"The democracy will cease to exist when you take away from those who are willing to work and give to those who would not." ~~Thomas Jefferson

"Who will protect us from those who protect us?"

Rightful liberty is unobstructed action according to our will within limits drawn around us by the equal rights of others. ~ Thomas Jefferson

"None are so hopelessly enslaved as those who falsely believe they are free." ~~Goethe

22 December 2012

A debate...

This is the transcript of a "debate" that took place between me and "Commenter 2" this afternoon regarding an internet news article on banning "assault weapons".  It was somewhere in the middle of the comments section following the article.  The writer, "commenter 2", is apparently a Liberal and claims to be a veteran of the US military.  He doesn't believe that anyone outside of Law Enforcement and the Military should be able to possess  "assault weapons".   His thought process is that of a typical Liberal, though he hasn't made any ad hominem attacks against me and I didn't notice any made by him against other commenters.  Perhaps there is such a thing as a polite Liberal?

The comments in their entirety were typical for such a post.  Some very thoughtful and factual with some others obviously based on nothing but emotion.  Some of the comments were dog-shit crazy, but that's pretty typical, too.  It was interesting...


Commenter 1:

I see automobile fatalities are up 7.1% so far this year over last year. Congress should ban all assault automobiles with high capacity gas tanks, don't you agree?

Commenter 2:

We have regulations and restrictions on cars, we require seatbelts and we require the manufacturers to make cars more inherently safe. WE require every single car driver to be licensed and to be insured, We have laws that take away driving privileges for infractions and we have laws that restrict who can drive.

We have almost none of these same things for guns. Yes, we should regulate and restrict guns at least like we do for cars.


And still, with all of these regulations, 33,000 Americans died violent deaths in automobile accidents last year.

Commenter 2:

Which is down dramatically from 45,520 in 2005. Do you have a point?



Nearly a third of those "accidents" were caused by impaired or distracted driving.  You know, drivers under the influence of alcohol or drugs or drivers distracted by cell phones or other electronic media within their vehicle.  A few more were caused by other distractions such as screaming children, conversations with passengers, etc.

Of the 32,883 deaths by auto accident in 2010, 1539 of them were children under the age of 16.  (I wonder how many of those children died at the hands of a careless, distracted, or impaired parent?)  Virtually 100% of these deaths were preventable, yet there is no obvious outrage over them.

51% of those violently killed in automobile accidents in 2010 were not following the regulations when they died, because they were not wearing seatbelts (Source: NTSB).  Other contributing factors, such as alcohol and drug impairment, are also against the rules, yet many more died because they failed to follow these rules.  Most of these drivers took the required training and tests and were legally licensed to drive.  Most of them had the required insurance.  Yet they are dead.

Apparently, violent death by automobile is acceptable.  Simply a fact of life.
Gun homicides have declined in this country by a similar percentage over a similar period of time.  Further, they have declined by fully half since 1990, a far greater percentage of decline than automobile deaths.

Total homicides by rifle in the US in 2010 were 358.  Homicides by shotgun were 373.  Hands, fists, or feet were the cause of death in 745 homicides and knives were used in 1704 homicides.  Of the homicides committed by rifle, "assault weapons" were but a small fraction of the total, a number that the FBI calls "statistically insignificant".   6009 homicides were committed with handguns and 2035 homicides were committed by "unknown types" of firearms.  1772 homicides were committed by "other weapons" (Weapons that do not fit any of the categories listed above.  Weapons like the bow and arrow used by Christopher Krumm to incapacitate his father in a college classroom earlier this month before finishing him off with a knife to the chest.  Christopher was apparently angry at his father for passing the Asperger's gene on to him)

The vast majority of the homicides cited above were committed by people other than "lawful gun owners".  The homicides of approximately 1000 children under the age of 16 are included in this data.  (Source: FBI Uniform Crime Report and DOJ Homicide Data.  Please feel free to use Google and verify.)

Any preventable death is a sad occurrence.  Any preventable death of a child is a tragedy.  A person killed in an automobile accident is just as dead as a person killed by a gun, yet there is no massive public outrage over violent automobile deaths.

Simply put, my point is that the people screaming for "assault weapon" bans are doing so using arguments based purely on emotion with little regard for facts.  Most of the screamers are simply ignorant and are merely repeating the misinformation broadcast by the media without realizing that the media has an agenda and without checking the veracity of what is being reported. 

The "assault weapon" is not the weapon of choice for homicides in this country.  In fact, the "assault weapon" is used less frequently than any other weapon in the commission of homicides in America.

The "assault weapon" is but a small fraction of the weapon class (rifles) that is used least frequently in the commission of homicide in this country.


Anyway, it has been several hours and I have had no further response from Commenter 2.

What seems simple and logical (as well as being verifiable) to you and me is apparently unfathomable to others, even in the face of irrefutable factual data compiled by the government that they love, trust, and depend upon.  I find that kind of hinky. 

Stay safe.


Jester said...

I love it when the "I was/am in the military and think no one should be allowed these weapons" There is one of those in every unit it seems like. Still, my response to them all is roughly the same. You carried the best weapons available to you when you were in the line of duty to keep you alive, why would anyone with out the extensive training, body armor, and other equipment have less of a right to the simplest of things to make them more safe?

Blue said...

Jester... It takes all kinds, eh? :)

I usually just read the news articles and the comments. Always the comments. I don't often comment because myself because I end up getting involved in arguments with people who will not change their mind no matter how clearly and factually you state your case. It gets frustrating.

I used to go onto the forums to bait Liberals, but my wife tells me that it's mean, so I quit that :)


Jester said...

Oh, that's not very nice. Has no one ever told you its not fair to get in to a battle of the wits with someone that is obviously unarmed? :)

Blue said...

**hanging head in shame** :)

chinasyndrome said...

Blue,say Brother I don't guess the Liberals don't understand that they have ALREADY taken our Assault weapons unless we pony up for a class 3 permit and big money for the guns.These lame ass semiauto's are not Military assault weapons! But like ya say give me a 5000 lb truck 454 I can be a stone cold killer!


Blue said...

You've got it, China! They don't like the looks of some of our weapons, so they hate them and want to ban them. Racists, every one of them. Merry Christmas, Bro. :)

Mulligan said...

Liberal - result of government common sense for cash buy-back program.

Blue said...

Mulligan... Exactly! :)