Scrolling down my Facebook wall, I see that the gun control debate(?) continues. The 1% apparently still have the support of The Great and Powerful Oz's cult members. Quite frankly, I am surprised that Obama still has followers, nevermind loyal followers, especially on this issue. They voted for a guy who has officially started twice as many wars as King George (W Bush for those of you who are new visitors), plus who knows how many unofficial wars, and has used six times as many drones as the Illiterate One. As violent as his supporters are, you would think they would be clamoring for government handouts of drones so they could all fly one and kill someone.
I'm sure Obama has the app. Maybe he'll share.
The minions and people who believe in freedom have tried to point out the complete lack of logic in the argument for gun control. While they have, for the most part succeeded, I feel like they have missed the heart of the issue. Not that it would change anything. Democrats are, for the next few years, the obedient servants of the 1% and reasoning, rationality, and logic have no place in their lives at the moment.At the moment?
Well, there was that one time that . . . oh wait, no, I was thinking of Jeffrey Dahmer.
And Republicans are better?
Shah, as if.
No, when the Republican representative of the 1% gets voted in as president, it will likely be worse because the response to any objection to the president's insane policies will be, "Screw you! We had 8 years of your guy so suck it!"
That seems perfectly logical.
To you and 10% of the people in the state hospital.
Can we get back on task, please? From what I can gather, the logic of the argument from the people trying to disarm the people so the 1% can more easily control every aspect of the lives of their inferiors goes something like this:
1. People with guns are dangerous.
2. Dangerous situations should be avoided or prevented.
Therefore . . .
Can I point something out about statement number 1?
No, you'll ruin everything.
Again, from what I can gather (because I can think for myself and do not belong to either team so I'm guessing at their reasoning(?)), the rebuttals from anti-gun control people generally fall into three categories. Two of them are tied directly to presumed logic for gun control and the third is based on the Constitution. I will save the discussion about the Constitution for part 2 of this blog post because it's groundless and doesn't actually deal with the argument presented to support gun control.
Did he say "groundless?"
Yes, and I'm sure he'll hear about it.
Rebuttal #1 directly challenges statement #1 by showing that (1) places where gun control restrictions are the strictest have higher rates of violent crime, meaning that people who live in areas where guns are routinely carried by citizens are safer than their counterparts. (2) I also routinely see stories on Facebook walls where a citizen was able to protect themself or a third party from harm because they had a gun. Not only are guns not dangerous but they protect people from harm. Many of the Facebook posters go on to state that it's the people that you have to worry about, not the guns.
Rebuttal #2 takes a different approach by agreeing with the general logic of the argument presented and pointing out that, if this logic is true, it only makes sense to start with the most dangerous situations first and move down the list. To make the world a safer place in the least amount of time, it makes sense to take on the most critical issues first. Being in a Software Engineering class at the moment, this concept makes perfect sense to me. You deal with the biggest risk first and work your way down the list. Whatever is killing the most people should be banned first.
Do people really care "what makes sense" when they are trying to exert control over other people by using violence and the threat of violence?
Not that I can see.
Obesity, cigarettes, cars, doctors and hospitals, and a whole schload of things come in above guns when it comes to people dying. It doesn't make sense to jump down to something that kills 30,000 people a year when, "According to the National Institutes of Health, obesity and overweight together are the second leading cause of preventable death in the United States, close behind tobacco use (3). An estimated 300,000 deaths per year are due to the obesity epidemic (57)," (WV Department of Health and Human Resources). This becomes even more true if you discount suicide by guns because more people in the United States kill themselves with a gun than kill someone else.
Does that mean that suicide should be illegal?
Yes, no one is allowed to kill people except the government.
If you make gun ownership illegal and someone can't get one on the alternate market or steal one from their mom, they could just pop all the pills in their medicine cabinet or park their running car in the garage.
Make all those things illegal. That's what I say!
And prosecute the dead person? What's next? Give them the death penalty?
It's obvious that the call for gun control by the masses isn't grounded in any logical reasoning. My guess is that it's caused by an emotional response to sensationalized stories by the 1 percent's media but that's only a guess. There is obviously something going on here beyond a concern for human life. Under the orders of their messiah, government employees kill people on a daily basis, fund terrorist groups, perform false flag missions against their own people, assassinate people who refuse to cooperate, incite riots and revolutions, and all manner of other actions that end with the death of innocent people. No, they clearly don't give a rat's ass about human life so I'm left with the inclination that they are anti-gun because they have been told to be anti-gun and the message has been delivered to them in an emotional wrapper to not only make it easier to swallow but to make them *want* to swallow it. While they voted for a president who started twice as many illegal wars as the last guy (not including all the covert wars, illegal wars called by some other name, and people killed by despotic rulers paid by the US government), it makes them feel self-righteous to champion the anti-gun cause.
This attitude, this absurd claim to moral high-ground while voting for a mass murderer, I find to be the second most surprising thing about the team on the left side of the 1%.
* Update: Destiny put this in my YouTube feed tonight - http://youtu.be/V3MuzLezG9s