people feel about the gun debate; 41% of Republicans say they’re following it very closely, versus 37% of independents and 34% of Democrats. That gives Republicans an edge in energy around this debate, but then again, an awful lot of Republicans supported background checks. 

Solve Gun Violence; Do Away with People!!!

I'll be darned, the NRA was right after all. More guns just may be the solution, because they kill more people. And people, not guns, are the problem. 

This revelation came to me after I read the following:

Leader Telegram: The Eau Claire County Board passed a resolution 17-10 in support of background checks for gun buyers, bans on military style weapons, tough penalties on gun traffickers who arm criminals, increasing access to mental health services and "making schools safer." "Background checks - agree or disagree, but have the debate. Have the vote."

Those opposing the amendment said the resolution put too much emphasis on gun control while the central problem was violence.

Guns aren't violent, they're inanimate objects. People are violent. Evil, sick, careless people. So do away with people. Give them more guns.

NOTE: The hypocrisy of the right is almost breathless. They've been complaining about the way Democrats have supposedly exploited the Sandy Hook tragedy, using Sandy Hook families as human shields for strictly political purposes?

They would never think to exploit a tragedy...

Those opposing the amendment resolution ... mentioned Monday's bombing at the Boston Marathon, which did not involve guns.

"I think we need to look at things in a broad perspective," said Supervisor Gary Gibson. Gibson said it troubled him that recipes for making bombs could be found on the Internet.

Republicans concerned about School Security? Perhaps only if the NRA backs and provides it.

I didn't know this:

Badger Herald: Lawmakers reintroduced a bill this month that would allow school districts to exceed revenue limits in order to afford additional security measures. A pair of bipartisan lawmakers passed a similar measure into law in the 2009 biennial budget, but Gov. Scott Walker repealed it in 2011.

Not only has the governor not addressed the question of sensible gun regulation in Wisconsin (and seems to have gotten away with it), but he’s been against additional steps to secure our schools, a now popular target of law abiding gun owners hell bent on killing large numbers of people. At which point they’re no longer law abiding gun owners.

Rep. Amy Sue Vruwink, D–Milladore, a co-sponsor of the bill, said the proposed legislation would allow schools to exceed revenue caps by $100 per student or a total of $40,000, whichever is greater. “A lot of parents and educators have asked for it. We’re not mandating this. We’re not saying you absolutely have to do this. We’re leaving it up to the local elected officials and the people in the school district to decide.”

How serious are our sociopathic (lacks a sense of moral responsibility or social conscience) conservative lawmakers about school safety?

Sen. Dale Schultz, R-Richland Center, is the only Republican of the 28 legislators currently endorsing the proposed legislation.

This isn't about their convoluted interpretation of the Second Amendment, this is about school security and safety.

And they really don’t care. 

Saturday Night Lives Gun Regulation Suggestions...

In an odd way this ties in....

Republicans can't even do the easy things anymore, like passing background checks for gods sake.

Let's face it, this whole background check "debate" is shear lunacy, and the press is afraid to be honest about the irresponsible position Republicans are taking on this easy extremely popular regulation. We have to stop pretending they're making any sense.

No speeches here, just a frustration I feel when I see story headlines and pictures of Republicans holding up a bill that's already in practice for gun dealers. If they're serious, they would be trying to bring back machine guns and sawed off shotguns too.

The Republican Party is dysfunctional and is proving over and over again that "stupid," as Gov. Bobby Jindahl warned, is the best way to describe their actions.

"Freedom is Risky" says Arizona Gun Protector. Ah, What a great place to raise a kid.

The gun mentality is on full display in this piece from the Daily Show, and paints an unlikable picture of a group of guys that value guns over lives. "Freedom is risky!" That's their attitude. That doesn't fit into my concept of a family value or a world safe for them to play.

The Daily Show with Jon Stewart
Get More: Daily Show Full Episodes,Indecision Political Humor,The Daily Show on Facebook

Gun Thugs easily convinced to oppose background checks, bring guns to threaten Moms Demand Action's control rally.

Men showed up with guns at a Moms Demand Action gun regulation rally. Amazing.

