Anti-gun Activist Arrested for Carrying Gun into a Public School

[doulos]

Anti-gun Activist Arrested for Carrying Gun into a Public School


"In what can only be described as an ironic twist of fate, a liberal Democrat who is a well-known anti-gun activist in upstate New York has been arrested for carrying his firearm into a public school.

Dwayne Ferguson has long been a well-known liberal activist and was even the face of New York’s campaign for the SAFE Act....................... Some of his supporters argue that he should be allowed to carry since he is an upstanding and law-abiding (usually) citizen who has every legal right to carry a gun (he has a permit to carry). And they are RIGHT! But he was one of the people arguing that even people like him shouldn’t be carrying on school campuses. Because of the purpose of the law, it’s only fair that Ferguson be judged by the law he championed and be found guilty of the “crime” he has committed”
Read more HERE <click
CAN we say hypocrit!
hy·poc·ri·sy
noun \hi-ˈpä-krə-sēalso hī-\

: the behavior of people who do things that they tell other people not to do : behavior that does not agree with what someone claims to believe or feel

plural hy·poc·ri·sies

Full Definition of HYPOCRISY

1: a feigning to be what one is not or to believe what one does not; especially: the false assumption of an appearance of virtue or religion

2: an act or instance of hypocrisy

See hypocrisy defined for English-language learners »
See hypocrisy defined for kids »

Examples of HYPOCRISY

When his private letters were made public, they revealed his hypocrisy.
the hypocrisy of people who say one thing but do another


This guy reminds me of someone who said he used to own firearms but when he changed his position on firearms sold the firearms instead of destroying them. I guess his greed for money was more important then taking a serous stand against firearms, otherwise he would have destroyed them instead of making his wallet a little fatter!

 

[Jhana]

Anti-gun Activist Arrested for Carrying Gun into a Public School


"In what can only be described as an ironic twist of fate, a liberal Democrat who is a well-known anti-gun activist in upstate New York has been arrested for carrying his firearm into a public school.

Dwayne Ferguson has long been a well-known liberal activist and was even the face of New York’s campaign for the SAFE Act....................... Some of his supporters argue that he should be allowed to carry since he is an upstanding and law-abiding (usually) citizen who has every legal right to carry a gun (he has a permit to carry). And they are RIGHT! But he was one of the people arguing that even people like him shouldn’t be carrying on school campuses. Because of the purpose of the law, it’s only fair that Ferguson be judged by the law he championed and be found guilty of the “crime” he has committed”
Read more at http://eaglerising.com/4626/anti-gun-activist-arrested-carrying-gun-public-school/#AFvi49htHQXMKZb3.99"

CAN we say hypocrit!
hy·poc·ri·sy
noun \hi-ˈpä-krə-sēalso hī-\

: the behavior of people who do things that they tell other people not to do : behavior that does not agree with what someone claims to believe or feel

plural hy·poc·ri·sies

Full Definition of HYPOCRISY

1: a feigning to be what one is not or to believe what one does not; especially: the false assumption of an appearance of virtue or religion

2: an act or instance of hypocrisy

See hypocrisy defined for English-language learners »
See hypocrisy defined for kids »

Examples of HYPOCRISY

When his private letters were made public, they revealed his hypocrisy.
the hypocrisy of people who say one thing but do another


This guy reminds me of someone who said he used to own firearms but when he changed his position on firearms sold the firearms instead of destroying them. I guess his greed for money was more important then taking a serous stand against firearms, otherwise he would have destroyed them instead of making his wallet a little fatter!

So what you're trying to show us is that politicians are corrupt?

 

[doulos]

So what you're trying to show us is that politicians are corrupt?

No just pointing out the hypocrisy of many with their do as I say not as I do attitude, that want to take our 2[SUP]nd[/SUP] ammenment rights from us! Besides I don’t think he holds any political office, so while he may be politically active I don’t think he qualifies as a politician. I just read another article on this hypocrite that has more info HERE <click

 

[Jhana]

No just pointing out the hypocrisy of many with their do as I say not as I do attitude, that want to take our 2[SUP]nd[/SUP] ammenment rights from us! Besides I don’t think he holds any political office, so while he may be politically active I don’t think he qualifies as a politician. I just read another article on this hypocrite that has more info HERE <click

But what if the 2nd amendment right isn't actually beneficial for the residents of the country? What if it causes more problems than good? What if guns are actually a patriotic symbol that people hold dear, but that actually contribute to lots of unnecessary deaths and injuries, and people are simply too carefree about these things to let guns go?

