Kurt:
Here's a statistic for you, that I challenge you to refute: of all the extinct species in the history of the planet, not one of them had figured out the manufacture and use of firearms. In other words, extinction = gunlessness, 100% of the time.
Jade:
Where else can you find entertainment like this?
Man, I've got to get some of Hoffmmann's meds.
***MikeB*** You simply have to do an article on this most classic comment of Hoffmmann's. This is in the "aware of all internet traditions" category of internet craziness.
Kurt's comment reminds me of the pro-gun need to make comparisons. They sometimes go so far with this that the original connection is lost in a bizarre situation that only they can understand.
Taken literally, do you think he's saying that since the modern day good ole boys have figured out how to "manufacture and use" firearms, extinction will be defeated? Does he see in his mind's eye an actual figure representing "extinction" that will be blown away with conventional weapons? Does this lend comfort?
Please leave a comment.
I took his comment as a joke that demonstrated how comparisons can be absurd.
ReplyDeleteThe fact that Jade took it seriously says more about Jade than about Kurt.
What would have been way cool is if we had a graphic depicting a man, a woman, and a brontosaurus with the legend "One of these is not like the others."
ReplyDelete--JadeGold
Of course, using Hoffmmann's "logic"--the fact other species have not figured out how to make Cheetos™--extinction=Cheetos™lessness.
ReplyDelete100% of the time.
I think Hoffmmann has discovered new and wonderful things about natural selection.
--JadeGold
Kurt obviously was asleep in Jurassic Park when the velocraptor ripped apart the big game hunter with a gun.
ReplyDeleteLikewise, wouldn't the fact that there were species that became extinct from the fact that they were unarmed partially disporve that gun rights are god given?
If gun rights were god given, wouldn't guns have appeared much earlier in human development.
Wouldn't Eve just capped the serpants arse and we'd still be in the Garden of Eden?
Laci
OK, how about the sheer absurdity of this proposition taking it out of the realm of even cogent discussion?
ReplyDeleteThere is a difference from an argument which has some posssibility (e.g., John Lott or Gary Kleck) and something laughable such as saying the faact that Dinosaurs didn't have guns led to their extinction.
A velocoraptor couldn't use a firearm due to physical factors.
Laci
Extinction=Enzytelessness.
ReplyDelete100% of the time.
--JadeGold
Says FWM:
ReplyDeleteI took his comment as a joke that demonstrated how comparisons can be absurd.
Give that man a See-Gar!!!
As I've said over and over, numbers serve more to amuse, than to enlighten, in the gun rights debate.
If you could prove that 99% of gun owners--hell, make it every other gun owner--use their guns irresponsibly, unsafely, criminally, evilly, stupidly, etc., that does nothing to weaken my fundamental right to firearms ownership.
As the brilliant Jeff Snyder says, better than I could:
For the sake of discussion, let's assume that keeping and bearing arms suitable for self-defense is a bona fide individual right. If so, the fact that 100,000 people a year murder others with firearms, while one man alone uses a firearm to save a life, provides no basis for curbing the individual liberty to own and bear arms. Each individual must, because of his inherent, autonomous ethical freedom, be respected as an end in himself; no prior restraint may be imposed upon his right to own and bear firearms.
Actually we can go further. Under an individual right view, the fact that 100,000 people a year murder innocents with firearms, and no one uses a firearm to protect himself or others provides no basis for a prior restraint. Individuals must still be possessed of a right to own firearms because their ethical freedom contains the potentiality of using firearms for good. That is, people can use this tool for good, if they turn to it with a good will.
Laci:
ReplyDeleteBut perhaps Jesus could have fired a 9mm while riding a stegosaurus.
I'm sure there's a way around the lack of the opposable thumb.
--JadeGold
Hahahahahahhahahaha.
ReplyDeleteJeff Snyder is almost as funny as Hoffmmann.
Too bad Fat Tony Scalia doesn't agree with either Snyder or the neurologically-impaired Hoffmmann.
Basically, both are claiming a 'right' neither of them have or are entitled to. It's like a small child who wants a toy because, well, he wants it.
