Friday, January 17, 2014

Repeating lies does not make them true

Let's start with
Guns save lives 

Seriously? What concrete proof do you have for this statement?  Looking at the news, there are far more examples of guns doing what weapons do, which is kill or cause serious bodily injury.

I'm open to proof that guns save lives, but right now there is precious little proof this statement is anything but BULLSHIT.

The US doesn't have a gun problem--it has a mental illness problem/crime problem/texting problem

Again, give me a break.  Are you telling me that other countries don't have these issues as well?  Guess what? they do, but they don't have the gun problem the US has.

Guns are inanimate objects/tools

Yes, they are.  Although, calling them tools is a bit disingenuous since they are actually weapons and as such have the purpose of killing or causing serious bodily injury.  That's why there is a big difference between hammers, swimming pools, cars and all those other false analogies to firearms.

Firearms are weapons.

Anyway, we are seeing loads of empirical evidence to the fact that the US has a serious gun problem, but people are in denial and coming up with all sorts of piss poor reasons for doing nothing about the problem.

Denial ain't a river in Africa, but the US sure is deep in it.

Or is that shit creek?


  1. Laci,

    "Firearms are weapons."

    An object is only what its user intends it to be.

    Weapons indeed, in many circumstances.

    But the same could be said for baseball bats, both useful as an instrument of death and as sporting equipment. It is the character of the user and the nature of the intended use that ought to be the subject of society's voyeur, as opposed to the crude and arbitrary regulation of the instrument.

    1. It could be said, but the overwhelming choice of weapon, is a gun. 33,000 gun shot deaths a year and going up. No one is choosing an ice pick, a rope, more knives, some even a car, but guns FAR outweigh any other weapon used to kill.

    2. That is almost entirely due to the fact that firearms are the most convenient means of inflicting death in American society, partly due to the legal and commercial availability of guns in our society.

      Most gun control advocates point to the elevated number or rate of gun deaths which is comparatively endemic to American society when compared to nations of similar economic means, while ignoring the per capita murder rate (when all weapons or means of killing are taken into account) of other nations. Gun control does not change the violent nature of humanity, as can be seen when firearms are less convenient or cost effective for criminal acquisition other means of destruction take their place in the hands of murderers, and the killings continue with no regard for the means by which the victims die.

      Gun control does not make most criminals or potential criminals less lethal, it simply makes them meet out their destruction in a different way.

      As the current situation is understood by most keen observers, imposing arms control on an (unwilling) American populace would only result in the widespread flouting of the law, with those few who the state is actually able to disarm, simply becoming unable to defend themselves against possible threats (bears known to prey on humans roam much of the American west) in an adequate manner (especially considering the physiological condition of many corpulent Americans when compared to their foreign counterparts). The average American may have good reason to own and carry a firearm for the purpose of self defence, as he may be physically incapable or of diminished effectiveness when defending himself against a potentially lethal threat, whether it be a violent felon in an urban metropolis, or the grizzly bears that roam much of the countryside in the West and Northwest.

    3. "That is almost entirely due to the fact that firearms are the most convenient means of inflicting death in American society, partly due to the legal and commercial availability of guns in our society."

      So you would agree then, that the fewer guns, the fewer killings?

    4. Anon,

      That is an agonizingly simplistic approach that makes it painfully clear that you did not (or lack the cognitive ability to) read and understand the entirety of my post where I conclude that gun ownership is generally irrelevant to intentional homicide.

      If you extend your logic of " the fewer guns, the fewer killings", then if there where no firearms on civilian or state hands, there would thus be no such killings, and thus humans are incapable of killing without firearms. This is an absurd notion. In the scarcity of firearms, those with nefarious intent to cause death and mayhem, will resort to other, more primitive means. One needs only to look overseas to bask in the macabre horror that can be inflicted with simple farm equipment.

    5. Speaking of logic, if there were no guns, there would be no gun shot deaths.
      You are the one who agreed that guns are the weapon of choice for killings.
      I see no reason you cannot walk around with an ice pick, or a baseball bat, or any other item that can kill, but there would be a lot less collateral injuries.
      A baseball bat won't kill if you drop it.

    6. "partly due to the legal and commercial availability of guns in our society."
      Make them harder to get and less available, killings will go down.

    7. Anonymous, people killed each other at a much higher rate in the centuries gone by. Removing guns would not change human nature.

    8. I never said it would liar?
      Why do you have to lie to make a false point?

    9. Even if you do not intend to deceit, you are still wrong.

    10. Just on general basis because I'm not a member of your lying criminal cowardly group of gun loons. Deceit is the MO of you lying criminal cowardly gun loons who refuse to answer questions and lie about what they say, even though their words are posted for all to read.

  2. 1. Guns save lives

    Have you not read the report from the National Academies of Science that said that guns are used defensively several hundred thousand times a year? More interesting facts here:

    2. I'm sure that other countries have mentally ill people. Many of those countries also have excellent healthcare.

    3. Guns are inanimate objects. The moral character of their use comes from the persons using them.

    1. Whether it's a good guy, or a bad guy; guns kill, that's what they are made to do.

    2. Anonymous, you're neglecting other uses, and you're ignoring the fact that in many cases of self-defense, lethal force is necessary to defend an innocent life.

    3. Simple solutions for simple minds.

    4. And there are a many uses for a bar of soap. but it was made to wash with. Why do you deny a gun is made to kill?

    5. If a single human life is preserved by the use of a firearm used in lawful self defence, then it is your right to acquire firearms to defend yourself.

      Most however seek the use of firearms as a means by which to obtain food or for other recreational sporting purposes such as target shooting. In such hands, they are nothing more than sporting equipment, in the same context as golf clubs or fishing rods.

    6. Hunting for food hasn't been a necessity for more than 100 years.
      "If a single human life is preserved......" No mention of the 33,000 victims (dead) because of misuse of guns. Because of course, 33,000 deaths mean nothing to these lying criminals.

    7. Anonymous, did you read the cited article that I referred to? Several hundred thousand Americans defend themselves every year with a firearm. You would trade 30,000, of which two-thirds are suicides, for several hundred thousand?

    8. Right, when proven liars speak, I jump. HA HA HA HA HA HA HA

  3. AHHH, the old if I don't see it on the news, it doesn't exist argument.

    epic fail