On One Hand

December 11, 2007

More Lessons about Gun Control

Filed under: Uncategorized — ononehand @ 12:16 am
Tags: , ,

You guys are exactly right that the shooting at the Colorado Springs church last weekend proves that guns are good. The volunteer security guard at New Life Church was able to save many lives by shooting and killing Matthew Murphy (the first shooter). Only a total of three people died in that event, but imagine this other scenario: if gun control prevented the security guard from having a gun and prevented Matthew Murphy from having gun, think about how many people Matthew Murphy would have killed with his bare hands before someone was able to stop him.

If guns were not available, people would commit crimes with other weapons instead. If that were the case, watch out! You could be walking in the mall minding your own business and suddenly be sniped by flying knives and ninja-stars! Highly lethal! Without having guns to defend ourselves we’d all be sitting ducks, compared to our current situation’s mass-shootings, which have all gone so well.

Killing is wrong, but having the ability to kill someone very easily with a gun is a God-given right. Laws don’t exist to prevent murder and fatal accidents, they exist to punish the bad people after the fact. How would we be able to exercize our God-given free will if we didn’t have the ability to kill someone?

Also, consider the Holocaust during World War II. Hitler began his persecution of the Jews by taking away their guns. Everyone knows that owning handguns makes you safe from things like oppression, starvation, and massive government armies. If some of the Jews had kept their guns and fought back, I’m sure the whole Holocaust would have been avoided because the Nazi leadership was very mild-mannered, and wouldn’t have pressed the issue by using bombs or tanks. That’s why no armed soldiers ever died during World War II; because they had guns.

Seriously, guys, do you want your kids to be child-molested by Bin Laden!? If you are for gun control, you’re basically saying you do.

I’m glad there are guns out there, because I know that if I am shot and killed in a mall or whatever, that person will be punished for his or her crime by our legal system. That’s totally worth it.

I hope this all proves that guns make us safe. It’s also clear to see that if a small handgun for self-defense makes us safe, semi-automatic assault weapons make us even safer. The ability to shoot an airplane from the ground is very important to my right to protect myself from burglars, and if I can’t shoot more than 100 rounds per minute then OMG I am going to be mugged by gangsters, terrorists or worse!!!!!!!

Come to think of it, I think we should also give guns to small children to prevent child molestation.

Advertisements

6 Comments »

  1. hahaha this is a good post.

    Comment by melrosedrive — December 11, 2007 @ 12:17 pm | Reply

  2. This is brilliant.

    Comment by randomcha — December 11, 2007 @ 8:41 pm | Reply

  3. …if gun control prevented the security guard from having a gun and prevented Matthew Murphy from having gun…

    Here you assume that lunatics like Murphy will happily abide by the law in the same way that the security guard does. You assume that, in a gun-control scenario, there is no possible way that Murphy would have a gun.

    …If guns were not available…

    Presumably you mean “if guns did not exist on the face of the earth.” Unless gun control is implemented so as to ensure that all existing guns are rounded up and all means of manufacturing new guns are made unavailable, it is probable that guns will continue to exist, or that new ones will be made. If guns continue to exist, criminals such as Murphy will find them. Gun control would prevent law-abiding citizens such as the security guard from acting as she did. If it is your position that criminals such as Murphy would NOT be able to get guns under some gun-control scenario, I would be interested to learn how you reason that to be the case.

    … people would commit crimes with other weapons instead…

    No, they would not. Criminals would probably continue to use guns, unless there is a way to make all guns disappear from the earth. Only law-abiding citizens, who obey whatever gun-control laws are put in place, would be unarmed. However, if it is your position that lunatics such as Murphy would for some reason elect NOT to acquire an illegal weapon, I would be interested in hearing why.

    …Without having guns to defend ourselves we’d all be sitting ducks…

    Though posed facetiously, this statement is true. If access to guns is controlled or prohibited, law-abiding citizens who have guns, such as the security guard, no longer will. Criminals, who have guns now, will continue to have them, unless all guns are magicked out of existence. If I am missing something, please let me know.

    …Killing is wrong, but having the ability to kill someone very easily with a gun is a God-given right…

    This is a straw-man argument; no one hold this position, and posing at someone’s position is a specious tactic at best.

    …Everyone knows that owning handguns makes you safe from things like oppression, starvation, and massive government armies…

    To ridicule this notion as unsound is to ridicule the thinking of the framers of the second amendment. But perhaps you are better informed than they were.

    …if a small handgun for self-defense makes us safe, semi-automatic assault weapons make us even safer…

    If someone of prominence espouses this position, I would be grateful for a link to it. Otherwise, I assume this is another straw man argument.

    In general, satire is most effective when it appears to have some kernel of truth embedded. Preposterousness and outlandishness is merely farce, with little value as social commentary.

    Comment by thefrescakid — December 12, 2007 @ 7:23 am | Reply

    • lol

      Yikes man, thanks for pointing that out; I was actually planning on turning this in as my graduate thesis, but considering what you have to say I think I’ll reconsider.

      In the mean time, nice application of your philosophy-101 lecture on logical fallacies in pointing out that this, like all satire, is a “straw man.” I’m curious if you’ll send me copies of the complaint letters you’re no doubt also sending to the producers of South Park and Stephen Colbert to deconstruct statements made there.

      I hope this exercize helps you with your in-class essay final exam next Tuesday. Don’t forget to bring a blue book!

      *ahem*

      If I’m trying to have a serious rational discussion about something, I will discuss it in a rational or serious way. If you, on the other hand, care to entertain a discussion hoping to critique someone’s worldview over a blog discussion (which never, ever works), it’s best to pick occasions where someone is making an actual political argument rather than trying to debunk someone’s jokes as if they’re actual arguments, which – if we’re going to get into your kind of language – would be (by the way) a straw man.

      Comment by ononehand — December 13, 2007 @ 4:00 am | Reply

  4. lame, lame, lame

    Also, consider the Holocaust during World War II. Hitler began his persecution of the Jews by taking away their guns. Everyone knows that owning handguns makes you safe from things like oppression, starvation, and massive government armies. If some of the Jews had kept their guns and fought back, I’m sure the whole Holocaust would have been avoided because the Nazi leadership was very mild-mannered, and wouldn’t have pressed the issue by using bombs or tanks. That’s why no armed soldiers ever died during World War II; because they had guns.

    Straw man. Not only is this entire paragraph, nay, entire POST, a straw man argument, but it’s a poorly constructed one (at best). I think your attempt at satire backfired terribly, as I would self-identify as rather vehemently anti-gun and this post had me seeing the logic of the gun lobby and nearly agreeing. And I doubt that was your intention.

    Comment by Anonymous — December 12, 2007 @ 10:49 pm | Reply

    • Re: lame, lame, lame

      If someone’s joke about a political issue you support can be bad enough to make you want to turn the other way, I hope you never happen to run across any comedians talking about suicide.

      Comment by ononehand — December 13, 2007 @ 4:23 am | Reply


RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Create a free website or blog at WordPress.com.

%d bloggers like this: