Excellent blog on the importance of guns

ndking1126

New member
Long but worth it I thought.. the orignal blog was here:http://terriermandotcom.blogspot.com/2007_11_01_archive.html

If any of you are the author, thanks for taking the time to write this out and including the sources. I think you did an excellent job.

The Liberal Case for Gun Ownership




Yesterday morning Redskins football player Sean Taylor was shot by a burglar trying to break into his Miami home in the early morning hours.

All day yesterday, Taylor was in critical condition and the situation was the talk of the town here in Washington, D.C. where guns are already an ongoing topic of conversation thanks to the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision to review the 31-year old D.C. handgun ban.

We are going to hear a lot about guns in the next few months and most of it will be "sound and fury signifying nothing."

The simple truth is that guns are here to stay, like it or not.

And, as shocking a piece of news as this is to some people, guns are not all about hunting; self-defense is (on very rare occasions) an acceptable reason to draw and fire a gun.

The odd thing about guns in the debate about Presidential candidates is that there is not much any presidential candidate can do (or should do) about them.

After all, Congress makes the laws, and the Courts interpret them. A President has no role in changing or interpreting the Second Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. We are not a monarchy, and no one is electing Rudy Giuliani, Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, or Mitt Romney king.

That said, the gun debate will be fought, so as we enter the debate season, let’s review the numbers and the history.

First the numbers.

More than 70 million responsible tax-paying citizens own more than 200 million guns in this country.

Let me make that number a little more meaningful: If you stand in front of your house and look at the house to the immediate left and right, there's an almost 100% chance that one of these three abodes has at least one gun inside.

And yet, for all that, I am willing to bet that no one was shot on your block this week, this year, or in your lifetime.

The biggest caucus on Capitol Hill is the Congressional Sportsmen's Caucus with 300 members in 46 states. These folks represent the interests of America’s hunters and anglers, and this is the most important environmental caucus on Capitol Hill. And, for the record, they are almost all strong supporters of the Second Amendment

More than a few members of the U.S. Supreme Court are hunters and gun owners, as are a tremendous number of lower-court judges. In fact, it's estimated in judicial newsletters that up to 25 percent of all judges in some states have a concealed weapons permit.

Judges may look down their nose at crime, but a lot of them also look down the barrel of a gun once in a while, and self-protection arguments for gun ownership do not necessarily fall on deaf ears in court.

While guns are intrinsically dangerous, people know that and, for the most part, act accordingly.

Over the last four decades, while the stock of civilian firearms rose 262 percent (largely due to population growth), fatal gun accidents dropped by nearly 70 percent.

In short, contrary to popular belief, there is not an "epidemic" of gun violence in America; there is merely an epidemic of political grandstanding, saturation media, and direct mail.

Which is not to say the gun violence does not exist. It does. People are shot everyday in this country, as Sean Taylor and his family can confirm.

But people die of bee stings every day as well. The simple fact of the matter is that more people drown in backyard swimming pools than are killed by accidental gun deaths in this country. Yet we do not have a full-court press to ban backyard pools, do we?

So many Americans have been conditioned to see guns as something more than the inanimate objects that they are.

People do not see cars as evil, even though cars kill far more people than guns.

Swimming pools are not seen evil, but more kids drown in swimming pools than are killed by guns.

Tobacco is seen as a vice, but it is still sold in grocery and convenience stores despite the fact that it kills more than 440,000 people a year.

Alcohol is involved in more crime than guns and it kills more than 100,000 Americans a year, but we still serve it on airplanes and at baseball games.

Guns -- and guns alone -- are considered inherently evil and sinister.

Each to his own, of course. If people want to demonize guns, there's not much you can do about it. Some people demonize wolves, bears and snakes as well. Others demonize religious or racial groups.

And yet, are we not Americans? The Ku Klux Klansman, the ACLU-card holder, the communist, the Gay Pride activist, the militant feminist, the vegan, the Orthodox Jewish Rabbi, the black Baptist minister, the union-card boiler maker, and the retired Colonel in the U.S. Marine Corps all may differ from each other in terms of race, religion, and politics, but they all believe in the First Amendment.

You do not need to be Mormon to respect the concept of separation of Church and State, nor do you have to be a hate-spewing Klansman to value free speech.

