How hilarious. But could we expect less when the semi-retarded Linoge interacts with the dishonest Joe Huffman?
Y'know, Linoge comes from a pretty evangelical Xtian background; I wonder how he reconciles his laughable assertion with the fact he can neither prove nor disprove the existence of God. Remind me to post the photo of him in his "One Nation under GOD" t-shirt.
Religion aside, Linoge commits a very fundamental mistake: thinking a lack of proof is anything more than a lack of proof. For example, it's pretty clear that subatomic particles have existed since about, oh, forever. Yet, it wasn't until about the late 19th century that scientists even had an inkling they existed and they certainly had no actual proof until early in the 20th century. But, per Linoge, they simply didn't exist for literally billions of years.
Evolution? Doesn't exist according to BoyJon; after all it remains unproven.
Yeah, that's not exactly a correct statement, at least how it's phrased.
Now if I may rephrase in a correct manner so that it DOES make logical and honest sense:
-If there is sufficient evidence available to prove whether or not something exists or not, and you cannot provide proof, then it is extremely unlikely that it actually exists. The more data you have that fails to prove its existence, the less likely its existence.
You can't accurately say something absolutely doesn't exist, but the lack of evidence in adequate data just makes it more and more unlikely, doesn't it?
It's not just evidence; for example, we knew for a fact certain diseases existed--people got sick from them and sometimes died from them. And there was evidence certain things such as environmental conditions, age, gender, etc. were suspected of being complicit. The fact that we can't prove X causes y doesn't mean it doesn't exist.
For instance, we cannot definitively prove cigarette smoking causes cancer or other ailments. Yet, I doubt you'd find too many doctors or health professionals who say it's ok to take up or continue smoking.
The same goes for gun violence. There's no denying we have a high rate of gun violence when compared to similar nations. We also have more guns.
You wrote: "The same goes for gun violence. There's no denying we have a high rate of gun violence when compared to similar nations. We also have more guns."
Both statements are absolutely true. Now is one directly caused by the other, or vice versa? Are both related to some other factors?
There is adequate information available to prove more than a casual correlation if there was one. There's also evidence out there that reducing the number of guns available doesn't have any direct effect on that type of gun being used in crimes.
Looking at the data as a whole and examining all total examples and trends seems to show there is no direct causation between the number of guns available in a society and the rates of firearm-related crime. I'll admit that doesn't mean the causation DOESN'T exist, but there's not much (or any?) evidence to back up the claim.
Something like cigarette smoking or other tobacco use does have a very direct correlation to cancer and other ailments - that does provide very compelling direct evidence linking smoking and lung disease. There's consistent figures and statistics to back that up, whether you look at a little bit of data, or all of it, it still shows the same correlation. I'm sure the tobacco companies may be able to cherry-pick a subset of data that would show smoking is actually GOOD for you, but that would be dishonest trickery by excluding the overwhelming data that disproves the suggestion.
The correlation between guns and "gun violence" is not consistent if you examine all the evidence. Only when the gun control advocates start cherry-picking statistics and excluding some countries and time frames can they show a supposed relationship between the two.
O: The very same methodology that shows smoking is strongly correlated to lung ailments shows guns are strongly correlated to gun violence and gun crime.
@Jadegold: Sure, it uses the same methodology, but you're cherry picking the data. If what you're saying is true, then THIS list: http://www.nationmaster.com/encyclopedia/Lists-of-countries-by-gun-ownership
Should correlate directly with THIS list: http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cri_gun_vio_hom_fir_hom_rat_per_100_pop-rate-per-100-000-pop
But it doesn't. There's absolutely no correlation between the two whatsoever. The top 7 countries with the highest rates of firearm-related homicide have far, far lower rates of gun ownership (and might I add, stricter gun control).
THERE IS NO CONSISTENT CORRELATION between the number of guns, OR the availability of guns, OR gun control, and the rate of violent firearm related crime.
To claim there is a direct causation or even correlation in spite of ALL the evidence is dishonest.
Thanks Jadegold for doing what I find too tedious to do. You do it better than I ever could anyway.
Can we go back for a minute to what a nut Linoge is. This post is really nothing more than a glib personal attack, but just like the Pennsylvania "castle" owner who takes a shot at the retreating thief in the night who has attacked him, I like to strike out at Linoge every once in a while for his countless and unfounded attacks on me.
Oh, so instead of simply discussing the issue, or the flaws in Linoge's logic, you just want to keep digging on the personal issue between the two of you?
