Random thought of the day

I won’t pretend to say I know what they really think, if they think at all, but what many of the anti-gun people express is they fear the things gun owners might do. We might commit a violent crime. We might accidently shoot someone. We might try to overthrow the government. And they want laws in place to prevent such things.

How is this different than those that expressed fear about what people with dark colored skin might do if they were given their freedom, or allowed to vote, or mingle with your white skinned daughters?

It is time they moved past their imaginary fears. People must be judged on what they actually do and not on what they might do. Prevention is prior restraint and that cannot be allowed for a specific enumerated right.

Certainly judgment can and should be passed on the results of what actually happens. And if mixed race marriages occur or even a government is overthrown occasionally the possibility of that being a good thing should be considered in the light of the actuality rather than in the potentiality.

33 thoughts on “Random thought of the day

  1. “Fear leads to anger. Anger leads to hate. Hate leads to…suffering.” — Yoda

    Cowards are the bullies of the world, or they’re cheering on the bullies while they themselves hide in the shadows.

  2. “I won’t pretend to say I know what they really think, if they think at all, but what many of the anti-gun people express is they fear the things gun owners might do.”

    Yes. They fear gun owners might actually use their guns since they are repeatedly told “guns are tools.” Tools get used. Everyday, the newspapers are full of stories of people using these tools. How foolish is it to think guns are going to be used?

  3. How is this different than those that expressed fear about what people with dark colored skin might do if they were given their freedom, or allowed to vote, or mingle with your white skinned daughters?

    In no way, shape, or form is it different… and I kind of always figured that was what you were arguing with your whole “bigotry” angle.

    Unfortunately, the anti-rights cultists only have potentialities to work with – after all, neither you, nor I, nor the overwhelming majority of firearm owners have ever been convicted of a crime, and no one has any reason to believe we would commit a crime in the future… and even if they did, it would be immaterial. Every male in the world has the potential of being a rapist, and yet we do not start arbitrarily locking them up… or sterilizing them.

    I wonder if the “gun control” supporters would ever extend their logic to that point?

    Of course, what UBU52 refuses to recognize, because it does not fit into her narrow, intolerant view of the world, is that tools – including firearms – are frequently, and damned-near-exclusively, used for completely non-violent, non-destructive purposes. Using “the newspapers” as a basis of understanding for how firearms are generally used is about as accurate as using NASCAR as a basis for how cars are generally used.

  4. Might, may, could…

    Ah where is “Pre-Crime” when you need it?

    We’ll just create a Utopia where the mere thought of a crime is as good as doing it.

    We will judge motives, which cannot be measured, but that won’t stop our progress to a more perfect world.

    Hmmm. I think that I am living in a nightmare, where no one is responsible and government works at every level to erase consequences of behavior – as long as the sheeple bow to the governement.

    [The “Minority Report” and “Serenity” refereences are not accidental – – both represent a place I’d rather not go.]

  5. I prefer Sir Winston Churchill’s admonishment. When confronted at a party by some leftist troll who attempted to gig him for some conservative fault or another, cautioning that he “might” have that fault, Sir Winston replied to the effect that she was equipped by God and Nature to be a whore, and “might” that make her one? When your point is made in such a fine manner, all will wilt before it. Perhaps Col. West might have studied Sir Winston before taking on Waterman-Sheist, who Sir Winston’s caution seems to actually apply to.

  6. In response to Ubu52,
    Yes, guns are used every day. Some of them are even used to do bad things. In like manner, we could truthfully say that every day some people with dark skin do bad things.

    To lock up all people with dark skin would not only be an immense injustice, it would also ignore the fact that the people doing bad are only a small percentage of the entire group, and a much larger percentage are doing good on a regular basis. In like manner, to restrict all guns (or broad classes of guns) because a tiny percentage of them are used to commit crimes does injustice to the vast majority of gun owners who possess and operate their guns responsibly. It also ignores the much larger number of cases when guns are used to prevent crime, injury and death. In most of these cases, the gun does not even need to be fired and nothing ends up in the newspaper.

  7. Sorry, that thinking is faulty. Humans have the ability to think and imagine the future, and therefore we fear. That’s part of the human condition. An animal without the capacity to fear isn’t sentient.

