The best comeback ever about Guns.

reply to post by KarlG


Karl, this myth is not about justifying Gun Ownership. For me, its about argueing the perceptions that Guns will ultimately lead to someone being a "killer". Your Pen analogy is assinine.

I didn't come up with the pen analogy. Some other guy did. I AGREE with you, in that the pen analogy IS assinine. Precisely so, because pens cannot be compared to guns.

And because women cannot be compared to guns either, the case for teenagers getting exposed to guns via military education is not justified.

Though certainly, YES, not ALL teenagers or people will go on shooting sprees (CLEARLY, pls don't think I don't see that) but the ones that do will probably kill more people than if he had decided to vent his frustrations through beating someone up or stabbing someone else. We're not talking prostitution here, where a woman who goes around having sex for money kills a large number of men AND women outrightly without giving them a fighting chance.

As long as there ARE massacres happening, there is most certainly a flaw in the system. It cannot be a case where "oh, it's just one or two cases... or fifteen... maybe fifty since 2004, nothing much." The stakes of people becoming violent shooters is entirely different from the stakes of people going into prostitution. It's probably less. But at the same time, the outcome of people becoming violent shooters is probably more dangerous. And that is my pt, NOT comparing guns to women, though yes, I do that because I want to bring across some level of why the two are fundamentally incomparable. My point is that though not everyone will become violent killers as mentioned in the interview, but the ones who do (which aren't a small number btw) kill far too many people and create far too much chaos.

You just can't help but wonder what would happen if this depressed / insulted man didn't have access to guns, or bullets, or restricted his movements. I know he may still have access through underground means, but that is why I don't think banning is a good idea. I think another altternative solution should be thought up.

You JUST can't tell if ANYONE will or will not take his guns to the streets. And that is a risk people should NOT be willing to take.

You may have differing opinions, sure, or you may be a SUPER PRO-SUPPORTER (as it would appear many people here are) but if you're not, don't let this interesting, funny anecdote change your stance.

When i saw this on twitter, i was expecting this "best comeback ever" to be substantial and strong, but instead it was just funny. And the thing is that funny DOES NOT = the best answer to solve the problem. (Well, best in terms of entrtainment value, I guess.) You can't just say, "oh it's just the equipment. Nothing more" and just walk away. The fact is that shootings are happening, and it could happen to anyone.

Even you. Any one of you. Is that a chance you're willing to take?

P.S. You can keep pointing out my argument flaws, but at the same time, answer me this: what are the benefits of gun ownership for our general society? I have not seen the GOOD of it, and even if there are some good pts as some of you might bring out, think about it on the cost-benefit analytical scale.

WOW ~!! S&F ~!! I love IT and going to send this out like spam on yahoo!! LOL..

whoo hooo~! I love it.. 'silent for 45 secs .. interview over...bye bye now






[edit on 8-4-2009 by Komodo]

OK i just wanted to say it's no use for me trying to argue here, since we clearly have differing opinions and views, and that is absolutely great.

But just don't let interviews which are, by the way, fallacious urban myths, change your mindset, whichever stance you may have. That's all I have to say.

Going off to do some reading now.

Peace.

LOVE ALL OF YA!

See you peeps.

P.S. And I'm planning to post an encounter with shadow people. If anyone has experiences do hop over to... um... the forum which talks about shadow creatures.

[edit on 9-4-2009 by KarlG]

And because women cannot be compared to guns either, the case for teenagers getting exposed to guns via military education is not justified.

See, you miss the point, there is no comparison between the two, its about the presence of some factor automatically rendering an individual as being something. i.e. a child presented with a gun will be a killer, all women have the physicality to facilitate prostitution therefor they are all prostitutes. It is an argument against perception not about endorsement. IMHO.

Though certainly, YES, not ALL teenagers or people will go on shooting sprees (CLEARLY, pls. don't think I don't see that) but the ones that do will probably kill more people than if he had decided to vent his frustrations through beating someone up or stabbing someone else. We're not talking prostitution here, where a woman who goes around having sex for money kills a large number of men AND women outrightly without giving them a fighting chance.

What if a person stabs someone, do we move on to knives. What about people who snap and drive a car into a crowd, do we ban vehicles. People will find a way to kill, period, we have seen this throughout history. I think to deprive the vast majority of one thing due to its potential is what upsets pro gun lobby's the most. Hi-jackers apparently killed 3000 people with planes, should we not let kids on planes?

As long as there ARE massacres happening, there is most certainly a flaw in the system.

No one is saying the system is flawless karl, this is the gamble we take in a free society, where we expect other individuals to respect and treasure the value of an others life and liberty. Unfortunately not everyone complies. To penalise all others due to potential could be a scenario applicable to every instance where one individual could cause the death of another, do we then police or encroach on all potentials. In a free society, guns are used for a variety of reasons, like knives, chemicals, drugs, baseball bats, tyre levers. All these are all used in instances
to kill one or more people.

It cannot be a case where "oh, it's just one or two cases... or fifteen... maybe fifty since 2004, nothing much." The stakes of people becoming violent shooters is entirely different from the stakes of people going into prostitution. It's probably less. But at the same time, the outcome of people becoming violent shooters is probably more dangerous. And that is my pt, NOT comparing guns to women, though yes, I do that because I want to bring across some level of why the two are fundamentally incomparable. My point is that though not everyone will become violent killers as mentioned in the interview, but the ones who do (which aren't a small number btw) kill far too many people and create far too much chaos.

This is why the debate on gun control revolves around the types of weapons available( i don't see why people need assault rifles, full automatics weapons etc), to whom they may become available too and laws regarding the storage and safe keeping of weapons are in place(in my county anyway).

You just can't help but wonder what would happen if this depressed / insulted man didn't have access to guns, or bullets, or restricted his movements. I know he may still have access through underground means, but that is why I don't think banning is a good idea. I think another alternative solution should be thought up.

I agree, I think disaffected individuals who hold society at large accountable for the source of their misfortune, poor circumstances or grievances will always be looking to pay back that very society. There will always be an element of this as no society on this earth is perfect.

You may have differing opinions, sure, or you may be a SUPER PRO-SUPPORTER (as it would appear many people here are) but if you're not, don't let this interesting, funny anecdote change your stance.

I think what most people get worked up about in America, is that it is written within the very fabric of their society that they are free to have these weapons, it is a right. I don't see the harm in them defending these rights and I really don't see the logic of removing these rights because there is a potential for an individual to do harm.

When i saw this on twitter, i was expecting this "best comeback ever" to be substantial and strong, but instead it was just funny.

All I can say to you is that you should not make assumptions.

And the thing is that funny DOES NOT = the best answer to solve the problem.

We all have our opinions.

(Well, best in terms of entertainment value, I guess.) You can't just say, "oh it's just the equipment. Nothing more" and just walk away. The fact is that shootings are happening, and it could happen to anyone.

We are not saying it is just the equipment, quite the opposite, I am glad you agree. The whole point of the myth is that it is not about the equipment.

Even you. Any one of you. Is that a chance you're willing to take?

You can apply this rationale to any number of scenarios, like driving, drinking alcohol, having unprotected sexual intercourse. There are all risks involved. As I said before, that is the trade off we have by not policing everything with the potential for harm as an outcome. Guns are no different.

P.S. You can keep pointing out my argument flaws, but at the same time, answer me this: what are the benefits of gun ownership for our general society? I have not seen the GOOD of it, and even if there are some good pts as some of you might bring out, think about it on the cost-benefit analytical scale.

How do you put a figure or quantity on what is the benefit when you talk about being free or exercising a right.
Ask a Police officer how they feel about the benefits of having a weapon?
Ask a society that sees it fit to arm its police force what benefits its sees?
Ask Gun owners what benefits they have.
Ask a farmer.
An element of protection from the tyranny of governments.
Civil defence and the protection of national sovereignty.
Personal protection and the defence of ones own property.
I guess I can find some benefits, besides there are a number of economical recreational benefits to surrounding clubs, sport, businesses, tourism and jobs associated with sports hunting, competitive shooting etc. etc.

Thanks for your replies and contribution to the thread KarlG.

[edit on 9-4-2009 by atlasastro]

reply to post by atlasastro


Well said, astro.

I wished you had dissected it to me that way earlier. It's clearer now where're you're coming from.

And yes, I think my stand would anger pro-gun supporters. If it DIDN'T, i would be surprised.

The thing about hijackers taking over planes is that the government HAS attempted to correct this problem with security checks at airports which have been GREATLY stepped up. It's not as if the hijacking continued because the government decided not to do anything about it because it would anger the public and hence cause a drop in popularity.

But gun supporters WOULD get angry, and thats why governments aren't doing anything to at least make this problem less... rampant. Look at the Breaking Alternative News forum, for example. How many stories about shooting have there been? One recent one about Christians getting killed in California.

How many articles are there about people ramming cars through crowds? Sure, there are some, but they are not that rampant as shootings, for some reason, even though more people own cars than guns.

It would be because cars have a USE. To transport, to drive.

FOR ME (for me, only), I just cannot see any other use for guns besides self-defense. It may be a big factor for you but when many people travel, they don't carry guns on them anyway. In the end they are only useful for defense against breaking/entering.

Again, I understand danger is expected in any free society. Freedom is PRECISELY WHAT IS SO GREAT ABOUT OUR COUNTRY THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA!!!

But complete freedom... isn't the MOST beneficial to our people in general. There needs to be a balance. And I guess cost-benefits analysis isnt always the right way to come up with a balance, because it's so subjective. But I just want there to be a balance. I just KNOW there's a way to come up with a balance in there SOMEWHERE!!!

And yeah, I made such an assumption about it being the "best comeback ever". I just thought... it was like a genuine comeback.

Ah, well. My expectations and hopes tend to get too high.

Son of a !!!!!!

I just emailed this and find out it's been snoped!
That will teach me not to pass on info until about 3 pages into the thread. That aught to enough give time for debunking

So is it a complete fabrication?
Did this interview take place? Did SOMEBODY ever say this?

[edit on 9-4-2009 by GuyverUnit I]

reply to post by atlasastro
I like this guy. Seems like a straight shooter my type of decent man. I'd like to give him a medal.

reply to post by GuyverUnit I


Yeah, ditto dude, I posted the OP only to be informed by a fellow member that this was an urban myth. Thats what I love about ATS. There is always someone out there that will have an answer or be willing to question, research and ultimately share the truths they have found.

[edit on 15-4-2009 by atlasastro]

"guns dont kill people. People kill people, as well as random other natural events" Unknown. Nuff said