By the same token, you do not have to own guns or even like guns to respect the Second Amendment.

What were our Founding Fathers thinking when they wrote the Second Amendment?

Well, they were not engaged in narrow partisan politics. They were not posturing for Fox News or trying to “make nice to soccer moms.”

These were serious men who came fresh from the white-hot forge of revolution. A war had just been fought to overthrow the yoke of an oppressive and unresponsive Government that invaded homes without warrant and which exposed the populace to "dangers of invasion from without, and convulsions within."

In short, while it was a bit hotter back then, the issues we face today are not so completely different.

As left-wing, NPR-loving Virginia author Joe Bageant notes in his book Deer Hunting With Jesus:



”With Michael Savage and Ann Coulter openly calling for putting liberals in concentration camps, with the CIA now licensed to secretly detain American citizens indefinitely, and with the current administration effectively legalizing torture, the proper question to ask an NRA members these days may be 'What kind of assault rifle do you think I can get for three hundred bucks, and how many rounds of ammo does it take to stop a born-again Homeland Security zombie from putting me in a camp?'

"Which would you prefer, 40 million gun-owning Americans on your side or theirs?"


Bageant is not a new liberal, but an old liberal – the kind that once protested things and took to the streets in opposition to stupid wars, and which stood up to be counted when civil rights were being violated.

The old liberals know the value of guns.

They know that after the Civil War, southern whites denied blacks the right to own guns, because it was easier to lynch an unarmed black man than it was one who owned a deer rifle and 200 rounds of ammunition.

Some gay Americans have discovered this secret knowledge as well. As Jonathan Rauch wrote in Salon magazine back in March of 2000:



"Thirty-one states allow all qualified citizens to carry concealed weapons. In those states, homosexuals should embark on organized efforts to become comfortable with guns, learn to use them safely and carry them. They should set up Pink Pistols task forces, sponsor shooting courses and help homosexuals get licensed to carry. And they should do it in a way that gets as much publicity as possible."


If this sounds like Revolutionary talk, it is. It is the kind of language our revolutionary Founding Fathers might have used if they were gay and living in America today.

”Don’t Tread On Me,” was not a bumper sticker back then – it was a warning every bit as ominous as the shake of a rattlesnake’s tail.

The notion that our Founding Fathers contemplated armed insurrection inside the United States seems to surprise some people.

But it shouldn’t.

The Good Old Boys of Virginia -- Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, and George Washington -- knew that power belonged to the people only so long as the power of the state could be met with an equal power organized by the populace at large working in tandem.

Guns were not to be used capriciously, but they were part of the long term plan crafted by our Founding Fathers to protect this great nation from powerful, cunning and patient forces of oppression -- whether those forces came from within or without.

But of course the Second Amendment was not just about securing freedom at the national level. It was also about securing some modicum of personal protection at home as well.

Our Founding Fathers were not living "on the grid."

In 1776, you could not dial up a patrol car and expect someone to show up at your door a few minutes later.

On the empty plains and in the dark woods, it was every man for himself, and a prudent person was both well-armed and quite cautious.

But, to tell the truth, is it really that different today? If you are a suburban housewife, or a well-heeled lawyer with cable television in the den and GPS in your Mercury Mountaineer, you may not know what it feels like to live 20 miles outside of town and up a dirt road. But if you spend some time out on a farm, and also happen to be a member of a religious or racial minority, you may come to a whole new world of understanding.

That, apparently, is what has happened to Michelle Obama. As Barack himself put it in a recent campaign stop:



"Michelle, my wife .... was driving through this nice, beautiful area, going through all this farmland and hills and rivers and she said 'Boy, it's really pretty up here,' but she said, 'But you know, I can see why if I was living out here, I'd want a gun. Because, you know, 9-1-1 is going to take some time before somebody responds. You know what I mean? You know, it's like five miles between every house.'”

Yeah, I know what you mean.

But guns are not just a rural security need. There is, argueably, a place for a gun, even in top-end homes in Miami. Homes like that of Sean Taylor.

And what if you are one of those poor unfortunates living in a down-at-the-heels neighborhood? Don’t these folks have security needs that trump those of rural Iowa farmers?