 

[JimJimmers]

But what if the 2nd amendment right isn't actually beneficial for the residents of the country? What if it causes more problems than good? What if guns are actually a patriotic symbol that people hold dear, but that actually contribute to lots of unnecessary deaths and injuries, and people are simply too carefree about these things to let guns go?

That still wouldn't explain the man's actions that his friends are defending. Hypocrisy is hypocrisy, regardless of your stance on the Second Amendment.

 

[Jhana]

That still wouldn't explain the man's actions that his friends are defending. Hypocrisy is hypocrisy, regardless of your stance on the Second Amendment.

You're missing the point, though. The OP is obviously pro-2nd amendment, and this thread is somehow, in his mind, an argument against it, since an advocate of banning guns is a hypocrite, that's somehow an argument, albeit to a small degree. OK, the politician is corrupt, he's a hypocrite, but that's nothing new. Politicians are famous for it. It doesn't, however, add any weight to the argument pros-vs-cons for guns.

And if the only purpose of the thread is to point a finger and say 'this politician's a hypocrite', well, is there much of a point in that?

I don't understand what lies beneath it.

 

[TheAristocat]

But what if the 2nd amendment right isn't actually beneficial for the residents of the country? What if it causes more problems than good? What if guns are actually a patriotic symbol that people hold dear, but that actually contribute to lots of unnecessary deaths and injuries, and people are simply too carefree about these things to let guns go?

Yes, and what if the right to bear arms saves individual lives and protects our freedoms? I think in a society where the absence of guns would be filled with brute strength, numbers, tasers, pepper spray and knives all used by criminals you have to ask yourself if removing guns (which is impossible - even in China) would change anything except our ability to defend our freedoms from the next Hitler or Stalin wannabe who comes into office. And if in the process of removing guns you make it impractical for law-abiding citizens to defend themselves against criminals who use guns on people, then the only thing this crusade on guns has done is cost more lives than it's saved. Why was that guy carrying a gun with him on school grounds? Ask yourself that.

 

[TheAristocat]

Woops! I forgot about the pistol I had in my bag even though I'm an anti-gun activist and likely think about it daily. I think he wanted the freedom to protect the kids while at the same time having an alibi - that of forgetting about his gun. In spite of his hypocrisy, an action like this coming from a well-intentioned and law-abiding citizen is something I count as a sign of intelligence.

 

[Jhana]

Yes, and what if the right to bear arms saves individual lives and protects our freedoms? I think in a society where the absence of guns would be filled with brute strength, numbers, tasers, pepper spray and knives all used by criminals you have to ask yourself if removing guns (which is impossible - even in China) would change anything except our ability to defend our freedoms from the next Hitler or Stalin wannabe who comes into office. And if in the process of removing guns you make it impractical for law-abiding citizens to defend themselves against criminals who use guns on people, then the only thing this crusade on guns has done is cost more lives than it's saved. Why was that guy carrying a gun with him on school grounds? Ask yourself that.

I don't know why. But his hypocrisy is mostly irrelevant to the pros and cons of guns though, except that the man felt he should carry a gun in a school in the first place.

I live in Northern Ireland, right. I'm sure you've heard of the troubles? Essentially a 50-odd year long civil war where someone was shot here every, single, day. Not just one. Sometimes lots. Bombs were going off. Everyone owned guns. The place was an absolute war-zone. People were afraid to go out.

These troubles officially ended in the early nineties, but in reality it's only in the last 5 or 6 years the shootings and attacks stopped to a noticeable degree.

Now, the law here is strict on guns. You aren't allowed one. It's as simple as that. All guns were ordered to be handed into police stations for destruction, with the promise of no penalties for handing them in, and thousands and thousands of them were handed in and destroyed. I don't know anyone who owns a gun anymore. And I can't recall more than maybe 5 shootings in the last few years.

The law here on knives is that no blade above three inches is allowed to be carried in public, and anything less must have a valid reason and be sheathed and tucked away. I'm nearly certain we need permits now.

The only people allowed to carry guns are the police, and I can tell you gun crime is very low here now, recently.

People say 'but it's high in the UK', but you have to remember, the police on the beat in England aren't allowed to carry guns. They don't carry guns. They're not as strict as we are on gun control in England. Their shooting rates and stabbing rates, last time I looked, are actually worse than Northern Ireland now.

I can tell you, an uber-tough stance on guns works. If someone here is caught with a gun you're talking 5 years jail time, maybe more. We're mega strict about it now, considering the past. And the police here are like wolves to meat with guns.

The proof is in the pudding for us. It worked.