    I don’t want radicals emigrating from countries that hate us, because I’m afraid of what they might do.
    I want psychopaths to be tried and executed, because I’m afraid of what they might do when released.
    I’m against voting for Democratic candidates, because I’m afraid of what they might do if they gain power.
    I’m against slathering myself with honey and laying in the grass by fire ant mounds, because I’m afraid of what those fire ants might do to me.

    Taking your point further, would be saying that each individual should get the complete benefit of the doubt until proven guilty – insanity. It that were reasonable, you’d post your SSN and credit card numbers, bank account info, home phone # on this blog, right? Are any of your readers demonstrated criminals, and if so, have they ever robbed you personally? If not, you’re just afraid of what somebody might do.
    ——–
    I think you point actually is that the government should be limited, and should not be empowered to limit the freedom of citizens based on fears.

  8. @ubu52, You are being, I suspect, deliberately misleading.

    Please clarify what you mean by, “They fear gun owners might actually use their guns”.

    If you express a fear of all gun use then you can and will be justifiably branded as in need of mental help. If you express of fear of just criminal use then you lose the debate because the numbers don’t justify the anti-gun agenda. For example, there are about 20,000 to 100,000 rounds of ammunition consumed in a legal manner for every one consumed in a criminal manner. There are about 1000 gun owners with no criminal record for every crime committed with a gun. Compare those ratios to people that might drink and drive, get married and abuse their spouse, go on a date and rape their companion, or get a license to practice medicine and have a medical accident.

    So which is it? A fear that guns might be used in general or a fear they might be used in a criminal manner?

  9. “Yes. They fear gun owners might actually use their guns since they are repeatedly told “guns are tools.” Tools get used. Everyday, the newspapers are full of stories of people using these tools. How foolish is it to think guns are going to be used [to murder people in cold blood]?”

    There–I filled in the missing text that you are implying. I do this, to make my point very clear.

    It is very foolish to assume that guns are tools to be used for cold-blooded murder, for several reasons:

    1. The vast majority of tool use, in this regard, is to put little holes in targets, sometimes for practice, and sometimes for competition. Thus, the vast majority of guns won’t be used in cold blood.

    2. Some of these tools are used to defend life and limb from mortal danger. When counting incident for incident, the greater majority of stories in newspapers themselves are of this nature. When one considers that many of these incidents go unreported–often because the perpetrator runs away, and no one gets hurt, and nothing is stolen–then these tools demonstrate great value when used.

    3. Tools don’t always get used. I’ve recently become interested in slide rules–and I’ve seen pictures of collections of slide rules kept in a case, where they most likely WILL NOT be used. (That isn’t to say that people don’t use slide rules–some do.) For that matter, how many machinists, mechanics, modelers, etc. have at least a handful of tools that either have never been used, or only used once or twice? Sometimes tools are merely collected, because they are fascinating, and because they sometimes even appreciate over time. Or are you going to make the case that anyone who owns a Garand M1, or a Liberator Pistol, or even a muzzle-loading rifle, are just *itching* to kill someone with it?

    Tools are tools–no more, no less. It’s up to the individual to decide what to do with them!

  10. Joe,

    I fear irresponsible people will use their guns, deliberately or accidentally, in places or at times where they shouldn’t.

    I don’t fear crime as much as I fear idiots.

  11. Restrictive laws don’t, and can’t, make people be responsible. People pretty much do what they are going to do anyway, although sometimes they do look over their shoulders before, during, and after.

  12. “I fear irresponsible people will use their (fill in the blank)…”

    A free people do not think in this way, at least not in terms of using such “fear” as an excuse to limit people’s rights and freedom. Tyrants do think that way however. So we have that choice to make, between coercion and liberty. That’s all.

    Still, that’s assuming I take you at your word. I don’t believe you when you say you “fear” what irresponsible gun owners might do. If you had any sense of proportion whatsoever, you’d realize that getting into a motor vehicle and zooming down the streets and highways is many, many times more dangerous than any hazard posed by unrestricted gun ownership. If you’re so afraid of gun owners that you’re willing to see their rights further infringed, that would make you so terribly afraid of motor vehicles, you’d refuse to get into one, and you’d be over on the AAA web site or some drivers’ forum, trolling against car owners, drivers, vehicle manufacturers and sellers all day, with no time to spend here. See; if you really cared about safety, you’d start with the more dangerous and work down. You’d reach guns after you took care of the motor vehicle, swimming pool, staircase, fire, and poisoning problems.

