Quote of the day—Ed Suspicious

The only constant in gun deaths is the presence of guns. Remove the guns you remove the gun deaths. Sounds great to me.

Ed Suspicious
May 11, 2014
Comment to John Oliver nails it on gun control
[Ahhh yes, the great “gun death” argument. As if everyone that dies from a gunshot wound is a tragedy and there is no benefit to gun ownership.

Don’t ever let anyone tell you that no one wants to take away your guns.—Joe]

29 thoughts on “Quote of the day—Ed Suspicious

  1. Diagram his “logic”. There’s something missing in his argument. The missing element is called a cause/effect connector.

    Grading this as a logic exercise gives this person an ” F-“

  2. I also like this one for ye olde ‘fill in the blank’ exercise.

    The only constant in ____ deaths is the presence of _____.
    Cars, poison, old age, nuclear explosions, yada yada.

    Ed deserves a Derp Of The Day award.

    • The only constant in life is the presence of death.

      We should just kill everyone and everything. That’ll fix it for sure!

    • Indeed, let’s remove cars, and hey, presto! no car deaths.
      If it saves just one child’s life, let’s do it!
      I would bet Ed never took a class named “Logic”, yet he thinks he thinks logically.

  3. I believe that “air” is also a constant, unless murder is conducted in a vacuum. So, removing air would also remove the gun deaths. Or maybe footwear. Or trigger fingers. Remove them all, just to be sure. For the children.

  4. Also I doubt he’s clamoring for disarming the police.
    (Even if he screams about the “pigs” and chants “No Justice; No Peace. Don’t Trust the police.)

    And I’d lay good money that he’s be just peachy with NYC style carry. Because *of course* the important people should be able to have guns. And who better to pick who is deserving than the cops?

  5. No one ever died prior to the invention of the firearm.

    Note that the pretend hand-wringing over “gun death” is coming from the very same people who warn that there are far too many human beings on planet Earth already, that the population needs to be reduced by several billion.

    Can anyone else explain this seeming hypocrisy, i.e. can you find the consistency? It exists, but I’m almost tired of explaining it.

    • Wouldn’t you feel a lot safer if everyone just carried a spear around? Think about it….

      • Spears can still be thrown, and spears can still be stabbed into people.

        No.

      • As long has humanity exists there will always be violence. People still died long before the invention of gunpowder, let alone advances in firearm technology.

      • I should also ask you this, ubu, why don’t you start your own blog?

        • I don’t really want a blog, just like I don’t want to do facebook or twitter.

          • We can bring twitter to you, then. Here’s one from a friend of mine. You can find him elsewhere if you wish;
            “The perverse pleasure of judging another person is a booby prize. If you don’t wake up, not only can you not change, it can destroy you both.”

          • So the better question is then, why pick this blog, over every other gun blog?

          • She comments at Sharp as a Marble as well as here. Maybe other places too.

            Robb and I are both reasonably tolerant of her. She has left 1,178 comments here and I don’t think I have said anything more harsh to her than something to the effect, “Now you are just trolling.”

            Some gun blogs have banned her.

          • Wow! I’ve been banned? Where? I’ve never tried to post anywhere but here and Robb’s blog. That’s pretty funny if people are banning me. Beyond you and Robb, I only read a couple of other blogs on occasion. I’ve never tried to post on them. They never really say anything interesting enough to comment on.

          • I’m pretty sure I read that on someones blog that they had banned you but I don’t remember where it was now.

            I found it a bit extreme because I never found you that irritating even when I thought maybe you were trying to be.

        • The purpose ubu serves is that of irritant, as is clearly demonstrated in the “hand grenade” comment below. If she were to retire to a blog of her own, she’d still be required to come here and poke at us, so there’d be little point in another blog.

          The Dark Side relies on generating irritation in its perspective subjects, and so it is an important role which must be served. It is imperative; otherwise the whole mess just falls apart and evaporates in the fire of truth.

          I’ve been trying to convince ubu, through increasingly gentle prodding, to stop serving her appointed role and take up allegiance with the cause of freedom, but it is a tricky process that rarely succeeds.

          Still, it is our obligation to lead by example. Unfortunately I have not been a very good example, as I’ve “yelled” at her many times in the past (falling for the irritation trick myself, you see). Thus it will take a lot more time, if ever it is to have any success.

          • My opinions of you and some of the others have changed over the years. I see you as rather comical yet thoughtful. I like that you actually think about things and don’t respond in some doctrinaire way. It’s refreshing. (There are too many who seem to just spout the party line — just like the anti’s do.)

          • And what was your opinion of me before you changed and came to think of me as “comical yet thoughtful”?

          • It’s Lyle I find comical and thoughtful. Some of his posts are very humorous.

            I’d have to think about describing you, Joe… 😉

      • Would I – a smaller, weaker person – feel safer in a world where the stronger will always win?

        No, not really.

        What a silly question.

        • THAT is the point; firearms have been a “great equalizer” in that an 80 pound granny can be on fairly equal ground with a 250 pound linebacker in a fight, if she’s packing heat.

          My goodness; the Founders talked about this very thing. It’s as if there were a force that keeps people from remembering it.

          Besides; we have no need to wonder what it would be like if everyone were limited to spears. The Roman Empire did a pretty good job of conquering and killing en masse using just such technology. Nor is weapon restriction by government in order to suppress the people a phenomenon restricted exclusively to the age of gunpowder. Laws against knives, swords or bows were not (and are not) terribly rare. Need we continue with this silly distraction?

          • Why should a small, weak, 80-lb. granny have to rely on a firearm that only creates a small hole in its target? Why can’t she throw a hand grenade instead? Hand grenade don’t weigh as much as firearms do!

          • Ubu52 – if your grandma has the upper arm strength to lob the grenade far enough so that the shrapnel won’t kill her, and if she’s willing to shred more furniture with the hand grenade than with a handgun, and if she can make sure that she throws the grenade in an area where the shrapnel can be reliably contained (say, a basement) and not hit any innocents in that room), then sure, why not?

          • If granny has a threat that she thinks needs prescription M67, then I’m fine with it. I hope she can give a loud, “fire in the hole!” first, but combat is messy.

      • Well, Ubu — _I_ might feel safer if the epitome of portable weapons technology was a spear.

        I’ve _professionally_trained_ with a spear (heck, used to get paid by you to train others how to use a spear – whaddya think a bayoneted rifle is?), and have reasonable agility and upper body strength.

        On the other hand, my sister with serious joint issues, under five feet tall, and no training, might not fair so well against some young, muscular thug.

        Yet, the first time she picked up a handgun (at nearly 30 years old), she was able to keep all her shots well within a torso sized target at 21 feet.

Comments are closed.