 

[TheAristocat]

I don't know why. But his hypocrisy is mostly irrelevant to the pros and cons of guns though, except that the man felt he should carry a gun in a school in the first place.

I live in Northern Ireland, right. I'm sure you've heard of the troubles? Essentially a 50-odd year long civil war where someone was shot here every, single, day. Not just one. Sometimes lots. Bombs were going off. Everyone owned guns. The place was an absolute war-zone. People were afraid to go out.

These troubles officially ended in the early nineties, but in reality it's only in the last 5 or 6 years the shootings and attacks stopped to a noticeable degree.

Now, the law here is strict on guns. You aren't allowed one. It's as simple as that. All guns were ordered to be handed into police stations for destruction, with the promise of no penalties for handing them in, and thousands and thousands of them were handed in and destroyed. I don't know anyone who owns a gun anymore. And I can't recall more than maybe 5 shootings in the last few years.

The law here on knives is that no blade above three inches is allowed to be carried in public, and anything less must have a valid reason and be sheathed and tucked away. I'm nearly certain we need permits now.

The only people allowed to carry guns are the police, and I can tell you gun crime is very low here now, recently.

People say 'but it's high in the UK', but you have to remember, the police on the beat in England aren't allowed to carry guns. They don't carry guns. They're not as strict as we are on gun control in England. Their shooting rates and stabbing rates, last time I looked, are actually worse than Northern Ireland now.

I can tell you, an uber-tough stance on guns works. If someone here is caught with a gun you're talking 5 years jail time, maybe more. We're mega strict about it now, considering the past. And the police here are like wolves to meat with guns.

The proof is in the pudding for us. It worked.

And it also cut back on all those bombs that were going off before when they were still legal?

 

[Jhana]

And it also cut back on all those bombs that were going off before when they were still legal?

Comparing a bomb to a gun is silly. It's even sillier to assume the argument holds weight when you say it.

There were three or four factions essentially murdering people left, right and centre, police were being shot, people were afraid to give information, certain areas were off limits, and people in certain communities held differnet political stances. Many people were under threat of execution if they gave information to police, so what we had were communities essentially supporting bomb makers and explosives traffickers.

It could be compared to Israel and Palestine to some degree. If you've ever lived in a conflict zone or been in a war you'll understand what i mean when I say law didn't matter.

That's different now. People have generally realized the conflict was pointless, and like most of your average Americans with families and 9-5's, are fairly peace-seeking people.

Thus, comparing the two is stupid. I don't see how comparing gun-control laws in a non-conflict era to bombings at a time of national conflict is smart.

 

[TheAristocat]

That's different now. People have generally realized the conflict was pointless, and like most of your average Americans with families and 9-5's, are fairly peace-seeking people.

So you're saying that the rate of bombings decreased because Northern Ireland woke up and realized the conflict was pointless? What if the reason behind the decrease in gun-related violence was because of social change rather than a lack of guns? Because right now Northern Ireland does have guns. People can find them and use them. They're just doing so to a lesser degree. I wonder why.

Personally, I'd think that the severity of anti-gun laws while armament of the police is probably a big factor in the decrease in gun-related violence. It's the same in China but to a greater degree. Just about any crime related to guns is valid ground to be considered for the death penalty. You steal a gun? You can be tried for the death penalty. You manufacture a gun in certain serious circumstances? You can be tried for the death penalty. It's not that way in America. People don't fear the repercussions as much. Perhaps instead of attacking guns we should address other laws related to them. Because right now hardly anyone gets the death penalty even if they murder someone with or without a gun. Just as an example of how lax our punishments can be.

I just wouldn't want the same situation that's okay for the Irish to be okay for Americans. Any politician who has the sole power of guns over the masses can become corrupt and abuse that power while Americans have no ability to defend themselves. That's especially true of America, which is one of the most powerful nations on Earth.

 

[Jhana]

So you're saying that the rate of bombings decreased because Northern Ireland woke up and realized the conflict was pointless? What if the reason behind the decrease in gun-related violence was because of social change rather than a lack of guns? Because right now Northern Ireland does have guns. People can find them and use them. They're just doing so to a lesser degree. I wonder why.

Personally, I'd think that the severity of anti-gun laws while armament of the police is probably a big factor in the decrease in gun-related violence. It's the same in China but to a greater degree. Just about any crime related to guns is valid ground to be considered for the death penalty. You steal a gun? You can be tried for the death penalty. You manufacture a gun in certain serious circumstances? You can be tried for the death penalty. It's not that way in America. People don't fear the repercussions as much. Perhaps instead of attacking guns we should address other laws related to them. Because right now hardly anyone gets the death penalty even if they murder someone with or without a gun. Just as an example of how lax our punishments can be.

