I had seen the graphics below before but just shook my head and went on. Reader Rob sent them to me today and pointed out it’s self-parodying. They are from the main page of the Brady Campaign website.

In the first graphic they actually say guns murdered people. It seems to me if that is the case all those biologists trying to create and/or modify life in a “test tube” should be redirected to study common metals, charcoal forges, hammers, and drills. Apparently the secret to life was discovered with the invention of the first firearms four or five hundred years ago.

Okay, so maybe I was taking them a little too literally. But my point is they twist the meanings of words to achieve their goals. It is only by telling half-truths and sometimes outright lies that they can achieve political traction. We need to rub their noses in it in a very public manner.

In the second graphic they try to take advantage of a negative stereotype of the gun owner as a vandal who shoots up a sign. They also imply that disallowing guns makes a workplace safer. To test that hypothesis answer this question, “Which is a safer workplace, a maximum security prison or a police station?” Nearly no one has a gun in the prison (including the guards who are in contact with the prisoners) and almost everyone has a gun in the police station. Of course the police station is safer–because the people there are much more likely to be trustworthy people. It’s the people, not the guns, that make the difference.

In the world view of the Brady bunch the concept of there being more than one variable that contributes to personal safety is too difficult of a concept. Guns have no will of their own and are tools that can be used for good or evil but making the intellectual leap from the gun to the person pulling the trigger is just asking too much of their feeble brains.

Either that or they have mental problems.


6 thoughts on “Self-parody

  1. I have to admit though, I’m surprised they used the correct number and not the 30,000 lie they’re used to spreading.

    I wonder how much of our actions calling them out on it had to do with it?

  2. …the concept of their (sic) being more than one variable that contributes to personal safety is too difficult of a concept…

    That’s the problem I see with most of them. My own very liberal brother (IQ around 150) believes that he’s actually “thought” about something if he considers a single cause and a single effect. Then he holds anyone that sees a broader picture and disagrees with him in disdain. Baffling.

  3. There are a host of statistical problems with the argument, and admittedly, the answer wouldn’t fit on a poster.

    The U.S. population is around 295 million, New Zealand’s is 4.1 million. It is an exercise left to the reader to discover all the other intricacies of crime rates and their cycles.

    Disarmers have yet to produce a rational, scientific argument that demonstrates our rate is anomalous, and that probably isn’t possible at this stage of the game — the arguments thus far generally fall into the category of: ‘How do we completely wipe out knowledge of a 500-year-old invention from the minds of all 6 billion people on the Earth?’ However, disarmers have aided in greatly in demonstrating to the world disarming people doesn’t change their basic nature and therefore has no effect on violent behavior or crime. The best case scenario for so-called “gun control” is that it has no overall effect on crime or the root cause, i.e. human behavior.

    So I guess that’s why Pro-Heller groups are filing detailed briefs containing accurate historical information, and disarmament groups print posters with meaningless numbers.

  4. I actually thought that the second one was pretty good, in that it showed exactly how useless a “no guns” sign is.

  5. Useless? What do you mean by that? I can pick out the holes better than on a Shoot-N-See target!

  6. I was thinking that the second graphic was a self parody because the workplace is obviously not safe. Somebody didn’t obey the sign (or is practicing to be a sniper? B-) ).

Comments are closed.