Monday, December 17, 2012

A Message To The NRA From The Four Horsemen Of The Apocalypse

Hey, guys.

Pestilence here. The other riders and I are pretty busy lately, but we wanted to take a moment and make something clear. In the days ahead many of you will be deploying some pretty stupid arguments against gun control in this country. The whole "cars are deadly, knives are deadly, Nazis started this, and anyway, what about abortion?" kind of dealie. God, it makes our heads hurt just thinking about it. When you write this stuff you make the internet even more stupid than it already is. Instead of wading into this nonsense we wanted to just address one very specific notion you'll be sharing with your friends on Facebook.

You really think gun ownership protects you from the government taking your rights.

This isn't even an argument at all. It's a poorly-conceived Red Dawn fantasy. You say things like this, because in some ugly part of your brain you want to see yourself fighting the globalist army after the collapse of our country. And you have that particular dream because you're old and white, and you're afraid of the way this country is changing. The guns give you a feeling of control.

Okay, well, first of all... when the balloon really goes up you're certainly going to die very, very quickly. It won't be like the movies, trust us. You will lumber down into your basement to start the generator, and you will trip, cut yourself on a rusty lawn mower part, or maybe just have a massive cardiac, because you're overweight, and the only thing you stand a chance against with that AK-47 is a deer. There's a whole political party devoted to telling people like you - the most soft and privileged and pampered members of this wonderful country - that you're some hardy band of rebels fighting oppression. That little fairy tale will evaporate before Glenn Beck collects his gold chips.

Secondly, there really are people fighting against government tyranny. But they're unarmed. They're reporters, and lawyers, and human rights weenies from Europe. They try to make politicians and bureaucrats accountable for the terrible things they can do. Sometimes they even succeed. Occasionally there's a subcommittee meeting, or a scandal, or a change in the law, or a politician loses his job or even goes to jail. Once upon a time, a couple of commie reporters helped remove a sitting president of the United States. You and your camping buddies playing soldier in the woods have never even come close to that.

Say what you want about guns... just don't act like it's about defending freedom. You're not defending anything. Your stupid game prevents us from ending a threat to public safety, but it is utterly irrelevant to the struggle for liberty in 21st century America. You want to do something real, start researching campaign donations, make FOIA tougher, call up a Congressman and bitch. Right now your biggest enemy is not a fleet of UN helicopters. It's an Olive Garden breadstick basket. Cut down on the carbs and grow the hell up.

Either way, it's not really our problem. Be seeing you.

(NOTE: If this article got to you, please consider joining the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence. It was founded by that leftist from the Reagan administration. Thanks to PS for this link.)

17 comments:

  1. http://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/ad-hominem

    Maybe actually bring up statistics instead of saying that people who want our freedoms intact are all fat crazies. Oh, wait, statistics show that the number of guns per capita have no connection to the number of murders, and that as gun ownership in areas goes up, violent crime goes down. Guess that quoting actual statistics won't help your campaign.

    We should focus more on the actual things that cause tragedies, like mental health. We actually know very little about what causes people to do this, but are researching it. Maybe, instead of filling the internet up with this kind of stupidity, we wait until the scientists (you know, the people who get paid to research and figure stuff out instead of going off half-cocked and spewing forth diatribes) come back with what actually causes these things, and tell us how we can help prevent it? They're working on it (http://blog.chron.com/sciguy/2012/12/the-science-of-rampage-violence-is-alas-in-its-infancy/) and I'd be willing to bet money I don't have the answer is going to be mental healthcare and not gun control.

    ReplyDelete
  2. You're ignoring the main argument, so... I don't really have to do much more than point that out.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I'm sorry, but between your hypothetical Red Dawn nonsense and ad hominem, I didn't actually see an argument. Maybe if you'd actually make one?

      Delete
  3. Actually, I have extra time, so let's engage...

    Your first paragraph accuses me of not citing statistics, and then you don't cite statistics.