I just wouldn't want the same situation that's okay for the Irish to be okay for Americans. Any politician who has the sole power of guns over the masses can become corrupt and abuse that power while Americans have no ability to defend themselves. That's especially true of America, which is one of the most powerful nations on Earth.

I'm saying to compare gun laws in a peaceful nation as opposed to illegal bombs in a war-zone is silly. The statement 'people woke up', would imply social change, which makes your second question a circular logic with the first. I live in the country, and the point about whether guns exist is secondary to the fact that they are very, very rarely heard of anymore and more rarely used.

The social change had to come first. But the society now isn't that different to America. People are fairly open. The real factor in the decrease was the disarmament of paramilitary organizations, when fear began to leave the people.

I don't think the death penalty is a good way to prevent deaths, which is inherently my focus for why guns shouldn't be allowed; deaths.

 

[Jhana]

The moment guns are banned and a disarmament happens in America, will be the moment gun crime falls dramatically. The moment knives are banned on the streets and certain knives require permits, will be the moment knife crime dramatically decreases in America.

People have this argument about 'if a guy comes in my house with a knife' .. well a snooker cue or a baseball bat are bigger, longer and easier to swing than knives. What do you think we have in our homes? Swizzle sticks?

 

[dcontroversal]

If I was a bettin man I would lay cash that he weasels out of it! Anyone of us would be making license plates at the local state prison for numerous years.

 

[TheAristocat]

I'm saying to compare gun laws in a peaceful nation as opposed to illegal bombs in a war-zone is silly. The statement 'people woke up', would imply social change, which makes your second question a circular logic with the first.

My point is that there was social change. The society changed from numerous factions fighting each other to no factions fighting each other. How did it make that change? Was it because guns were completely removed from society? No. There are still guns in that society. Many of them. So what changed? Disarmament of certain terrorist groups? What keeps them from gaining new arms? This question remains unanswered. So far all I know is, "Police removed a lot of guns, enforced harsh penalties for the use of weapons, kept police well-armed and those paramilitary groups can still find weapons if they really wanted and still make illegal explosives as usual."

So something had to change in their hearts and minds to stop this fighting among the different groups rather than it just stopping because certain tools are harder to find while others are as easily made as before. The reduction in guns doesn't explain the reduction in illegal explosives. People can bomb just as easily as they could before. Why stop? There had to be social change. What affected that change?

 

[TheAristocat]

The moment guns are banned and a disarmament happens in America, will be the moment gun crime falls dramatically. The moment knives are banned on the streets and certain knives require permits, will be the moment knife crime dramatically decreases in America.

People have this argument about 'if a guy comes in my house with a knife' .. well a snooker cue or a baseball bat are bigger, longer and easier to swing than knives. What do you think we have in our homes? Swizzle sticks?

There is one thing I will semi-grant you, Jhana. That is that America would be either better off without any guns or with a lot more freedom to use the guns it already has in a practical manner. But in the long run I believe America - and the rest of the world - would be better off if it just had a lot more freedom to use the guns it already has in a practical manner. Right now its gun laws effectively hand-cuff law-abiding citizens so gun-wielding criminals can walk all over them. As an example, Oklahoman law states that when transporting a firearm you need to have it in a locked case and its ammo in a separate locked case. And in order to legally use that firearm to protect yourself your life needs to be a split second away from being endangered. How do you use that firearm to protect yourself legally in that situation? Good luck. You need to take a concealed carry permit course for a permit that costs around $500 before you can conceal carry. It's illegal in that particular state to open carry otherwise.

 

[JimJimmers]

I don't see how comparing gun-control laws in a non-conflict era to bombings at a time of national conflict is smart.

I live in Northern Ireland, right. I'm sure you've heard of the troubles? Essentially a 50-odd year long civil war where someone was shot here every, single, day. Not just one. Sometimes lots. Bombs were going off. Everyone owned guns. The place was an absolute war-zone. People were afraid to go out. These troubles officially ended in the early nineties, but in reality it's only in the last 5 or 6 years the shootings and attacks stopped to a noticeable degree.

Can't have it both ways. You yourself compared a conflict era to a non-conflict era. War ended in early 90's, gun control passed in '97, and now according to you shootings are down post-2008.

Moreover, you are focusing illogically on shootings. You should look at the overall homicide rate, unless you think it better to be stabbed/beaten/immolated to death than to be shot to death.