    So I will call you a damned liar, when you say you care at whit about safety in regard to the RKBA, because you aren’t doing any of those other things.

    Nice try and all. You are the coy one, but you’ll have to do about 25 times better, just be to taken as a serious participant in this discussion. Right now you’re still just a bigot, though a more eloquent bigot than most lying bigots. The sooner you realize that, the sooner you can be taken seriously in polite company.

  13. Dustydog brings up a good point. All humans have fear. People who CCW have far more fear of criminals and crime than I do. Why are they so scared?
    ——————–

    “A free people do not think in this way, at least not in terms of using such “fear” as an excuse to limit people’s rights and freedom. Tyrants do think that way however. So we have that choice to make, between coercion and liberty.”

    Joe and I both share a fear of idiots with guns, otherwise he would not have banned someone from Boomershoot. We are not alone as others here applauded the move.

  14. @ubu52, Statistically your fear is misplaced. The death rate by accidental discharge of firearms is 0.2 per 100K and 4.2 per 100K for homicide by firearm. And the suicide rate by firearm is 5.8 per 100K. So you are almost 30 times more likely to intentionally kill yourself with a firearm than to have someone else kill you by accident with a firearm. And the rate (from the same document) for motor vehicle accidents is 24.1 per 100K. Hence even with 300 million guns and 80 million gun owners in this country you are about 120 times more likely to die in a vehicle accident than in a gun accident.

  15. @ubu52, In regards to the Boomershoot ban… that guy repeatedly broke the rules. He was either unable or unwilling to follow them. I feared that individual would accidentally injure himself or others. That individual was judged by my range officers and nearby shooters to be untrustworthy on our range. That individual was punished. This is a big difference from banning all guns or some other group punishment.

  16. @dustydog, you are mostly correct. You are correct in that sense that I did not cover anywhere all of the cases I should have. You are incorrect in the sense that I meant the actions should only apply to government entities.

    The outcome of some things people fear is quite certain such as the fire-ants. Other things are less certain. In the nearly certain case then some remedial action can be taken provided certain conditions are met. I haven’t given this as much thought as I should but my first test would be to weight the proposed action in the following manner. As the following question, “Who will have their rights violated by this action?” In the examples you gave, presuming the psychopaths committed a violent crime which carried a death penalty, there are no rights being violated by what I presume would be your proposed action. In the case of banning the mingling of different races the rights of free association by the individuals involved is being violated. The banning of radicals who wish to harm us from visiting this country does not violate any rights. On the spot shooting of individuals in this country that wear similar clothes to those radicals would violate their rights.

  17. Joe,

    And the 2007 data for nonfatal injuries?

    And this proves what exactly?

    The fact is, firearms weren’t legally allowed on the streets in many places in 2007 while cars were allowed almost everywhere.

    I don’t like idiots with cars either so I don’t know where you are going with this.

    Re: Boomershoot. I’m not for banning all guns. I am for keeping guns out of the hands of individuals who are irresponsible. I don’t see us disagreeing on this issue.

  18. ubu writes: fear irresponsible people will use their guns, deliberately or accidentally, in places or at times where they shouldn’t.

    I don’t fear crime as much as I fear idiots.

    But irresponsible use, as opposed to criminal use, is very rare. We have extraordinarily few accidental gun deaths and the rate is actually dropping. So ubu fears something that is rare. That’s not rational.

  19. Ubu – “why are they [CCW holders] so scared?”

    Fear is a continuum, from debilitating terror on one end to being a bit concerned and more cautious at the other. (Check out the book “The Gift of Fear”, BTW). To ignore real, articulate-able, specific dangers that can easily be prepared for is foolish. Things like the dog down the street that bit me last week (off it’s property) that weighs only a bit less than my youngest child. There’s the level 2 offender that lives less than a half mile from my property. There’s the cougar and bear tracks I’ve seen walking within 300 yards of my house, and coyote scat that’s everywhere. The stream of slightly troubled strangers staying with one of my otherwise very nice neighbors. The car-prowl and near theft a couple of months ago next door. The kids who can’t run as fast or fight as well with a staff as myself (yet). The shop in the seedy part of town that is the only one that carries a particular item I’m looking for. It is my belief that to NOT have a CCW and carry is to abdicate my responsibilities as a parent and spouse, even though I’m also 99.5% (or so) sure I’ll never have to shoot in self defense.