Want to see what it’s like to have armed citizens just standing around in public? Check out the TV news coverage of “guys with their guns” missing the point of background checks and sensible regulations.

I guess these losers don’t have that much to worry about, they've got the guns, but for the majority of citizens who choose not to carry…well they’re shit-out-of-luck. The constitution insure’s “domestic Tranquility” and promote’s “the general Welfare” for everyone, especially those who don’t carry, but that doesn't matter to these Neanderthal “strangers” with their toys. They don't mind allowing the legal purchase of guns by criminals. You could say they've surrendered, given up to the criminals.

Welcome to the tea party third world nation. Watch in amazement this clip of the TV coverage, and just what kind of thugs we're talking about:

Several armed men showed up uninvited at the Moms Demand Action gun control rally at the statehouse in Indianapolis, Indiana, reports ThinkProgress.org. The unidentified men, who claimed to be part of Indiana Moms Against Gun Control, carried assault weapons and pistols. They stood silently as Moms Demand Action held a rally against military style weapons and for background checks.

Magazine size matters, Connecticut Effect Matters, Schools as targets…Matter. Doing nothing Matters.

I've always wondered why the general public should somehow feel safe around complete strangers walking around with loaded guns. We don't know anything about these people, or what motivates them to ignore the frightened general public. How does their false confidence and sense of invulnerability affect how they react in certain situations. No one ever talks about the other side, the majority of those who view their public safety as a threatened constitutional right.

Sermon over.

Magazine Size Matters: Republicans and the gun marketing group, the NRA, would like to brand the magazine size issue silly and irrelevant. Changing a magazine by a rabid gun owner is so fast and flawless that nothing could ever go wrong.

Yet Adam Lanza left all of his 10 round magazines home and the took the 30 rounders instead. Why was that? Rachel Maddow highlights why magazine size matters.

We also have to stop gun enthusiasts from insulting our intelligence when they make the idiot claim that changing a magazine doesn't break the stream of gunfire long enough for someone to escape or stop the gunman. We should no longer tolerate this dumbing down of the American public. 

With threats of a Senate filibuster, and the likelihood of the House shelving the legislation, Republicans are more than willing to make it legal for criminals and the mentally ill to buy guns via the gun show loophole. President Obama is well aware of the right wing threat:

Maybe their idea of freedom would be to remove all the laws that aren't perfect, that don't completely stop bank robberies, speeding, adding toxic chemicals to the food we eat, manufacturing dangerous products, loosening workplace safety, freeing up school curricula etc.   

I ran into a conservative friend yesterday who believed the lie about the Second Amendment being necessary to overthrow an out-of-control U.S. government. Funny, the whole constitution pretty much prevents that from happening, that's why it's such a well crafted document. Gun confiscation is impossible because of the amendment they talk so much about protecting. So what the hell's the beef? 

Joe the Plumber goes "Sheriff David Clarke Nuts," says "You can either pee or vomit on yourself and hope that you do not become a victim, or you go to your local shooting range."

Samuel Wurzelbacher, or aka Joe the Plumber, put out his own online PSA (it's cheaper that way) to counter Mayor Bloomberg's own message about gun control. He start his message with the above comment. It's oddly similar to Sheriff David Clarke's fear mongering, check it out:

Clarke: "You could beg for mercy from a violent criminal, hide under the bed, or you can fight back."

Joe the Plumber ended his message this way:

"That way, God forbid, if you or your family is ever attacked, you can shoot the bastard."

What a genius. 

Huffington Post: This isn't the first controversial anti-gun control videos released by Wurzelbacher. During a failed campaign to unseat Rep. Marcy Kaptur (D-Ohio) last year, he posted a video blaming gun control for the Armenian Genocide and the Holocaust.

“In 1911, Turkey established gun control. From 1915 to 1917, 1.5 million Armenians, unable to defend themselves, were exterminated,” Wurzelbacher said in the video, while loading a shotgun. “In 1939, Germany established gun control. From 1939 to 1945, six million Jews and seven million others unable to defend themselves were exterminated.”

Wurzelbacher is raffling off an AR-15 rifle on his website in protest of debate over an assault weapons ban.