O: You really have no clue what you're talking about--I don't mean this as an insult but you're simply uneducated on the issue.
If you take our smoking example for example--if we're trying to see if a link exists between smoking and illness, you need to ensure your smoker and non-smokers are very similar with the exception of smoking. The reason for this is if you introduce differences, or variables, into the study (such as working in a coal mine or asbestos plant or chemical plant), you introduce all kinds of factors which could preclude smoking as being the cause of illness.
That's why when we compare countries, it is of little value to try to compare the US (a wealthy, stable nation) with a country like Columbia (which is engaged in a low-grade civil war).
Linoge is a certifiable idiot. He's someone who accuses all he disagrees with as liars. Yet, Linoge has stated that most Marines weigh 350 lbs and can bench 600 lbs.
It's really odd that he would say that if something isn't proved, it doesn't exist. He should ask his wife if that's true--I'll guarantee she'll say no.
@Jadegold: You wrote: "The reason for this is if you introduce differences, or variables, into the study (such as working in a coal mine or asbestos plant or chemical plant), you introduce all kinds of factors which could preclude smoking as being the cause of illness."
OK, I understand what you're trying to do, and that does make logical sense. You are agreeing that there ARE other factors which contribute to violent firearm-related crime. However, you are wishing to show proof ONLY of a direct correlation between the number of guns and firearm-related crime, correct?
I'm sure we both agree that violent crime (firearm and otherwise) in a society is not as simple as our comparison to smoking and disease. While you can eliminate lifestyle differences and other factors relatively easily in the smoking study, societies have much more chaotic factors, much more complex causes and effects.
There are SO MANY other factors that contribute to violent crime (civil war, poverty, other socio-economic issues) that putting the third world countries in there doesn't give an even comparison. However, even comparing first world countries to each other has so many factors to try and rule out to get a fair and accurate comparison. The US has a different culture, a different gang problem, our criminal justice system works differently, we have a different "war on drugs," and even our OVERALL crime rate is much higher than most of those other "first world" countries.
So let's find a way to eliminate as many other factors that may contribute to violent firearm-related crime as we can, and get down to a direct comparison between the number of guns and gun-related crime. That's going to give the absolute best evidence, if we eliminate all the other factors we can, wouldn't you agree?
What better apples-to-apples comparison to a specific country or city than itself? Why not find a country which drastically reduced the number of firearms, such as UK and Australia with their sweeping recent gun bans, then see if the number of firearm-related crimes went down afterwards in correlation to the reduction in the number of available firearms? Wouldn't that prove what you're suggesting, with all other factors being equal, that would show a correlation, right?
You'll find they DID NOT. Can you show any countries that did?
What about a country where the number of firearms has steadily increased, such as the US. Did the rate of violent firearm related crime rise in correlation to the number of guns we have?
Hmm. No, it DID NOT. Can you show any that have?
What about cities like Washington DC and Chicago, where the availability of legal guns was forced to decrease significantly with total bans on handguns? Did THEIR firearm-related crime rates go down after their bans in correlation to the number of guns?
No, they DID NOT either. can you show any that did?
So where is the correlation? Can you show any country or region in the world where the number of guns has a direct correlation to firearm-related crime?
O: There are certainly other factors that contribute to gun violence--that's precisely why you want the case and control groups to be similar as possible. Because you can never eliminate all the variables, you want both groups to share similar variables to the greatest extent possible.
UK and Australia don't support your argument--especially Australia. One has to remember the UK hasn't had just one gun control law but at least 4 major initiatives in the 20th century. As a result, you are about 8x more likely to be a gun violence victim in the US than the UK.
"What about cities like Washington DC and Chicago, where the availability of legal guns was forced to decrease significantly with total bans on handguns? Did THEIR firearm-related crime rates go down after their bans in correlation to the number of guns?"
"Restrictive licensing of handguns was associated with a prompt decline in homicides and suicides by firearms in the District of Columbia. No such decline was observed for homicides or suicides in which guns were not used, and no decline was seen in adjacent metropolitan areas where restrictive licensing did not apply. Our data suggest that restrictions on access to guns in the District of Columbia prevented an average of 47 deaths each year after the law was implemented. (N Engl J Med 1991;325:1615–20.)"
WRT Chicago, the gun law was enacted in 1982, IIRC.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crime_in_Chicago
Take a look at the homicide numbers from 1990-2010.
@Jadegold, "One has to remember the UK hasn't had just one gun control law but at least 4 major initiatives in the 20th century. As a result, you are about 8x more likely to be a gun violence victim in the US than the UK."