    There is also the convenience factor when buying guns or going to some gun ranges. A CCW is a “good-guy” card with a lot of cops around here (though not all, of course), giving evidence that I’ve had a background check and I’m almost certainly not a danger to them.

    You have fire insurance, right? Does that make you a fearful paranoid about having a fire? No? Well, what about a fire extinguisher? Sprinkler system? Hose? Nearby fire hydrant? Fire-resistant construction? All of them? Which of them are merely “prudent” and which represents irrational fear? Would banning matches be a reasonable thing to prevent house fires? What about assault butane lighters? (Banning magnifying glasses around here (the PNW) would be useless this summer, even though the sprouts have burned holes in things with them)…

  20. @ubu52, I don’t have the time to look it up but the ratio of non-fatal injuries for criminal versus accidental acts will be similar. I proves exactly what I first stated. Your fears are misplaced.

    We are nowhere near to agreement unless you are advocating that “idiots with guns” are to be dealt with on an individual basis by individuals rather than by the government.

  21. No, Joe, the claim that ubu is just worried about “irresponsible” gun owners is a sham. Because ubu will redefine “irresponsible” into the sunset until there is no longer any legal gun ownership since any gun ownership will be “irresponsible”. All based on fantasy fears.

  22. As for “what are CCW holders afraid of?”; the answer is violent criminals. While ubu is afraid of everyone.

  23. Joe,

    I believe “idiots with guns” should be dealt with individually but I believe government plays a role in this. You and I, as individuals, have no power.

  24. Individuals absolutely have power. Joe clearly exercised that when he dealt with an individual at Boomershoot.

    On two separate occasions, I’ve dealt with unsafe people at shooting ranges in a satisfactory manner.

    Those who insist on being unsafe and do end up injuring themselves or others can and should be punished by the legal system for their negligence.

    However, advocating for restrictions on the ability to exercise a fundamental civil right because some may misuse it is the height of the idiocy of collectivist thinking.

    Just because someone, somewhere shits himself doesn’t mean I should have to wear a diaper.

  25. @ubu52, I don’t know about you but I am not an infant or invalid. I have lots of power and exercise it appropriately. The only role government plays is protecting our rights. With “idiots with guns” as in the case of the guy at Boomershoot it was our property rights the government protects which enabled me to tell him he was not longer welcome and have reasonable expectations of my decision being honored.

  26. You and I, as individuals, have no power.

    Just because you feel you are powerless and helpless, and you choose to surrender yourself to that feeling and look desperately to the Government to protect you rather than acting to empower yourself, does not justify your imposing helplessness on others by force, if not directly then through using others as your thugs.

  27. …I believe government plays a role in this. You and I, as individuals, have no power.

    Logic fail. At least when it comes to America.

    Our government was founded, and continues to operate, through the good graces of its populace. It has nothing that we have not provided, surrendered to, or freely offered it. If we have no power, than neither does the government.

  28. “Government OF the people, BY the people, FOR the people, shall not perish from this earth.”

    “WE the PEOPLE…”

    Ubu is now an epic fail.

  29. An individual does not equal “the people” or “the populace.” That takes many individuals.

    A single person is not “the people.”

  30. ubu52, you are a fine wordsmith, but all your work at your smithy does not eliminate the fact that the right to keep and bear arms is an absolute right in this country, and as such, must be taken on it’s face. The correctness or propriety of such a right may be debated, but it is the law, so it must be recognized and upheld.

    Take care sir, that you do not become one advocating for unilateral elimination of rights, for such anarchy is the one thing that brings both ends of the political spectrum together, and then YOU become the object of all opprobrium.

  31. A single person is not “the people.”

    And? A group has nothing the individuals do not, and a group is impossible without distinct individuals.

    Again, fail.

  32. We have extraordinarily few accidental gun deaths and the rate is actually dropping. So ubu fears something that is rare. That’s not rational.”

    UBU fears something that is not just rare, but is so rare as to be statistically insignificant.

    Hell, the fatality rate due to unintentional falls was 7.5 per 100K.

Comments are closed.