Operation Liar - Tom Plate

[Duncan223]

Operation Liar - Tom Plate

Before I call "BULLSHIZZLE" on this claim, I would like to know if there is any way to prove or disprove the statement.

If it is a lie, then I think some of us in the pro-Rights community need to start Operation Liar and call him out!

Tom Plate, former editor of the editorial pages of The Los Angeles Times

“Our famous Constitution, about which many of us are generally so proud, enshrines—along with the right to freedom of speech, press, religion and assembly—the right to own guns. That’s an apples and oranges list if there ever was one.

Not all of us are so proud and triumphant about the gun-guarantee clause. The right to free speech, press, religion and assembly and so on seem to be working well, but the gun part, not so much... [The students at Virginia Tech] were not killed by a Korean, they were killed by a 9 mm handgun and a.22-caliber handgun... ‘Guns don’t kill people,’ goes the gun lobby’s absurd mantra.

Far fewer guns in America would logically result in far fewer deaths from people pulling the trigger. The probability of the Virginia Tech gun massacre happening would have been greatly reduced if guns weren’t so easily available to ordinary citizens...

Last month, I WAS ROBBED AT 10 IN THE EVENING IN THE ALLEY BEHIND MY HOME. As I was carrying groceries inside, a man with a gun approached me where my car was parked. The gun he carried featured one of those red-dot laser beams, which he pointed right at my head. Because I’m anything but a James Bond type, I quickly complied with all of his requests. Perhaps because of my rapid response (it is called surrender), he chose not to shoot me; but he just as easily could have. What was to stop him?”

(emphasis added)

[DefensiveCarry.com]

[srfl]

Regarding the VT shootings...he makes it seem 9mm & .22LR handguns magically sprouted legs, walked to VT and opened fire on the students since it was them that killed the students and not the gunman.

[PapaScout]

I wonder what his hidden agenda is?

[soflasmg]

Here's my afterthought

"You know, I sure am glad that gun decided not to shoot me. I'm actually kind of glad I could help that poor misguided youth out. Maybe he was going to use my money for tuition, or milk for his kitten.

I place the blame for this robbery squarely on the shoulders of society. If we lived in a world free from guns, and just gave everyone everything they wanted, we could all be so happy.

[Janq]

How many criminals can afford to install Crimson Trace or Lasermax rigs on firearms that are likely to be tossed away at a moments notice?
They are not exactly inexpensive laser rigs.
That was the first item to come to my mind upon reading his story.

Even still if it's 100% factual, it does not matter.
For every instance of similar to his I can very easily locate a case where the criminal was not so benevolent even as the victim was fully supplicant as he was.
If he continuous to choose to be submit to the whim and benevolebnce of criminals then well that is his right. Good luck with that Tom.
BTW, nice of hm to advertise to the world that he will gladly give up his belongings and self to any and all who ask at his home in Beverly Hills.

Moron.

- Janq

[peacefuljeffrey]

Far fewer guns in America would logically result in far fewer deaths from people pulling the trigger.

This might possibly be true if the ratio of guns in America to guns used in crime in America were closer to 1:1.

The fact is, there are over 250,000,000 guns in America. There are about 40,000 gun-related deaths each year, most of which are not murders. (About half are suicides.)

Even if each of those 40,000 gun-related deaths was a criminal murder, and each one was committed with a different gun, that would mean that far less than even ONE PERCENT of the guns (0.00016) out there in private hands is used in a crime in a given year.

So what if we decreased the number of guns by 7/8? Now we have 31,250,000 guns. Don't you think that of over 31 million guns, the criminals would find enough to use in 40,000 crimes?

What if we eliminated 99% of those 250M guns?

We now have 2,500,000 guns. Is that not enough to have every criminal thus equipped if he wanted to be? I think so, considering that only the criminals would then be the ones searching hard to obtain one, being that it would be illegal for good people to still possess them.

This whole, "Crime will go down when guns go down," claim is B.S. It assumes that crime is currently in some way limited by the number of guns that are out there. We know that is absolutely not the case.

[mavrik46]

What's his address?