Yes, and after each of those changes to gun control in the UK, where was the correlating decrease in firearm-related violent crime? They destroyed LOADS of handguns in the 1997 ban, yet handgun-related crime continued to climb. (http://rds.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/pdfs06/hosb0206.pdf Page 75)
Here's a much more comprehensive study of the results of the gun ban in Australia than the limited analysis you provided: http://www.gunsandcrime.org/auresult.html
The report for DC has been found to have many missing factors, such as the figures listed in the study are COUNTS, not RATES, and the lack of consideration for the rapidly decreasing population of DC and the increase in surrounding areas. http://rkba.org/research/nejm/nejm-payne.html
For Chicago, you claim the gun ban was enacted in 1982, yet you have no statistics for the years before and after.
It seems all of your proof is either easily debunked, very limited in data, or lacking actual evidence.
Orygunner, Do me a favor please and don't ask about my work, my last name, and especially what laws I may have broken 30 years ago. I don't talk about those things so please don't turn into a ball breaker and do what some of the others have, which is to ask over and over, taking some sense of victory in my refusal to answer.
About my feud with Linoge, it will come as not surprise to you that I think he's been the wrong one. You can read what he's written about me on his blog and judge for yourself. As a staunch believer in evidence and proof, I'm gonna go out on a limb here, you'll probably agree with me.
And as you said, every once in a while, I like to stab him a little rather than attempt any further discussions, which have proven quite impossible with him in the past.
Jade likes to bring up cigarette smoking being linked to cancer which is an example of a valid correlation worth studying. Trying to correlate guns to gun violence is like correlating cigarettes to cigarette burns or households that stink of cigarette smoke- in that cigarettes have to be present. It is a pointless "duh" correlation. Of course there have to be guns in order for them to be used.
Your argument falls apart when you can't show a change in gun violence with the passing of gun control laws, and there is NO overall correlation between guns and all violence/murder.
Why is it that there's no correlation between gunz and gun violence but there is correlation out the wazoo between welfare and crime, black americans and crime, unarmed populations and crimes against them by armed criminals? D'y'spose it might be, um, "cherry picking" on the part of those who see THOSE correlations? All data is mined.
To say that the fact that gunz are present at gun related criminal incidents/ "accidents" is:"
"a pointless "duh" correlation. Of course there have to be guns in order for them to be used."
is disingenuous.
"Guns don't kill people..." is a true statement, so far as it goes.
The reality is that shitheads, thugs and cowards WITH gunz kill people--with a far greater degree of frequency and in much greater numbers than is justified by anyone who actually depends on evidence to arrive at their conclusions. Oh, and it's not just that they HAVE gunz, they also have a mindset that allows them to justify killing other people for theft, perceived threats, verbal insults or other slights.
Guns are never the problem, it's only the ignorant, entitled assholes that insist that they're always the solution that are the problem.
@Mikeb, the only reason I asked if you worked for the UN is that they're a bunch of gun-grabbers who don't believe in the unalienable right for sovereign citizens to keep and bear arms either :)
Some very wise statements there in your comments. I agree, guns aren't the solution any more than they are the problem - it's the mindset of the person that has them that makes all the difference.
I wouldn't want EVERYONE to be carrying a gun any more than I would want NOBODY to be able to carry one.
However, I'm not sure how those few that insist guns are "always the solution" are really a major problem - they're actually pretty few and far between, and I have frequented a lot of pro-gun rights forums and Blogs. The suggestion I see that the NRA (or any other pro-rights advocate) wants everyone carrying a gun is most often a totally false accusation.
I haven't met one single person (IRL or online) that wants everyone carrying a gun, or irresponsible people carrying a gun, they (and I) just want the freedom to CHOOSE if we carry a gun or not, without asking the government for permission to exercise the right.
If you want people to be educated, I have a solution that would increase firearms safety, and I believe it would not only reduce firearms accidents but the knowledge, responsibility and safety for those that would choose to carry a gun for self defense. http://orygunner.blogspot.com/2011/02/proposed-solution-for-safer-society.html
How hilarious. But could we expect less when the semi-retarded Linoge interacts with the dishonest Joe Huffman?
ReplyDeleteY'know, Linoge comes from a pretty evangelical Xtian background; I wonder how he reconciles his laughable assertion with the fact he can neither prove nor disprove the existence of God. Remind me to post the photo of him in his "One Nation under GOD" t-shirt.
