Seriously, what do you expect when deadly weapons are epidemic?
Anyway, for those of you who would point out shit about drownings, hammer deaths, and so on--I bring you this story from the UK.
School 'utterly devastated' after boy killed by ball
A 16-year-old died after apparently being hit with a cricket ball at Portchester School, Bournemouth, on Monday. Needless to say, since cricket is the English national sport somewhat like baseball is in the US, shouldn't there be more deaths by cricket ball?Add in that the police are investigating that this could have been a result of a brawl.
Not to mention that this was a specialist sports college. That meant all sorts of athletic equipment was tossed about in what could have been a slaughter caused by various forms of sporting equipment.
Let's be realistic, cricket is more like gun ownership in the US. There should be many more deaths by cricket ball given that comparison.
But there isn't.
Could it be that the usual inanimate object to deadly weapon analogy made by gun loons is seriously flawed?
Seriously, how many mass cricket ball massacres have you heard about?
For that matter, this is a pretty rare occurrence. While a cricket ball will hurt like hell if one hits you (they are like hardballs), rarely are they deadly. Former England captain, Mike Gatting, took a hit to the nose and is still alive to tell the tale.
In fact, people get hit quite a bit by cricket balls with minimal bodily injury: let alone fatality.
The reality is that guns aren't just "inanimate objects" they are deadly weapons which, when used properly, can result in serious bodily injury or death.
After all, isn't that the real reason that gun loons want them? To make up for their inadequacies elsewhere?
Despite your efforts to say otherwise, gun violence is actually not that common in this country. Compare our total population to the number of gun deaths, and you should see that the problem is small and getting smaller. Your authoritarian solutions aren't needed.
ReplyDelete"After all, isn't that the real reason that gun loons want them? To make up for their inadequacies elsewhere?"
ReplyDeleteIs that why have owned guns in the past Laci? This also brings to mind another question: did you only have two negligent discharges, or is that a regular occurrence with you? *snicker*
Ahh, yes, the peaceful paradise known as the UK. Known for their restrictive guns laws, no right to remain silent and, according to the UN, having over 2000 violent acts per 100,000 persons. I forget, what was that rate for the US? Oh, that's right 466.
ReplyDeleteYeah, but how many shootings do you have?
DeleteHow many of those result in serious bodily injury or death?
We can also get into the differences between how the US and UK collect their crime statistics.
So, if you're trying to gloss over the fact that the US has quite a high body count in relationship to firearms, you're at a loss , pal.
How many aggravated assaults in the UK result in serious bodily injury or death? Or is it excusable to knock someone in the head with a cricket bat, but not excusable to shoot them?
DeleteOf course, you're not concerned with violent acts, only violent acts with firearms.
American gun owners love to put England down. I believe they're just repeating what other American gun owners have said.
DeleteAnd they call us sheep, now that's funny.
I'm not putting UK down, I'm just stating the facts. Even with the US firearms ownership rate, UK is still a more violent place. Any time someone from the anti-rights establishment compares the US to any other place, I'm going to point out the fallacies of their argument. If anything being repeated, I must be getting quoted.
DeleteLaci The Dog:
ReplyDeleteI see that things don't change much for some folks. Greg Camp cannot pass up any opportunity to demonstrate his ignorance.
"Compare our total population to the number of gun deaths, and you should see that the problem is small and getting smaller. Your authoritarian solutions aren't needed."
Fewer deaths result from children suffocating in plastic drycleaners bags, ingesting small toys or parts of them, drinking/eating unwholesome or poisonous foods, sunstroke when left in locked automobiles than are recorded for gsw. Fewer adults die from drinking alcohol while taking certain presecription drugs, or from any illicit drugs they smoke, ingest or shoot into their veins than die from gsw. Fewer people die from not wearing seatbelts, driving while using a personal electronic communications device or from sitting in cars in the dead of winter, engines running and succumbing to carbon monoxide from the auto's exhaust than die from gsw.
Of course a pretty major reason that all of those things result in fewer deaths than those resulting from gsw is that there ARE regulations on the books, laws enacted and enforcement bodies delegated to deal with infractions of those laws and regulation.
Don't let the truth get in the way of your rant, Pudfessor.
Democulo, the number one cause of death in the US are doctors & hospitals. So, by your logic of more guns means more crime, do more doctors mean more deaths?
ReplyDeleteorlin sellers
Nothing like a false analogy after having false analogies pointed out.
DeletePooch said, "Nothing like a false analogy after having false analogies pointed out."
ReplyDeleteNothing like calling something a false analogy when in fact there is similarity to both.
orlin sellers