As suspender-wearing, commie-loving Joe Bageant notes in Deer Hunting with Jesus:



"Most liberal antigun advocates do not get off the city bus after working the second shift. Nor do they duck and dodge from street light to street light at 1 a.m. while dragging their laundry to the Doozy Duds, where they sit, usually alone, for an hour or so, fluorescently lit up behind the big plate-glass window like so much fresh meat on display, garnished with a promising purse or wallet, before they make the corner-to-corner run for home with their now-fragrant laundered waitress or fast-food uniforms. Barack Obama never did it. Hillary Clinton never did it. Most of white middle-class America doesn't do it either. The on-the-ground value of the Second Amendment completely escapes them."


To which I can only add that Rudy Giuliani never rode the City Bus at midnight either. Neither did Mitt Romney. Or Sarah Brady. And all of them are Republicans.

The point here is that the gun issue is not about Democrats vs. Republicans, or liberals vs. conservatives, or even rural residents vs. urban residents.

It's about something deeper and more important than that: it’s about empathy and respect and tolerance.

It’s about recognizing that not everyone goes to nine-to-five jobs in air conditioned offices while commuting down safe suburban streets.

It’s about recognizing that not everyone can afford to have an ADT alarm system installed in their house.

And, most important of all, it’s about not living in fear of the fact that people who look different from you, who think different from you, and who pray different from you, may have rights too.

And not just First Amendment Rights, but Second Amendment rights too, including the right to protect their house and home from invasion and robbery.

But if everyone has guns, won't we all live in fear? Won’t small altercations inevitably rise to violence due to the close proximity of weapons? And what about school shootings?

Well, according to the U.S. Government Accountability Office, guns help prevent crime.

Approximately 2.5 million Americans protect themselves with guns every year. Most of the time, the gun is never actually fired –- it is simply brandished, and the person breaking and entering is told to “get the f*ck out of here” and that’s exactly what happens.

Job done.

Yes, citizens do occasionally shoot and kill people while defending themselves and their property. In fact, citizens shoot and kill twice as many criminals as police do every year.

Yet, only two percent of civilian shootings involve an innocent person mistakenly identified as a criminal. By contrast, the error rate for police officers is eleven percent.

In short, guns are routinely used to deter crime, but these guns are rarely fired. When citizens do fire a gun to deter crime, they are rarely acting like Yahoos.

Which is not to say that Yahoos, criminals and crazy people do not exist; they certainly do. But these people exist with or without guns, and are a danger to us all, with or without a gun.

Remember, Yahoos in cars kill far more people than Yahoos with guns.

And as for criminals, do you really think they are going to be deterred by gun laws? Have these people been deterred by our drug laws, our murder laws, or our robbery laws? Why would the gun laws be treated with any more respect?

As for the shooting of small children, both in and outside of school, the phenomenon has never been common, and the numbers are going down.

New York City -- ground zero in the war against guns -– has 2.6 million children under the age of 10 and approximately 3 million guns owned by adults.

Yet, accidental gun deaths among children under age 10 averages only 1.2 per year in that city.

Clearly, most gun owners are pretty safety-conscious. The same cannot be said for automobile drivers or mothers who do not bother to read the instructions that come with child safety seats.

But, as I said, statistics are cold comfort.

Early this morning, while I was writing this blog post, Sean Taylor died. His encounter with a burglar entering his home early yesterday morning was a decidedly one-sided affair.

Let the theorists talk now. It will not matter to Sean Taylor. He is dead.


Related Link: "Support Mental Health, Or I'll Kill You"
 
There has been a lot of soul searching among old style classic liberals over the past few years as their party moves way to the left.

WildgoodarticleAlaska TM
 
There has been a lot of soul searching among old style classic liberals over the past few years as their party moves way to the left.

and taking the GOP with it........the soul searching doesnt stop with the dems.
 
and taking the GOP with it........the soul searching doesnt stop with the dems.

Thank god for that...those of us who are progressive socially and economically have needed a party that fits our needs.......

WildmovingtothecenterAlaska TM
 
One red herring after another. Most of the article was going in circles around cars, swimming pools, tobacco, and Sean Taylor.

Furthermore, Sean Taylor's death happened in Florida (where gun laws are relatively more sensible), not DC. The "talk of the town" was not about gun laws. This author has no idea what was going around in DC.

