Oh yeah? 100% of those killed with firearms were saved by no one using firearms.
Sarah Ibarruri
November 24, 2009
In comments to Why would any one in their right mind be against strict gun control?
[If she thinks this passes as a rational argument then as I said yesterday–she has mental problems.–Joe]
Ouch. That one gave me a headache.
Bwuh?
Is this a trick? I can’t seem to grasp what she’s saying… lemme turn off the stupidity filters between my eyes and brain and give it another shot.
…several minutes pass…
Ohhh. I see. Because some people were killed, and no armed people saved them, GUNS ARE ONLY GOOD FOR MURDER!!!1!!
I’m not kidding, it took me about fifteen tries to wrap my brain around her convoluted phrasing. I suppose she’s a public school graduate and took sociology instead of English comp?
It must suck to walk through life frightened by everything.
Yeah. Isn’t that amazing?
Actually, it isn’t really an argument at all. It IS a rational, almost mathmatical, statement.
“100% of those killed with firearms were saved by no one using firearms”
Nope. They weren’t saved by those using slingshots either. Or by those using the power of words or those using anything else. That’s because “100% of those KILLED with firearms” were not saved at all. 100% are dead.
Obviously it’s a quote taken from a logic problem in a test somewhere…
Agreed, it’s a factual statement. It’s just ridiculous in context–the author is trying to say that a gun would not have positively influenced those situations if it had been present in the right hands.
I read most of the linked thread, and it’s a different world over there. Two voices of sanity against the rest of the nutburgers. I love the bits about firearms being MORE evil and MORE murderous because they can kill at a distance. Yeah, well, I much prefer to do my killing at a distance, thanks. “Fair” fights are for chumps.
I’ll never understand why some people refuse to accept that there are instances when it is necessary to kill in self defense, or take some action that might result in the death of your attacker in halting the attack. What level of injury am I obliged to sustain, according to them, before I’m justified in defending myself with lethal force?
I’m not willing to take ANY injury. If you come at me with just your fists and I feel threatened, I’m drawing my pistol. One more step, and you get 2-3 shots to center mass; repeat as necessary. Pretty simple. That should be the standard, accepted response to aggression everywhere! As far as I’m concerned, the instant you try to hurt me, you’ve forfeited your right to life.
Obviously I’ll use discretion–if a 100 pound woman tries to slap me, or a 13 year old kid tries to hit me, I’m not going to double tap them. I’ll just stop them from hurting me with the force necessary. However, I’m not letting a man punch me in the face. This isn’t the movies; I know people who have been blinded in one eye by single punches. That’s not gonna be me.
context, ubu…context…
Alright then, let’s do this:
100% of those killed with firearms were saved by no one with a liberal/progressive worldview.
Ouch. That hurt too.
100% of those killed with firearms were not saved by gun restrictions.
100% of those killed by any means were not saved by mere laws.
100% of those who favor violations of the right to keep and bear arms are wrong and need to be stopped.