previous post next post  

So, I share this graphic on Facebook:

 

A FB friend of mine, a Brit living and working in Germany (and really a generally good fellow) comes back with this:

 
Rob Knight Feckin' load of old arse - cars, pencils and spoons can be used for other things besides shooting... FFS...

Dogs can be made into curry and provide a much-needed nutritional supplement to many Korean households...

To which I responded:

Oooo. Fell into my trap, Rob. Let us take this construct:
 
Guns are bad. They are not a necessary item. Even though the vast majority of people who have/use them do so legally, safely, and responsibly, the societal costs of those who don't, in terms of medical costs, law enforcement costs, destroyed lives and families are unacceptable and thus justify that we seize the extant supply from the hands of law abiding citizens, and forbid the production of new ones.

Now let's tweak it.
 
Alcoholic beverages are bad. They are not a necessary item. Even though the vast majority of people who have/use them do so legally, safely, and responsibly, the societal costs of those who don't, in terms of medical costs, law enforcement costs, destroyed lives and families are unacceptable and thus justify that we seize the extant supply from the hands of law abiding citizens, and forbid the production of new ones.

You are far more likely to be negatively affected by alcohol (including killed, maimed, or causing your own death) than you are firearms, and the total societal costs are greater. You just don't often get spectacular events like Sandy Hook unless it's a drunk bus driver. With an ironic double-whammy to those populations which are very disproportionately affected by gun violence. I.e., gang turf, which leads to the next point.

Been down that road, too, back when we passed the 18th Amendment, which, ironically, spurred a huge spate of gun violence that caused a round of gun control laws. As gangs sprang up to fill the demand.

Add to that then, per the comment above, that the only people who will have weapons, and the only weapons that will be produced, will be those that are then only used... against the citizenry.

 

11 Comments

The most dangerous substance in the universe is apparently stupid. Mr Knight is apparently using more than his fair share.
 
Sir, I concur. Also with og.
 
I beg to disagree.  The most dangerous things in the world are Air and Mothers Milk.

The air lets idiots live to let them take mother's milk to allow them to live long enough to age to the point, where they know what's best for EVERYONE, and anyone who disagree's, should have thier rigths taken away.

Just saying.
 
Most ethyl alcohol is used as fuel (in things other than humans.)
 
 And that can be adulterated in ways to make it unconsumable without harming it's fuel properties.
 
 The British people have been completely brainwashed by their government when it comes to the whole idea of self-defense.  


 

Another argument is the speed of cars today.  I have a four door Volvo sedan.  I have taken it up to 100 just to see.  But, curiously, the fastest posted speed limit in my state is 75 mph.  And, that is only on one stretch of road.  All other highlways are 70 mph.  If their argument is that the ulitity of cars justify their use, then why should cars have speeds above the LEGAL speed limit.  Driving at a speed above 75 mph, in my example, would be illegal.  So, the utility argument falls at any ability of a vehicle to travel above the speed limit.  Can you imagine the cry if the government decided that individual speed inhibitors would be placed on all vehicles to travel no more than the posted speed limit? 

But hey, why should I care?  If guns really kill people, won't my guns the arrested instead of me?  If I drive drunk and kill someone, you will not hear people claim that cars kill and should be banned.  The easiest way to drive a liberal nuts is to attack his arguments.  The are mostly based upon belief without any self-reflection upon the validity or strength of their argument.

 
 Patrick, you may be young enough to not remember that the dot gov DID try to limit the speed of cars, albeit in an ineffective way: they decreed in the late 1970s that car speedometers could read no higher than 85 mph, apparently in the belief that this artificial limit would keep people from exceeding that speed, even though their cars might have actually gone faster. I drove Dodge Diplomat police patrol cars which were used to catch speeders, but their "certified" speedometers couldn't track any speeder above 85 mph. How absurd. Gun controls are the same way.
 
Mr Brown,
I so enjoyed your wisdom of "Mothers Milk", that pretty much say's it all  that I have made a copy of it and hang it proudly in my office for all to see. Seeing how you are the originator of those Pearls of wisdom, with your permission of course, to put your name on it so that it gets the recognition it deserves.
 
the problem is bullets -- make it illegal for bullets to hurt people.
bullets will just have to obey the law.
 
What about relative benefit? Depending on your study, anywhere from 200,000 to 600,000 defensive uses of firearms annually, most without a shot being fired. So, ban firearms to save 30-50,000 injuries? And reap the 4-12 fold increase in said injuries?

Oh, wait; firearms wouldn't be involved then, so it's OK.

They aren't looking out for our safety, that's for sure.