[rodc13]

"Perhaps because of my rapid response (it is called surrender), he chose not to shoot me; but he just as easily could have. What was to stop him?" -- Tom Plate

That's one of the most disgusting statements I've ever seen written. I am revolted in ways I have difficulty describing.

It would be interesting to find out if the robbery was real or fabricated. Anyone an LEO or officer of the court in LA?

[denverd0n]

"Far fewer guns in America would logically result in far fewer deaths from people pulling the trigger."

This is where most of the anti-gun types make their fundamental mistake. They think it is "logical" that fewer guns would mean fewer shootings. That, however, assumes that shootings are random. That is, that shootings are committed randomly by the universe of gun owners. Of course, if that were true then it WOULD be logical that reducing the number of guns would reduce shootings. But that is very clearly NOT true! Shootings are committed by people who WANT and DECIDE to shoot someone. They don't just happen randomly.

As such, you can only reduce shootings by taking guns away from people who are going to commit shootings. You cannot reduce shootings by taking guns out of the hands of people who were never going to commit a shooting anyway! That should be patently obvious, but the "logical" assumption that Mr. Plate makes completely ignores this fact.

All this, of course, also ignores the fact that some shootings are a GOOD thing! Had one of those first two victims of the VT shooter been armed, and shot him, that would have been a GOOD thing! It may very well have prevented needless deaths.

[Echo_Four]

No record of it being in the news shows up on a Lexis search.

[purple88yj]

If he is willing to be a surrender monkey, I say let him be. It means that he is far more likely to be the subject of many more evenings such as this, and others are not. Of course he is in Kalifonia, so the criminals just about have their pick of the litter.

[Janq]

I ran multiple searches againt his name and notheing came up in relation to him being associated with anythign in relation to a crime.

Possibly he did not report the incident.
It matters not as he's still a complete moron, a non-James Bond style submissive moron.

- Janq

[dwolsten]

Of course he is in Kalifonia, so the criminals just about have their pick of the litter.

You know, California gets picked on a lot, but they actually have CCW permits and legal handguns. They're bad, but not that bad. Really bad are Illinois and Hawaii. Hawaii has a law that they can issue CCWs, but in reality simply don't. And Illinois is like a whole different country, where handguns are simply illegal and CCW is out of the question. I think even Massachusetts is better than that (but not much).

If this loser wanted to get a handgun and a CCW permit, instead of just being a victim, it's actually quite possible.

[dr_cmg]

Last month, I WAS ROBBED AT 10 IN THE EVENING IN THE ALLEY BEHIND MY HOME. As I was carrying groceries inside, a man with a gun approached me where my car was parked. The gun he carried featured one of those red-dot laser beams, which he pointed right at my head. Because I’m anything but a James Bond type, I quickly complied with all of his requests. Perhaps because of my rapid response (it is called surrender), he chose not to shoot me; but he just as easily could have. What was to stop him?”

I have read this paragraph about 15 times now and I don't see Mr. Plate blaming the pistol for the robbery. Using the logic (or lack there of) he used in his earlier paragraph, VT students

were not killed by a Korean, they were killed by a 9 mm handgun and a.22-caliber handgun.

He was not robbed by a "man with a gun", but rather by a gun that "featured one of those red-dot laser beams". Funny how the perspective changes when it involves him.

[dwolsten]

Another note about this moron:

Our famous Constitution, about which many of us are generally so proud, enshrines—along with the right to freedom of speech, press, religion and assembly—the right to own guns. That’s an apples and oranges list if there ever was one.

So what exactly does this idiot think guarantees us the continued rights to freedom of speech, press, etc.? The goodwill of politicians? Inertia?

Obviously, the Founders were quite wise to group these freedoms alongside the right to keep and bear arms, since it's a lot harder to maintain these freedoms when you don't have the force needed to prevent despots and dictators from taking them from you.

This whole thing reminds me of how, after the VT massacre, some Chinese government spokesman made a statement about how private citizens aren't allowed to own weapons in China. Yeah, that's a shining example of a country where individuals can live in freedom, enjoying free speech, freedom of religion...

It seems quite simple to me. If someone asks why private citizens should have weapons, just say, "they don't. The people in China don't, after all. We could just live like them. BTW, did I hear you criticize the government? It's off to the firing squad for you!"