--JadeGold
As I've said over and over, numbers serve more to amuse, than to enlighten, in the gun rights debate.
ReplyDeleteThis is merely Hoffmmann's way of saying, 'the numbers don't agree with my views, so I'm going to pretend they don't matter.'
In the real world, of course, our lives depend on the very numbers and statistics Hoffmmann pretends are amusing.
For example, let's consider Hoffmmann's meds. When a physician prescibes a medication to Hoffmmann, he does so knowing several things. First, that it is appropriate and effective for Hoffmmann's condition. Second, it is relatively safe for him to take; that it won't cause more harm than good. But how does the physician know this? Numbers and statistics.
If you fly on an airliner, your life counts on numbers and stats. After all, an airliner's maintenance and repair schedule is based largely on stats that tell a mechanic or technician when a system or equipment should be inspected and when a part should be replaced or repaired.
Virtually every facet of life depends or relies on the numbers and stats Hoffmmann finds amusing.
One thing is clear though: if the numbers and stats supported Hoffmmann's views, we'd never hear the end of it.
--JadeGold
Jadegold: "Too bad Fat Tony Scalia doesn't agree with either Snyder or the neurologically-impaired Hoffmmann.
ReplyDeleteBasically, both are claiming a 'right' neither of them have or are entitled to."
Jade, all nine justices said it is an individual right. All Scalia said is that it is not limitless for whatever purpose, which even I agree with.
Kurt, I can see why Jeff Snyder would appeal to you.
ReplyDeleteI've been meaning to ask, I hope I can do it without offending.
Why do you post that picture of a gun-totin' fatigues-clad warrior next to your name? You've told us, and it was never a secret as far as I know, that you're a paraplegic.
Wouldn't a picture of yourself in a wheelchair be more evocative as well as more honest? Wouldn't a current picture of yourself, I'm presuming the soldier is you a few years ago, better support your ideas about gun rights for all, including the disabled?
I mean no disrespect and am not trying to be tricky in any way. Please don't take it wrong.
Jade,
ReplyDeleteWhy do you think Jesus didn't have opposable thumbs?
Why do you post that picture of a gun-totin' fatigues-clad warrior next to your name?
ReplyDeleteWhy do you offer no picture at all?
Why do you post that picture of a gun-totin' fatigues-clad warrior next to your name?
ReplyDeleteIt's the pic I had.
Look--I've obviously never been a good looking guy, even at my best. The same accident that put me in a wheelchair also didn't do any favors for my face, so I tend to avoid cameras.
Wouldn't a current picture of yourself, I'm presuming the soldier is you a few years ago, better support your ideas about gun rights for all, including the disabled?
To tell you the truth, until you started talking about mandating defenselessness based on disability a couple days ago, it never occurred to me that there was a question of equal rights for disabled people--and actually, I don't think there is, among normal people.
Oh, and another reason is that any picture now wouldn't be--couldn't be--with a belt-fed machine gun. Sure, the M-60 was a piece of shit, but even a shitty belt-fed machine gun is a hell of a lot better than no belt-fed machine gun at all.
ReplyDeleteI suspect a great many Vietnam vets--some of whom only came home alive because of the machine gun's lifesaving firepower--would agree.
Kurt, Thanks for taking my question seriously and responding as you did.
ReplyDeleteI didn't realize that was an M-60. I fired one of those. It's an unforgettable experience.
But when you said this, I think you must have forgotten about previous discussions on this very subject, certainly ones that predate my recent remarks on the subject.
"To tell you the truth, until you started talking about mandating defenselessness based on disability a couple days ago, it never occurred to me that there was a question of equal rights for disabled people--and actually, I don't think there is, among normal people."
But when you said this, I think you must have forgotten about previous discussions on this very subject, certainly ones that predate my recent remarks on the subject.
ReplyDeletePerhaps, or maybe I missed those other discussions entirely. Regardless, I still maintain that I don't know of anyone else who advocates forcible disarmament for physical infirmity. Well, I do remember the "Gun Guys" waxing hysterical about a blind man (in North Dakota, maybe?) with a concealed carry permit, but I only read the "Gun Guys" when I want some silly parody to chuckle over.