Diane Dimond’s viewpoint, “Wanted: Leaders to Tackle Mass Shooting Epidemic,” DN-R, Aug. 19, conveniently seeks to mislead those less informed with her rant about “automatic weapons” in that fully automatic weapons have not been available to the general public since 1968 without going through a most strenuous and expensive federal process.

Please get the facts straight, Ms. Dimond.

Jeff Moyer

Mathias, W.Va.

(13) comments


Indeed, Mr. LVW, there are slopes that are not slippery – and as Freud said, sometimes a cigar is just a cigar. But, sometimes slopes are slippery and cigars are not just a cigar. In both cases to claim the one requires the possibility of the other. I would suggest that the fallacy of the slippery slope occurs only if one thinks that extrapolating from an action presupposes and requires a single deterministic outcome. The slippery slope is, again in my opinion, valid as argument when used in a probabilistic manner. In other words one can analyze Action A and extrapolate multiple outcomes that may occur and select for probability. Once the most probable is selected the process begins again at the next bifurcation point. Just my opinion.


What one can expect with the implementation of Ms. Dimond’s “commonsense” recommendations and the inevitable additions to them. There would be an initial ban and confiscation of all semi automatic firearms (shotguns, rifles, and handguns). After that we will be told that it is only “commonsense” to also ban and confiscate all handguns with a capacity of more than one cartridge without reloading. Lever and pump action rifles and shotguns will be designated as being too ‘rapid firing’ and must also be banned and confiscated. The American gun buyer will be restricted to buying a firearm that is either a single or double barrel shotgun or a single action or a bolt action rifle with a capacity of 4 or less non-military cartridges using a non-detachable magazine.


Prior to buying the firearm she will most likely need to obtain a license to do so. To obtain the license she will have to have obtained Federal mandated safety training; have passed a “thorough” background check including any and everything she has said on the Internet, among family members, and in public; what sites she has visited on the Internet; what social or political groups she may belong to; what her political views are; how her emotional temperament is as described by family, neighbors, or associates; her complete medical history; workplace attitude and whether she has ever made any anti-government statements.


If she passes this social credit scorecard and is granted her license to purchase a firearm she will then have to have another background check performed on the day she picks up her firearm after having endured a waiting period of unstated time. Of course, if she wishes to purchase ammunition for the firearm she is licensed to own she will have to again get a background check and the amount of ammunition she will be allowed to purchase will be restricted to an amount the State has decided is appropriate. To prevent “hoarding”, if she wishes to replace ammunition she has fired she will have to bring in her empties. Any ammunition purchase will be restricted to the chambering of the firearm she is licensed to own.


Unfortunately, this could all be for naught. Her right to own a firearm will be permanently infringed if a nasty neighbor or disgruntled family member or co-worker lodges a complaint against her for getting angry and a police request to confiscate her firearms is presented to a judge – who may be easily influenced by his own politics or those of the politicians who hired him.


Donald: Look up the "slippery slope" fallacy.


Yep, it's kind of difficult to have a discussion with folks that don't grok the basic facts about what they're discussing.


Amen to that Deft. Spot on.


Prodig,,........You 've got the nerve to talk about someone about FACTS! I give you Trumptards one thing, you have no bottom to the barrel


Poor little Sammy, nothing nice to say but that doesn't stop 'em! Too stupid to know any better!


And, finally, let us note that Ms. Dimond is eager to put the State back in control of what can be said, where it can be said, and by whom it can be said, while also enlisting the aid of totalitarian structured corporate entities such as Google, Twitter and the like. I am sure there are those that would like to see these recommendations implemented and others who think it does not go far enough. And I am relatively sure that such actions would just be “common sense” to Ms. Dimond. When it is seen that these recommendations do not lessen mass violence, and will most likely increase casualties from acts of mass violence, what will be the next logical ‘common sense” final step to ‘stop’ acts of mass violence?

Sorry, Mr. Deftcurmudgeon, I needed to borrow your "add reply" to sequentially complete my post.


Donald, I won't speak for Deft, but with posts as brilliant as yours, you can borrow my "add reply" any time you wish.



Welcome to the discussion.

Keep it Clean. Please avoid obscene, vulgar, lewd, racist or sexually-oriented language.
Don't Threaten. Threats of harming another person will not be tolerated.
Be Truthful. Don't knowingly lie about anyone or anything.
Be Nice. No racism, sexism or any sort of -ism that is degrading to another person.
Be Proactive. Use the 'Report' link on each comment to let us know of abusive posts.
Share with Us. We'd love to hear eyewitness accounts, the history behind an article.