Religion aside, Linoge commits a very fundamental mistake: thinking a lack of proof is anything more than a lack of proof. For example, it's pretty clear that subatomic particles have existed since about, oh, forever. Yet, it wasn't until about the late 19th century that scientists even had an inkling they existed and they certainly had no actual proof until early in the 20th century. But, per Linoge, they simply didn't exist for literally billions of years.
Evolution? Doesn't exist according to BoyJon; after all it remains unproven.
Yeah, that's not exactly a correct statement, at least how it's phrased.
ReplyDeleteNow if I may rephrase in a correct manner so that it DOES make logical and honest sense:
-If there is sufficient evidence available to prove whether or not something exists or not, and you cannot provide proof, then it is extremely unlikely that it actually exists. The more data you have that fails to prove its existence, the less likely its existence.
You can't accurately say something absolutely doesn't exist, but the lack of evidence in adequate data just makes it more and more unlikely, doesn't it?
...Orygunner...
O: That's a bit better but just a bit.
ReplyDeleteIt's not just evidence; for example, we knew for a fact certain diseases existed--people got sick from them and sometimes died from them. And there was evidence certain things such as environmental conditions, age, gender, etc. were suspected of being complicit. The fact that we can't prove X causes y doesn't mean it doesn't exist.
For instance, we cannot definitively prove cigarette smoking causes cancer or other ailments. Yet, I doubt you'd find too many doctors or health professionals who say it's ok to take up or continue smoking.
The same goes for gun violence. There's no denying we have a high rate of gun violence when compared to similar nations. We also have more guns.
@Jadegold,
ReplyDeleteYou wrote:
"The same goes for gun violence. There's no denying we have a high rate of gun violence when compared to similar nations. We also have more guns."
Both statements are absolutely true. Now is one directly caused by the other, or vice versa? Are both related to some other factors?
There is adequate information available to prove more than a casual correlation if there was one. There's also evidence out there that reducing the number of guns available doesn't have any direct effect on that type of gun being used in crimes.
Looking at the data as a whole and examining all total examples and trends seems to show there is no direct causation between the number of guns available in a society and the rates of firearm-related crime. I'll admit that doesn't mean the causation DOESN'T exist, but there's not much (or any?) evidence to back up the claim.
Something like cigarette smoking or other tobacco use does have a very direct correlation to cancer and other ailments - that does provide very compelling direct evidence linking smoking and lung disease. There's consistent figures and statistics to back that up, whether you look at a little bit of data, or all of it, it still shows the same correlation. I'm sure the tobacco companies may be able to cherry-pick a subset of data that would show smoking is actually GOOD for you, but that would be dishonest trickery by excluding the overwhelming data that disproves the suggestion.
The correlation between guns and "gun violence" is not consistent if you examine all the evidence. Only when the gun control advocates start cherry-picking statistics and excluding some countries and time frames can they show a supposed relationship between the two.
...Orygunner...
O: The very same methodology that shows smoking is strongly correlated to lung ailments shows guns are strongly correlated to gun violence and gun crime.
ReplyDelete@Jadegold: Sure, it uses the same methodology, but you're cherry picking the data. If what you're saying is true, then THIS list:
ReplyDeletehttp://www.nationmaster.com/encyclopedia/Lists-of-countries-by-gun-ownership
Should correlate directly with THIS list:
http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cri_gun_vio_hom_fir_hom_rat_per_100_pop-rate-per-100-000-pop
But it doesn't. There's absolutely no correlation between the two whatsoever. The top 7 countries with the highest rates of firearm-related homicide have far, far lower rates of gun ownership (and might I add, stricter gun control).
THERE IS NO CONSISTENT CORRELATION between the number of guns, OR the availability of guns, OR gun control, and the rate of violent firearm related crime.
To claim there is a direct causation or even correlation in spite of ALL the evidence is dishonest.
...Orygunner...
Thanks Jadegold for doing what I find too tedious to do. You do it better than I ever could anyway.
ReplyDeleteCan we go back for a minute to what a nut Linoge is. This post is really nothing more than a glib personal attack, but just like the Pennsylvania "castle" owner who takes a shot at the retreating thief in the night who has attacked him, I like to strike out at Linoge every once in a while for his countless and unfounded attacks on me.
@Mikeb,
ReplyDeleteOh, so instead of simply discussing the issue, or the flaws in Linoge's logic, you just want to keep digging on the personal issue between the two of you?
Gotcha.
Hey, are you really a UN employee?
...Orygunner...
O: You really have no clue what you're talking about--I don't mean this as an insult but you're simply uneducated on the issue.