 

[JimJimmers]

I don't think the death penalty is a good way to prevent deaths, which is inherently my focus for why guns shouldn't be allowed; deaths.

I appreciate you trying to prevent deaths. How do you explain South Africa?

 

[Jhana]

Can't have it both ways. You yourself compared a conflict era to a non-conflict era. War ended in early 90's, gun control passed in '97, and now according to you shootings are down post-2008.

Moreover, you are focusing illogically on shootings. You should look at the overall homicide rate, unless you think it better to be stabbed/beaten/immolated to death than to be shot to death.

I compared gun-crime in the two eras, with the point of my comparison being that after disarmament gun-crime became very rare in NI, lower than the rest of the UK. The person to whom I replied posited that somehow, because bombs being used in a conflict era, where law was not inherently taken into account by the terrorists, it proves that gun laws don't work in a non-conflict environment, his point standing on the premise that while the current, non-conflict era law on guns has contributed significantly to a reduction in gun crime (since there was a disarmament because of those laws), it does not negate the fact that bombs (which are illegal) were used in a conflict era- thus gun laws don't do anything.

My argument was a fairly logical one in comparison.

The overall homicide rate per capita here, again, is lower than the rest of the UK. It's slightly lower than England and Wales, and considerably lower than Scotland. Scotland's most recent crime report showed 62 murders, with a population of 5.2 million that's a rate of 1 murder per roughly every 83,00 people, thus roughly 1.23 murders per 100,000 (around 25% higher than anywhere else in the UK)

Violent Crime - Homicide

The overall rate in England and Wales last year 551 homicides. There are 56 million people in England and Wales, that means a rate of roughly 1.1 murders per 100,000 people, which is roughly 11 per million. The USA has almost 5 murders per 100,000. That's nearly 5 times the England/Wales murder rate per million.

Crime statistics for England & Wales: what's happening to each offence? | News | theguardian.com

FBI &mdash; Table 4

The most recently reported rate in Northern Ireland was 18 murders per year. With a population of 1.8 million that gives exactly 1 murder per 100,000 people. Five times less the rate in the USA.

Crime Statistics Archive | Police Service of Northern Ireland

So from this information, we can see that the US has an average murder rate just below 5 times higher than the UK. Just below 5 times higher than Northern Ireland.

Now, in Northern Ireland, our actually overall crime rate is at a 15 year low. Thus, since the ends of the troubles, crime of all kinds has steadily decreased.

Northern Ireland's crime rate now at a 15-year low - BelfastTelegraph.co.uk

Now, our murder rate is 5 times below that of the US, and since guns are banned, it would be logical, as you have pointed out, to assume that most murder is by sharp instrument or by beatings. (I've personally not heard of immolation being used as murder methods here, at least not for many years).

So, let's take the extreme view that every murder in Northern Ireland is by knife crime, since your argument is inherently, that banning guns and arming police only (which only happens in Northern Ireland, not England, Scotland, nor Wales) only serves to increase homicide by knife.

Well, you'd be wrong. Manslaugher (causing death by negligent thinking) accounts for 26% of what is included in homicide statistics here. Intentional homicide only accounts for the other 74%.

http://www.psni.police.uk/police_recorded_crime_in_northern_ireland_1998-99_to_2011-12.pdf

Only 32% of murders here are carried out via knife or sharp instrument.

http://www.psni.police.uk/police_recorded_crime_in_northern_ireland_1998-99_to_2011-12.pdf

So, that means that we have a knife/sharp-instrument murder rate of 0.32 per 100,000.

The USA's knife murders account for 13% of all its murders. This means that taking into account the total murder rate per capita in both countries (thus the comparison is a fair prercentage comparison per capita), that knife homicide rates in the USA would equate to 57.5% of the total murders here. Thus, the USA's knife crime rate (again PER CAPITA) is nearly double that of Northern Ireland.

FBI &mdash; Expanded Homicide Data Table 8

The USA's firearm homicides also account for 67% of all homicides. That means there are more than three times as many gun murders per capita in the USA, than there are total murders per capita in Northern Ireland, or the UK for that matter.

This shows that, PER CAPITA, the USA has a knife crime rate almost double that of Northern Ireland (which imposes strict gun laws), and has a gun crime rate per capita that is almost triple the ENTIRE murder rate per capita in the UK.

Thus, the argument that strict gun laws here equate to very high knife crime rates (thus gun laws are useless) is not accurate, since the USA already has a knife crime rate double that of Northern Ireland (the place in which unique gun laws are enforced, besides the rest of the UK).

In essence, both knife crime and gun crime are much worse per capita in the States than they are here.