    Your second paragraph states that we should focus on mental health issues, because they cause these things, and then you say that no one really knows this, but we're trying, and you'd be willing to bet money that you'll be proven right eventually.

    Hmmm... I really didn't have to respond to any of that, did I? You wasted a tiny part of my life with that comment, Mr. Anonymous Internet Crazy Person.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I notice you didn't bring any statistics out to support your argument. But here's some stuff for you:

      First off, this article from the Harvard Journal of Law and Public Policy:
      http://www.law.harvard.edu/students/orgs/jlpp/Vol30_No2_KatesMauseronline.pdf

      It basically talks about how violent crime rates go up when gun ownership rates go down. When Britain started restricting guns, their violent crimes went up, eventually putting them on the very top of the list after they completely banned guns and confiscated them.

      It then goes on to outline how crime rates, including homicide rates, dropped after laws were passed that allowed more citizens to carry guns in the US.

      Another thing touched on is the fact that the only thing linked to gun ownership is firearm homicide rates, and that that isn't a good indication of total homicide rates. Or suicide rates, for that matter. There are many countries that had higher rates of suicide than the US, all with a lower number of gun ownership.

      "Consider Norway and its neighbors Sweden, the Netherlands, and Denmark. Norway as far and away Western Europe's highest household gun ownership rate (32%), but also its lowest murder rate. The Netherlands has the lowest gun ownership rate in Western Europe (1.9%), and Sweden lies midway between (15.1%) the Netherlands and Norway. Yet the Dutch gun murder rate is higher than the Norwegian, and the Swedish rate is even higher, though only slightly."

      http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/datablog/2012/jul/22/gun-homicides-ownership-world-list

      I especially think its interesting how the country with the highest gross number of firearm murder (Brazil) is #75 in number of guns per capita, second (Columbia) is #91, third (Mexico) is #42, fourth (Venezuela) is #59, and then we're fifth with #1. When you measure it by percentage of murders caused by firearms we drop all the way down to #26.

      And my second paragraph actually says, if you'd bother to read it, that we should wait until we actually know what causes things like this. Yes, I personally think its mental issues, since mentally healthy people don't just go around shooting up schools. However, I'll freely admit I have no proof of that, unlike you who'll just go off half-cocked about it being all guns.

      So you wasted a tiny part of my life with your ridiculous statements Mr. Paul "No Proof" Bibeau.

      Delete
  4. I'm glad you found some things on the internet. Many of them are off-topic, but still it's progress. I'm not going to wade into the weeds with you on suicide or on Brazilian crime rates. Seriously. What the hell.

    Anyway you fail to address my central point and mischaracterize what I say about causality, as well as what you yourself say about causality. So... how seriously should I take you?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. What central point? Once again, all I really see is general guns are bad, and anyone who thinks otherwise is a fat ass who's more likely to trip and impale themselves on a blade than defend themself. I fail to see how facts about gun ownership and how they don't tie to murder rates, and how they actually keep crime down according to historical evidence is anything but on topic when it comes to a discussion of gun control. They do keep society safer (or isn't a safe society one with less violent crime) and they don't increase murder (or we would be #1 in murder rates, not Brazil).

      Delete
  5. Nope. There is a central point. You missed it. Clearly marked.

    ReplyDelete
  6. A couple of points:

    A recent study of 20th century anti-government resistance/protest movements found that non-violent movements succeeded just over 50% of the time. Armed resistance succeeded only 26% of the time. I like the non-violent odds better.

    Go on good old Wikipedia and look up "numbers of guns per capita by country" for an interesting list. We're at the top (88/100), of course, followed by Serbia and Yemen. Look down the list and you'll find no necessary connection between rates of gun ownership and standards of civil rights and democracy. Most of Europe is in the 20-30 guns per 100 people range. Then again, so are Saudi Arabia, Oman, and Equatorial Guinea. At the very bottom is Tunisia, at one gun per thousand, and yet they were the start of the Arab Spring. Go figure.

    Concentrate on getting big money and corporations out of politics. But yeah, that's real work, and borrring.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thank you. Where is that study on resistance/protest movements? I want to see it. One thing I've noticed when arguing with pro-gun people, is that they really don't want to talk about this point: that gun ownership doesn't safeguard your rights against government tyranny/autocracy in modern America. You hear people say it, but when you challenge it, they start changing the subject. I think it's a huge point.

      Delete
    2. Here's the article: http://www.greenmountaindaily.com/diary/9483/safety-for-ourselves-and-our-posterity

      Several good references in there.

      One good point is that the 2nd Amendment wasn't written about safeguarding us against the government. It was written to safeguard the government against others. I challenge anyone to find the word "tyranny" in it. It does happen to mention the safety of the state.

      While I'm at it (and not to get all originalist (=bullshit) on you) a militia in 1787 was not an independent, self selected group of armed men. It was authorized, organized, directed, and often armed by the government. It evolved into the National Guard, which still refers back to its militia roots in its symbols.

      Mao was wrong when he said that power comes from the barrel of a gun. Power comes from managing the opinions and fears of the population. The acceptance of tyranny is a tradeoff that people make in their own minds. In Tunisia, Egypt, Libya, and Syria the government lost control of that balance of fear and opinion.

      Delete
  7. You really think gun ownership protects you from the government taking your rights.

    There's a much less satirical argument to be made against that particular fantasy, and it's called weapons parity. No matter how many guns you have in your closet, the government is always going to have more and bigger ones at its command. That wasn't true at the time the Constitution was written, but it sure as hell is now.

    When you talk about needing weapons "to protect yourself from the government", what you're really postulating is an armed rebellion. Some of you are honest about it, referring to "the second American Revolution". (Which is wrong, BTW -- it would be the third. The second, which failed, was the Slaveholders' Rebellion.) But even if you were actually able to get all the various people and groups who talk the talk together to walk the walk (not likely -- it would be like herding cats!), you would be committing treason, and the government would squash you like a bug. Or do you imagine that the military would come down on your side? If so, reality-check time -- they won't. They have taken an oath to protect the country from enemies both foreign and domestic.

    Furthermore, there would be a lot of the rest of us actively working against you. The country is NOT on your side, no matter what you believe in your little Rambo fantasyland. And, as you so religiously point out, there are a lot more ways to kill people than with guns.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Good call! As far as weapons parity goes, my next speaker has something to say about that: http://www.paulbibeau.blogspot.com/2012/12/a-message-to-nra-from-robert-e-lee.html

      Delete
  8. I'm going to give you a very simple rule: with no guns and no bullets you get no gun crimes. And most especially, no gun mass murders. Period.

    Argue over the statistics like that schmuck in this comments thread does all you like. In the end, particularly when it comes down to mass murder, guns are almost always the weapons of choice. No guns, no mass murders.

    If it were up to me, I'd take every privately-owned gun in the country and melt it down into girders to repair our rotting infrastructure. Will the government have to pry a gun from some gun pervert's "cold, dead hands?" Personally, pal, that's okay with me. And trust me, they can do it.

    I know, guns give some people a sense of power. And of sex. You can stroke it. You can oil it. You can lovingly fondle it. Pull the trigger and you get an explosion of energy. If you want to commit suicide with it, you can stick it in your mouth and fellate it.

    Too bad if that's your perversion. Give it up. Switch to wearing a corset and lace stockings. Or to sucking high heeled boots. Because nobody's beloved gun collection is worth a single child's life.

    No guns, no bullets, no mass murder. Period.

    Very Crankily Yours,
    The New York Crank

    ReplyDelete
  9. VastRightWingConspiracyAugust 6, 2013 at 6:00 PM

    Where are the commie reporters now that White House is auditing and violating the civil rights of Teaparty and Pro Israel groups? Freedom of speech and freedom of association only apply if you are a liberal? Where is the Washington Post? there are no journalists left in this country, only cheerleaders and lap dogs for the President. You are one of those lap dogs.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I've been writing that kind of criticism of the president for months now.

      Delete

Related Posts with Thumbnails