How many Billion people in the world Don’t carry a gun? Ever. And live to tell about it. They don’t get the shit kicked out of themselves day in and day out, and most important they most likely have normal sized genitalia.
Ruckus
March 4, 2010
Comment to Open Thread: Penis Substitutes At the Ready!
[It’s another Markley’s Law Monday!
How many billions of people in the world don’t use their fire extinguisher, smoke detector, or car seatbelt and live to tell about it? Yet it’s going to be rare that people make fun of them for possessing those safety items.
How many people wish they were carrying a gun when they were mugged, raped, or kidnapped?
And how many of those nearly one hundred million people that were murdered by their own government in the 20th Century wished they had a gun as they were lined up at the ditches waiting for the bullet to the back of the neck, starving in concentration camps, or arrested in the middle of the night and taken to a basement cell for execution?—Joe]
Yep a common fallacy of “Progressives” that quickly deteriorates with some quick application of logic.
Also shows the arrogance of “Progressives”, Essentially they say “If X doesn’t happen to me, X Doesn’t really happen!”
Rape, Famine, Disease, Disaster, the list goes on.
Aaaaand Markleys law strikes again! I propose a new type of formal logical error: reductio ad genitalium
For that matter, the same can be said about those who carry guns. How many millions, perhaps even billions, of people carry a gun, and no one gets hurt by it? Or, if they do harm someone, they either do so defending innocent life, or as willing participants of a fight (which is illegal, but you can’t fix stupid)?
How many police officers carry a gun, but never use it to hurt another human, or even point it at another human? That number would be interesting to see! There are many police officers who go about their daily work, without ever having to pull their gun on someone.
Indeed, before formerly Great Britain banned pistols, the police weren’t required to carry…but now that pistols are banned, and violent crime is going up, those police officers are now required to carry guns. Or maybe a disease just started spreading among British police officers, that cause their genitalia to all shrink…
Since that noted totalitarian Ruckus felt it necessary to violate Markley’s Law in lieu of any real analysis and reference to fact, I find it appropriate to violate Godwin’s law in order to point out the errors in his reasoning (I’m feeling generous on that one). Maybe not Billions and Billions, with apologies to Carl Sagan, but certainly 11 million Jews, Gypsies, Catholics, Trade Unionists, Lutherans, Homosexuals, and miscellaneous “useless eaters” at the hands of the Nazis, and some uncounted millions at the hands of Lenin, Stalin, and Mao (if it isn’t considered Gauche to point out the flaws of fellow leftists).
It is curious to examine the rest of Ruckus’s comment:
“Bruce Lee didn’t need a gun.”
Perhaps this is true. We really don’t know for sure, as there are still some unexplained aspects to his death in 1973. As for his performances in movies, well, those are the movies, and Jackie Chan doesn’t seem to need a gun, either, nor, to keep on the East Asian theme, did Spencer Tracy need one in Bad Day at Black Rock — He acquitted himself pretty well there for a one-armed man.
“I hope that some day I will see the end to the bullshit that we live in the wild west and only with steely eyed reserve, blue steel and hot lead will we be able to see the sunrise tomorrow.”
Again with the Wild-West metaphor. They (and Ruckus) would do well to consider that at the same time in the “Wild West”, when the outlaws were all known by name, the cities of the east were such cesspools of violent crime that the names of the murderers and robbers were legion, too many to have history remember any of them. Five Points and Hell’s Kitchen in New York City, at the same time as the James Gang and the Dalton Gang and the Younger Gang, were so violent that the police did not enter those neighborhoods in groups of fewer than four. And it was the same in Boston and Philadelphia. Yet we don’t here about THOSE places where concealed carry was prohibited.
“Individual freedom requires actual responsibility to the community one lives in, not just knowing how to dust off the Cheeto crumbs and operate a belt buckle.”
Can’t argue with this part of his statement, we owe it to society to stop voting for and ratifying illiberal unconstitutional totalitarian laws. Ruckus ought to brush the Cheetos crumbs from his mouth, pull up his pants, and use his computer to write his leftist representatives to condemn totalitarian leftist laws.
We have “Godwin’s Law” to describe fallacious references to Nazis as an ad hominem effort to win arguments sans reasoning, we have “Markley’s Law” to describe fallacious references to guns as penis substitutes as an ad hominem effort to win arguments sans reasoning, we really need something to describe fallacious references to the wild west when speaking about the existence of guns in the hands of private citizens in their daily lives, where the invoker fails to consider the historical truth of the matter.
The Roy Rodgers Law? Hopalong Cassidy Law? I’m looking for something recognizable yet subtly derisive. “The Sugarfoot Law” would be too obscure. The TV Cowboy Law? (That might be too susceptible to abuse as was the case with the phrase “Ugly American” vis a vis the novel of the same name).
Matthew Fenn, Yep, and to keep it consistent with the 152 ancient and modern logical fallacies in the fashion of, say, “Argumentum Ad Hominem”, I submit “Argumentum Ad Naziismus”, “Argumentum Genitalia”, and “Argumentum ad Gunsmokus.”
@Windy Wilson, Lone Ranger’s Law? Gun Smoke Law?
I agree with Joe Huffman.
I would go farther to state that I will gladly put up with all of the relatively rare misuses and accidents with firearms when compared with the potential to stop the abuses of power by governments that killed millions upon millions of innocent people in just recent history. Some measure of perspective has to be employed.
When anti-gunners refuse to understand our history and human nature and then go on to promote their utterly USELESS gun control policies, they embolden evil-doers.