The talk was (with subtle racism) about supposed black-on-black crime. The talk was about Taylor being one of the best players in football in his position, and yet not even reaching his prime yet. Every channel day and night in and around metro DC was saturated with Sean Taylor (people here live and breathe Redskins), and yet there was no talk about gun control.

Nice job with parading around a dead athlete to further an unrelated cause. Thanks but no thanks.

How can this stuff pass for good arguments?

Swimming pools are not seen evil, but more kids drown in swimming pools than are killed by guns.

Comparing apples and... Tuesdays.

Tobacco is seen as a vice, but it is still sold in grocery and convenience stores despite the fact that it kills more than 440,000 people a year.

Lighting up and smoking a gun is far more dangerous than puffing on a cigarette.

Alcohol is involved in more crime than guns and it kills more than 100,000 Americans a year, but we still serve it on airplanes and at baseball games.

You don't drink bullets, and I doubt Glock Martinis are tasty. Would have that nasty plastic aftertaste.
 
We are all entitled to our own opinions, but that doesn't change the facts...

See that statement alone is a bad argument. You've pulled an irrelevant conclusion and you've basically just said that it's okay to draw bad arguments from facts... so long as the facts are true.
 
Wow, applesanity, are you having a bad day?
The talk was (with subtle racism) about supposed black-on-black crime.
...
Quote:
Swimming pools are not seen evil, but more kids drown in swimming pools than are killed by guns.
Comparing apples and... Tuesdays.
...
Lighting up and smoking a gun is far more dangerous than puffing on a cigarette.
...
You don't drink bullets, and I doubt Glock Martinis are tasty. Would have that nasty plastic aftertaste.

Black on black crime is not "supposed" and it's not racist to actually recognize it's a fact: somewhere near 70% offenders and victims (Bureau of Justice Trends by Race).

The relative mortality of accidents involving swimming pools vs accidental firearms, as the article cites, has society's focus on firearms rather than on the greater dangers to children afforded by pools, or to everyone by automobiles, or alcohol, or both in combination. Even cigarettes. Not just on Tuesdays but every day. The 2005 death rate per 100,000 population was 1.21 for drowning (all ages, 1.36 for 18 and under) vs 0.27 for firearm accidents (all ages, 0.20 for 18 and under). Check it out at CDC's Report Generator.

Your 'smoking a gun' and 'martini' comments are far more specious than anything in the Op/Ed piece. So I'm curious. It's hard to tell from your post, do you think society has it's priorities in order for what's dangerous as far as matters of fact are concerned? Are you just being snide and argumentative? How about some facts from you? Apples and apples for applesanity.
 
Black on black crime is not "supposed" and it's not racist to actually recognize it's a fact

Super, big time red herring there. After Sean Taylor's death, much of the media, especially ESPN dove into his past to point all these fights, altercations, drugs, and troubles with the law. The implications being that Sean Taylor brought on his own death from some sort of reprisal or thing in the past. Before the actual murderers were caught, just about everyone reporting the story wrote it off as black-on-black crime, in terms of how the connotations are commonly understood.

I'm saying that the notion of "black on black crime" wasn't applicable in Sean Taylor's death. You're arguing that black on black crime is real. Spot the error?

The relative mortality of accidents involving swimming pools vs accidental firearms, as the article cites, has society's focus on firearms rather than on the greater dangers to children afforded by pools, or to everyone by automobiles, or alcohol, or both in combination.

I can name about half a dozen logical fallacies with that sentence. Now you try.

If you're gonna make analogies between guns and swimming pools, guns and booze, guns and cars, or guns and ___, then prepare to take the analogies to their logical ends. Don't cherry pick the differences and similarities that are convenient for your own sake.

You can't just have a swimming pool if you feel like it. Your pool, despite being privately owned, is subject to local building ordinances, health guidelines, and so on. Do you really want to submit forms to your local county to prove and claim that your gun meets and maintains county standards? There are many neighborhoods where you have to get the OK from all your neighbors if you want to build something external and new, like a deck or swimming pool or even a flag pole on the front lawn. Wanna ask the neighbors if it's okay to buy your next gun?

Many gun accidents involve the gun being transported from one location to another. Swimming pools suffer from a tendency of being cemented into the ground.

With a privately-owned swimming pool, you can engage in swimming at your leisure while on your own private property. Just try and engage in shooting with your privately-owned gun while tanning in the backyard. Just try.

Your 'smoking a gun' and 'martini' comments are far more specious than anything in the Op/Ed piece.

Nope, they're they same. One goes to a logical end to prove the argument's absurdities; the other one is fallacy-driven blog.

Look, if you're gonna defend guns, then talk about guns. Don't talk about football players. Don't talk about swimming pools.
 
You're making my day here, applesanity, as well as my points. Black on black is black on black regardless of your statement about Taylor and it is a real problem even without the connotations you impute. I believe you brought up black on black yourself in conjunction with "supposed". I addressed your statement. There was nothing in the Op/Ed.

Go ahead and name the fallacies, applesanity. Educate me. I think you're blowing smoke and I'm quite sure logic has no part of your contentiousness. Permits for pools, 4473 forms for firearms are irrelevant to the discussion: dangerous is dangerous, where can social/civic/individual attention best be put to reduce the mortalities?

You've actually strengthened my argument with the immovable pool/movable gun thing and the neighbors' permissions. I'm pretty sure you can see the mortality rate has to do with the nature of pools and the nature of firearms. You tell me, which generates provably more deadly accidents?

Speaking of proof, you've made a bunch of unsupported statements. The blog is at least cogent and based on facts. I posted links to support my statements. You haven't countered my points or the blog's statements with reasoned argument. You refer to the media doing this and that but ignore the points in the blog. You've offered nothing but acrimony.

You are dodging the issue with straw dogs and red herrings of your own. But your post count is climbing. More smoke?
 
I got the following in an e-mail:


'We in Denmark cannot figure out why you are even
bothering to hold an election.

On one side, you have a bitch who is a lawyer, married to a lawyer. You also have a lawyer who is married to a bitch who is a lawyer.

On the other side, you have a true war hero married to a woman with a huge chest who owns a beer

distributorship.

Is there a contest here?'
 
5Wire said:
Go ahead and name the fallacies, applesanity.

Oh, it's on.

Black on black is black on black regardless of your statement about Taylor and it is a real problem even without the connotations you impute.

This argument is called a "red herring," or "ignoratio elenchi" in Latin. To make a red herring, you argue a point that may be correct, but doesn't address the real issue at hand. The purpose, consequently, is to distract everyone.

The news article said that the "talk of the town" after Sean Taylor's death was going to be about gun control. I claimed that the real talk of the town was the tragedy itself, its effect on the Redskins, and also implications of black-on-black crime. ....But nothing on gun control.

To prove my argument, I just now Googled for Sean Taylor, then clicked on the "news" tab at the top. In the very first related article I clicked on, I got this:

Washington Redskins safety Sean Taylor was in critical condition after he was shot at his Florida home Monday, police said.

Miami-Dade County police officers were dispatched to Taylor's home at about 1:45 a.m. and found him shot. He was then airlifted to Jackson Memorial Hospital, police Detective Alvaro Zabaleta said. He didn't know where on Taylor's body he was shot.

A brief statement from the Redskins said Taylor was undergoing treatment at the Miami hospital and that police were investigating. His family has asked that no information about his condition be released at this point, said hospital spokeswoman Lorraine Nelson.

Taylor has a home in the Miami suburb of Palmetto Bay that he bought for US$900,000 two years ago.

Taylor, 24, is in his fourth season with the Redskins after playing at the University of Miami, where he was an all-American in 2003. He leads the team with five interceptions but has missed the last two games with a knee injury.

In 2005, Taylor was accused of brandishing a gun at a man and repeatedly hitting him during a fight that broke out after Taylor and some friends went looking for the people who had allegedly stolen his all-terrain vehicles.

Taylor reached a deal with prosecutors last year after they agreed to drop felony charges against him. He pleaded no contest to two misdemeanours in the assault case and was sentenced to 18 months probation.

The man, Ryan Hill, also sued, seeking at least $15,000 in damages. Hill suffered bruising to his body, incurred medical expenses and lost wages because of the fight, the lawsuit said.

