Rational Discussions

” If you carry a gun in public you are a terrorist. Period. There is no other way around it, because you are using the gun to intimidate in the name of feeling “safe.” But you know what? Your “safety” is a threat to every other person. Every other person. Shouldn’t that scare you? Oh, and they won’t be telling you when they are about to take you out.”
Daniel Carr, commenting on the Moms Demand Victims F******k page, who has the most appropriate profile picture on FB

Armed = Terrorist. Period.

Like this guy. Or 8yo Alexis. Or this pregnant woman.

My “safety,” Mr. Carr, is only a “threat” to someone credibly threatening me with death or bodily injury. If you consider me a threat to you, I’d like you to explain why you’re planning to kill me.

The victim disarming rights-violators frequently claim that we need to have a rational discussion about guns, and whine that RKBA proponents won’t listen to them. This is why: their idea of “rational” is a display of a pathological fear of inanimate tools. They fail to realize that universal preemptively-prove-your-innocence backgrounds checks are not going to be conducted by the 70% of criminals who get their firearms through illicit transactions, nor that they cannot even be required to do so.

The victim disarmers cite research that claims to have studied the laws that best correlate with lowered gun deaths, and conclude that firearm identification (whether through ballistic fingerprinting or microstamping) would help lower deaths by 90%, even though only two states have even had ballistic fingerprinting databases, and one of those gave it up after 15 years of it never leading to a single arrest (and no one has microstamping yet). We are expectedly to “rationally” accept a study that literally cannot support the conclusions it drew because the data is nonexistent or directly contradicts the claim.

To the victim disarming blood dancers, it is rational to believe that surveys in Washington state showed that 90% of the people wanted universal PPYI checks, when less than 60% would actually vote for it.

We are to accept as “rational” the idea that a convicted felon on probation, under a restraining order, who obtained his gun via an illegal straw purchase, and killed 3, and injured 14 would have been stopped by universal PPYI checks.

Two blood dancers from Sandy Hook Promise gave statements to the New Hampshire legislature that it would be “rational” to believe that universal PPYI checks would have stopped that school killer, who obtained his weapons by killing his mother in her bed and stealing her guns.

It is supposed by the people-controlling gun grabbers to be “rational” to ban steel pipe, sheet metal, blocks of metal, nails, springs, rivets, iron oxide and aluminum, and even plastic bags to stop gun violence.

It would be “rational” to lift a nonexistent ban on gun violence research.

“Rational” discussion would accept that gun deaths are increasing, and are caused by the increasing number of guns, when the rate of gun deaths is at the lowest level in decades (while guns per capita is at a record level).

“Rational” discussion by the gun controllers’ standard means accepting delusion over reality.

Let’s have that rational discussion just as soon as your doctors get your medications balanced.


Ed. note: This commentary appeared first on TZP’s weekly email alert. If you would like to be among the first to see new commentary (as well as to get notice of new polls and recaps of recent posts), please sign up for our alert list. (See sidebar or, if you’re on a mobile device, scroll down). Be sure to respond when you receive your activation email!

Facebooktwittergoogle_plusredditpinteresttumblrmail

5 thoughts on “Rational Discussions”

  1. Rational discussions?

    Some clown made a driveby snipe at gun rights on a totally unrelated forum once, something about how the founding fathers couldn’t possibly have meant for the current insanity to be happening. I agreed, after all they can’t possibly have wanted millions of people to be defenseless against thugs.

    Now of course I knew that wasn’t what he meant. 🙂

    He fired back something about how he knew we weren’t going to be having a rational conversation about this, and thousands of people get murdered versus, like, 7, defensive gun uses per year.

    My response was that any time *he* was willing to give up on spewing made up statistics (7? really?) and give up his other irrational attitudes, we could have that rational conversation.

    1. Sometimes they don’t want “discussion” at all.

      Very early on, the Demanding Mommies posted a F******k graphic about the risks outweighing benefits of having a gun at home. I commented that they might want to reference something other than the much debunked Kellerman study.

      DM replied that it wasn’t Kellerman.

      I pointed out that the small print on their graphic specifically cited Kellerman as the source.

      They blocked me, and deleted my comments. The graphic stayed up.

      1. You’re right on all counts. They clearly don’t WANT a rational discussion, or any discussion, and I was hoping my story would show that I made it quite plain what the drive by commenter was actually trying to do. On that forum (leftist but very much of the ethic that you have to be prepared to back up what you say) it became obvious he was full of shit.

        The only thing that surprises me about your story was that the Demanding Mommies actually didn’t block you until after your responded to their response to your initial comment. Generally you get ban hammered by them and your comment deleted INSTANTLY–not an actual reply that acknowledges your point (even if it denies it too). You actually got to have a (brief) conversation with them. A dubious distinction to be sure.

        1. I think they initially thought I was trying to be helpful, rather than pointing out they were full of impacted execrement. That may be one of the very, very few times my sarcasm was too subtle.

      2. This issue is, for most hopolophobes, entirely an aesthetic or (quasi-)religious issue.

        Objective proofs absolutely fail to sway them because their original belief was in no way connected to rationality.

        BTW, My beliefs are correct, and all y’alls going to H – E – Double-Toothpicks. 😉

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *