Too sarcastic?

As I noted this morning James Higham in the U.K. is challenging the utility of gun bans. I chimed in with a somewhat sarcastic comment on his blog:

CherryPie said, I don’t agree with arms in our own homes that is the thin end of the wedge and would lead to complete lawlessness.

That is an interesting hypothesis. Can you demonstrate where this has actually happened?

My experience has been that when a gun has been put in the hands of an individual they are no more or less law abiding than they were before the gun was in their hands. I’ve even put a gun in the hands of a guy from England to test the hypothesis that Brits can’t be trusted with guns. I didn’t really believe that hypothesis but I thought I should test it because apparently the British government believes it to be true.

He took a few shots then then told me, “It’s just a piece of metal! I thought I would be nearly overcome by a sense of power. But it’s just a piece of metal.”

Yup. Just a piece of metal. And he was no more inclined to shoot someone than he would have been inclined to hit someone if the piece of metal had been the shape of a hammer or to cut someone if the metal was in the shape of a knife. A similar experiment with another Brit yielded similarly benign results.

I admit it’s a very small sample size but at this time I’m disinclined to believe the presence of firearms in British homes represents a greater risk of lawlessness than does the presence of knives and/or hammers.

Perhaps you have access to some data which I do not and can share it with me.

Was I too sarcastic? Not enough? Or was it just about right?

9 thoughts on “Too sarcastic?

  1. “knives and/or hammers”

    Shhhhh! They already have knife control in the U.K. Now you’ll have them after hammers next.

  2. Joe, I think your sarcasm is sometimes more than mere sarcasm.

    You said, “when a gun has been put in the hands of an individual they are no more or less law abiding than they were before.”

    Well I certainly agree with that. The thing you seem to be bypassing is the fact that some people are not responsible or law abiding, and that goes for gun owners and CCW holders just like everybody else.

    No one is saying the gun makes the person act badly, and for you to keep suggesting that that’s what’s being argued is beyond sarcasm.

  3. #1 don’t feed the idiot troll.

    #2 a few more lessons from Tam wouldn’t hurt!

  4. Just about right, I’d say. Put a gun in the hand of a law abiding citizen, and they will still be a law abiding citizen. Of course, the Brits don’t believe in the right of a person to defend themselves with violence when they are faced with violence. At least, they seem to prosecute the victims of crime when they defend themselves.

  5. I see you have avoided the previous topic where you were getting your arse firmly handed to you, MikeB. Do you thus admit defeat (silence being consent, and all) and yield the two points you were attempting (failing, but attempting) to argue?

    Furthermore, CherryPie was proposing exactly this: “the gun makes the person act badly”. England is not already in a condition of “complete lawlessness” (well, actually, it is, but that is not due to the law-abiding people living in their homes). Furthermore, American is also not in a condition of “complete lawlessness”. England does not have firearms in houses, America does. Cherry Pie would have its readers believe that adding firearms to homes would create this condition of “complete lawlessness”. Obviously, that position is fallacious, but given that the only part of the equation that changed was the firearm, she is also obviously implying that the firearms in question will make the people in question “act badly”. The Brits are not already “completely lawless”, so how will the firearms change anything?

    The comment seems snarky enough for me, Joe, especally since you were able to provide first-hand experience with the situation… I need to head over to Mr. Higham’s post at some point myself…

  6. Just about right. Taking apart the logic behind an assertion is important, and you did it well. A legitimate argument can survive a full vivisection. CherryPie’s died with the first cut (“Can you demonstrate where this has actually happened?”) and then started rotting on the slab.

  7. Poor CherryPie. Sheis well out of her depth and sinking rapidly. She is a died in the wool Socialist btw so has her beliefs and not many facts to keep her company. Bit like Scot from ‘Scot goes Pop’

  8. Lord; I think you meant “dyed” in the wool. Either might be applicable, so I could be wrong. Sheep falling into the abyss socialism do in fact die in the wool, no matter how their wool is dyed.

  9. It was always going to be like that when I just suddenly came out with that post, it was going to get hit by the socialists. On another one, global governance, another socialist came in and talked bullsh and also had to be stopped.

    We’re up against it in Britain because there are a lot of people who don’t like guns, period. So no reasons are going to change them. Home protection is the only way to get the point through. The idea of an Englishman’s home being his castle also appeals to us.

    I appreciated the support over there and it reinforced in my mind that the anti-gun minds have amazing brains, amazing attitudes. They fight with no facts and somehow expect to win. It’s absolute bullsh that taking people’s guns reduces crime. There is so much evidence that it makes things worse but those people just don’t want to face it.

    They bug me with their attitude.

Comments are closed.