Do you see the implications that Sean Taylor's murder was just another instance of black on black crime? I've bolded it for you. In case you're wondering, Sean Taylor's murder was not some retaliation or gang activity or bloods and crips stuff. It was a botched robbery. Some punks knew where the football star lived, figured his house was full of loot, and snuck in on a night they thought he wasn't home. He was home because as the article states, he was recovering from a knee injury.

Do you see any talk about gun control? Blog: 0. Applesanity: 1. "but Applesanity, this one article can't account for everything." Well that's just a misunderstanding of how search engines work, but feel to check every story on that google page I linked. Go ahead.

The reason why I pulled the dreaded race card was because so much of the focus was on Sean Taylor's past, to such an extent that the investigation itself was probably going in wrong directions. Nevertheless, the race card was just a side commentary to point out all the things discussed about Sean Taylor...none of which included gun control. The real point was stated in:

applesanity said:
Nice job with parading around a dead athlete to further an unrelated cause. Thanks but no thanks.

Which leads us back to what you stated:

Black on black crime is not "supposed" and it's not racist to actually recognize it's a fact

Nobody is talking about whether black-on-black crime is fake or real. Nobody is disputing your claim, quoted source and all. (In case you're wondering, it's not racist to admit it's real, but it's racist to assume automatically that dead black guy + troubled past = black on black crime.) Your argument is a classic red herring. Get it?

The irony in all of this talk over Sean Taylor is that many athletes do in fact have CCW permits, because they are famous and rich - they'll be the first to defend the 2nd. Unfortunately, Sean Taylor had a machete under his bed.

The next part of the blog:
The simple truth is that guns are here to stay, like it or not. And, as shocking a piece of news as this is to some people, guns are not all about hunting

Nobody is disputing that. Not one person anywhere in the world with a modicum of compentency will claim that one day, guns will poof! disappear, but while they're here, they will be all about hunting. This part of the blog is called a "straw man," not a

5Wire said:
straw dog

That's not just a typo or grammar issue, that just shows everyone that you don't know what you're talking about.

A "straw man" (not dog) occurs when one sets up an argument that sort of resembles the opponent's opinion but is easily refutable, only to refute it. The problem is that one has not actually refuted the opinion at all. For example:

Gunowner: The 2nd Amendment protects the right of the People to own firearms.

Anti: So people should be allowed to own nukes?

Do you see the fallacy? Blog: 0. applesanity: 2.

The next part of the blog - Claim:
there is not much any presidential candidate can do (or should do) about them [guns].
Reason:
We are not a monarchy

Praytell, who is saying that the US is a monarchy? Anyone? Hello? Again, another straw man. The straw man here (saying that we're not a monarchy) is set up to distract us from the real counter-argument: presidents can - and do - affect gun control/rights policies via bill proposals, political pressure, vetos or signatures, or a.k.a. "checks and balances." Blog: 0. Applesanity: 3.

Next argument in the blog:

More than 70 million responsible tax-paying citizens own more than 200 million guns in this country. Let me make that number a little more meaningful: If you stand in front of your house and look at the house to the immediate left and right, there's an almost 100% chance that one of these three abodes has at least one gun inside.

I don't think there's a formal definition for the above babble. I'll just call it, "playing the stats game." The 70 mil and 200 mil numbers, while true, do not work as premises to the conclusion. The unstated premise is the assumption that the 70 million citizens, who own guns, are distributed evenly across every part of this country. 1 out of every 3 citizens in Alaska, 1 out of every 3 in Wyoming, and 1 out of every 3 in San Francisco. That's just... well, stupid. Blog: 0. Applesanity: 4.

The next argument in the blog just made me laugh:

The biggest caucus on Capitol Hill is the Congressional Sportsmen's Caucus with 300 members in 46 states. These folks represent the interests of America’s hunters and anglers, and this is the most important environmental caucus on Capitol Hill. And, for the record, they are almost all strong supporters of the Second Amendment

Hmm... hunters and anglers... supporting the 2nd... for the interests of hunting and fishing. But wait, didn't the blogger also say:

And, as shocking a piece of news as this is to some people, guns are not all about hunting

Blog: 0. Applesanity: 5. I've picked apart every single sentence - in order - so far. I haven't skipped anything; I haven't cherry-picked stuff I could get to. I could go on, but it's just too easy to obliterate this blog. I sincerely hope you get the point.