ReplyDeleteIf you take our smoking example for example--if we're trying to see if a link exists between smoking and illness, you need to ensure your smoker and non-smokers are very similar with the exception of smoking. The reason for this is if you introduce differences, or variables, into the study (such as working in a coal mine or asbestos plant or chemical plant), you introduce all kinds of factors which could preclude smoking as being the cause of illness.
That's why when we compare countries, it is of little value to try to compare the US (a wealthy, stable nation) with a country like Columbia (which is engaged in a low-grade civil war).
Linoge is a certifiable idiot. He's someone who accuses all he disagrees with as liars. Yet, Linoge has stated that most Marines weigh 350 lbs and can bench 600 lbs.
ReplyDeleteIt's really odd that he would say that if something isn't proved, it doesn't exist. He should ask his wife if that's true--I'll guarantee she'll say no.
@Jadegold: You wrote:
ReplyDelete"The reason for this is if you introduce differences, or variables, into the study (such as working in a coal mine or asbestos plant or chemical plant), you introduce all kinds of factors which could preclude smoking as being the cause of illness."
OK, I understand what you're trying to do, and that does make logical sense. You are agreeing that there ARE other factors which contribute to violent firearm-related crime. However, you are wishing to show proof ONLY of a direct correlation between the number of guns and firearm-related crime, correct?
I'm sure we both agree that violent crime (firearm and otherwise) in a society is not as simple as our comparison to smoking and disease. While you can eliminate lifestyle differences and other factors relatively easily in the smoking study, societies have much more chaotic factors, much more complex causes and effects.
There are SO MANY other factors that contribute to violent crime (civil war, poverty, other socio-economic issues) that putting the third world countries in there doesn't give an even comparison. However, even comparing first world countries to each other has so many factors to try and rule out to get a fair and accurate comparison. The US has a different culture, a different gang problem, our criminal justice system works differently, we have a different "war on drugs," and even our OVERALL crime rate is much higher than most of those other "first world" countries.
So let's find a way to eliminate as many other factors that may contribute to violent firearm-related crime as we can, and get down to a direct comparison between the number of guns and gun-related crime. That's going to give the absolute best evidence, if we eliminate all the other factors we can, wouldn't you agree?
What better apples-to-apples comparison to a specific country or city than itself? Why not find a country which drastically reduced the number of firearms, such as UK and Australia with their sweeping recent gun bans, then see if the number of firearm-related crimes went down afterwards in correlation to the reduction in the number of available firearms? Wouldn't that prove what you're suggesting, with all other factors being equal, that would show a correlation, right?
You'll find they DID NOT. Can you show any countries that did?
What about a country where the number of firearms has steadily increased, such as the US. Did the rate of violent firearm related crime rise in correlation to the number of guns we have?
Hmm. No, it DID NOT. Can you show any that have?
What about cities like Washington DC and Chicago, where the availability of legal guns was forced to decrease significantly with total bans on handguns? Did THEIR firearm-related crime rates go down after their bans in correlation to the number of guns?
No, they DID NOT either. can you show any that did?
So where is the correlation? Can you show any country or region in the world where the number of guns has a direct correlation to firearm-related crime?
...Orygunner...
O: There are certainly other factors that contribute to gun violence--that's precisely why you want the case and control groups to be similar as possible. Because you can never eliminate all the variables, you want both groups to share similar variables to the greatest extent possible.
ReplyDeleteUK and Australia don't support your argument--especially Australia. One has to remember the UK hasn't had just one gun control law but at least 4 major initiatives in the 20th century. As a result, you are about 8x more likely to be a gun violence victim in the US than the UK.
Australia:
http://www.factcheck.org/2009/05/gun-control-in-australia/
"What about cities like Washington DC and Chicago, where the availability of legal guns was forced to decrease significantly with total bans on handguns? Did THEIR firearm-related crime rates go down after their bans in correlation to the number of guns?"
ReplyDeleteYes.
http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJM199112053252305
"Restrictive licensing of handguns was associated with a prompt decline in homicides and suicides by firearms in the District of Columbia. No such decline was observed for homicides or suicides in which guns were not used, and no decline was seen in adjacent metropolitan areas where restrictive licensing did not apply. Our data suggest that restrictions on access to guns in the District of Columbia prevented an average of 47 deaths each year after the law was implemented. (N Engl J Med 1991;325:1615–20.)"
WRT Chicago, the gun law was enacted in 1982, IIRC.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crime_in_Chicago
Take a look at the homicide numbers from 1990-2010.
@Jadegold,
ReplyDelete"One has to remember the UK hasn't had just one gun control law but at least 4 major initiatives in the 20th century. As a result, you are about 8x more likely to be a gun violence victim in the US than the UK."
Yes, and after each of those changes to gun control in the UK, where was the correlating decrease in firearm-related violent crime? They destroyed LOADS of handguns in the 1997 ban, yet handgun-related crime continued to climb. (http://rds.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/pdfs06/hosb0206.pdf Page 75)
Here's a much more comprehensive study of the results of the gun ban in Australia than the limited analysis you provided:
http://www.gunsandcrime.org/auresult.html
The report for DC has been found to have many missing factors, such as the figures listed in the study are COUNTS, not RATES, and the lack of consideration for the rapidly decreasing population of DC and the increase in surrounding areas. http://rkba.org/research/nejm/nejm-payne.html
For Chicago, you claim the gun ban was enacted in 1982, yet you have no statistics for the years before and after.
It seems all of your proof is either easily debunked, very limited in data, or lacking actual evidence.
Got any more?
...Orygunner...
Orygunner, Do me a favor please and don't ask about my work, my last name, and especially what laws I may have broken 30 years ago. I don't talk about those things so please don't turn into a ball breaker and do what some of the others have, which is to ask over and over, taking some sense of victory in my refusal to answer.
ReplyDeleteAbout my feud with Linoge, it will come as not surprise to you that I think he's been the wrong one. You can read what he's written about me on his blog and judge for yourself. As a staunch believer in evidence and proof, I'm gonna go out on a limb here, you'll probably agree with me.
And as you said, every once in a while, I like to stab him a little rather than attempt any further discussions, which have proven quite impossible with him in the past.
Jade likes to bring up cigarette smoking being linked to cancer which is an example of a valid correlation worth studying. Trying to correlate guns to gun violence is like correlating cigarettes to cigarette burns or households that stink of cigarette smoke- in that cigarettes have to be present. It is a pointless "duh" correlation. Of course there have to be guns in order for them to be used.
ReplyDeleteYour argument falls apart when you can't show a change in gun violence with the passing of gun control laws, and there is NO overall correlation between guns and all violence/murder.
Why is it that there's no correlation between gunz and gun violence but there is correlation out the wazoo between welfare and crime, black americans and crime, unarmed populations and crimes against them by armed criminals? D'y'spose it might be, um, "cherry picking" on the part of those who see THOSE correlations? All data is mined.
ReplyDeleteTo say that the fact that gunz are present at gun related criminal incidents/ "accidents" is:"
"a pointless "duh" correlation. Of course there have to be guns in order for them to be used."
is disingenuous.
"Guns don't kill people..." is a true statement, so far as it goes.
The reality is that shitheads, thugs and cowards WITH gunz kill people--with a far greater degree of frequency and in much greater numbers than is justified by anyone who actually depends on evidence to arrive at their conclusions. Oh, and it's not just that they HAVE gunz, they also have a mindset that allows them to justify killing other people for theft, perceived threats, verbal insults or other slights.
Guns are never the problem, it's only the ignorant, entitled assholes that insist that they're always the solution that are the problem.
@Mikeb, the only reason I asked if you worked for the UN is that they're a bunch of gun-grabbers who don't believe in the unalienable right for sovereign citizens to keep and bear arms either :)
ReplyDeleteI personally couldn't care less.
@Democommie:
ReplyDeleteSome very wise statements there in your comments. I agree, guns aren't the solution any more than they are the problem - it's the mindset of the person that has them that makes all the difference.
I wouldn't want EVERYONE to be carrying a gun any more than I would want NOBODY to be able to carry one.
However, I'm not sure how those few that insist guns are "always the solution" are really a major problem - they're actually pretty few and far between, and I have frequented a lot of pro-gun rights forums and Blogs. The suggestion I see that the NRA (or any other pro-rights advocate) wants everyone carrying a gun is most often a totally false accusation.
I haven't met one single person (IRL or online) that wants everyone carrying a gun, or irresponsible people carrying a gun, they (and I) just want the freedom to CHOOSE if we carry a gun or not, without asking the government for permission to exercise the right.
If you want people to be educated, I have a solution that would increase firearms safety, and I believe it would not only reduce firearms accidents but the knowledge, responsibility and safety for those that would choose to carry a gun for self defense.
http://orygunner.blogspot.com/2011/02/proposed-solution-for-safer-society.html
...Orygunner...