5Wire said:
Educate me.

You're welcome. In case you're wondering, I am a gunowner, I strongly believe in the 2nd for hobby or personal interest, protection, defense of the state, defense against tyranny, and even sport and hunting, but I don't defend my rights with inanities.

I'm royally pissed off from reading this article. Everyone around here loved Sean Taylor; not only he was easily the best player for the Redskins, but his enthusiam and dedication to the game just made football all the more entertaining. Don't trivialize his death for personal agendas.
 
Last edited:
The simple truth is that guns are here to stay, like it or not. And, as shocking a piece of news as this is to some people, guns are not all about hunting

Nobody is disputing that. Not one person anywhere in the world with a modicum of compentency will claim that one day, guns will poof! disappear, but while they're here, they will be all about hunting. This part of the blog is called a "straw man," not a

Yes, there are some people disputing that. Quite a few, in fact. It is extremely common for anti-gun politicians and activists to state or imply that hunting and target shooting might be legitimate purposes, but self-defense is not. This is even written into laws in some places (Britain).

Now, whether you want to talk about the grabbers' true intentions or take them at their face value is another story. True intentions being that the gun grabbers really don't recognize any purpose as legitimate, except those that increase the power of a (preferably socialist) State over the common folk. We all know the Schumers and Feinsteins of the world will always have their carry permits or their armed bodyguards, the subtext is that no reason for gun ownership is legitimate if you're one of the little people.

It is pretty obvious that one of the big selling points of gun control is and always has been that Elmer Fudd can keep his ol' double barrel. There is no straw man there, you just wanted there to be one.

Speaking of straw man, your example re: nukes would have been better had you pointed out that it is both a straw man and a case of reductio ad absurdam. You might also have mentioned that people who use that fallacy do more to make a spectacle of themselves than to lend any credibility to the anti-gun credo. Now, back on track.

So maybe you didn't see any specific references where the media has called for gun control as a result of the Sean Taylor case. So what? Like they say, it ain't over till it's over. The case could be dredged up at any time in the future.

In case you haven't noticed, an incident doesn't have to pass all of applesanity's logic tests to be used by anti gunners. Heck, they'll even throw police-on-suspect shootings in to their statistics when nobody's looking.

Speaking of statistics, the swimming pool and automobile analogies were just fine. One of the core claims of anti gunners is: "we must ban or strictly regulate guns because they cause so many deaths". Hmm, let's think about that. There is a pretty clear implication there. The implication is, we care about stopping needless deaths. But wait a minute, applesanity, if they care about stopping needless deaths, wouldn't they first concern themselves with the statistically more frequent causes on the list?

Sure they would. If they were not being mendacious, that is. The blogger in question is just pointing out, rather obliquely, that they've been caught in a hypocrisy trap. Blogger: 1, Anti-gunners: 0, Applesanity: 0

As a member of this board you should understand these concepts. I can only imagine why you've chosen to adopt a contrarian attitude. If I could give a piece of friendly advice, you might be better off channeling all that angst toward someone who's flat out against your right to own guns, than against some blogger who seemed to be doing at least a fair job of challenging those who promote gun control.

He wasn't doing as much of a disservice to that as some of the posters on this very board do with their comments. Just saying.

Just pretend for sake of argument that I'm a suburban mom who has no idea of Sean Taylor's race and no knowledge of his sports career. All I know is that Sean Taylor was an athlete who was shot. Hey, and guess what, I also know that guns=bad because TV tells me so. Every time I turn on Lifetime TV and watch a movie, it seems they're telling me in 10 different ways how guns are the root of society's problems. The conclusion I will probably reach is, Sean Taylor would still be alive if we had stricter gun control laws.

Would it be a logical fallacy for me to believe that? Sure it would. So why not step to it and figure out how you can counter that kind of thinking. Because that blog was doing a better job at it than you, right now, are.
 
Yes, citizens do occasionally shoot and kill people while defending themselves and their property. In fact, citizens shoot and kill twice as many criminals as police do every year.

Yet, only two percent of civilian shootings involve an innocent person mistakenly identified as a criminal. By contrast, the error rate for police officers is eleven percent.

Is this a valid stat? If so, where did that come from?
 
Back
Top