Wednesday, July 18, 2012

Gun control means different things to different people. If a picture is worth a thousand words, video must be worth a million. An example of Effective Gun Control.

Naturally, viewing that video led me to thinking about liberals, logic and physics.

For liberals, gun control means that no one should own a gun, because "guns kill people". As with most liberal mottos, this emotion-invoking statement only makes sense if you don't think about it.

Other things that "kill people!":  knives, automobiles, salt, large trucks, baseball bats, bricks, pianos and safes pushed from windows, pizza, soft drink cups containing more than 16oz of soft drinks (in New York City), butter, golf clubs, salty or sweet snacks, rocks, ballpoint pens, etc. This is not an exhaustive list.  (For liberals, food items--with some notable exceptions--are just as "deadly" as guns.)

The key element for all potentially deadly weapons is that they are only harmful when being handled by people with deadly or irresponsible intentions.

Guns don't kill people. None of those other potentially lethal weapons kill people, either. They are inanimate objects, inert until someone picks them up/drives/pushes toward a window, etc., with the intent or irresponsible handling and does harm.

Loe's Theorem #6 (recently discovered law of physics): You can pick up just about anything and hurt someone with it.

Dropping Fat Man and Little Boy on Nagasaki and Hiroshima to end WWII is an excellent example of picking up an inanimate object and using it with deadly intentions (in that particular case, justified deadly intentions).

That's when objects kill people.  When some other person utilizes them in a deadly way.

I have noticed is that there is never a trial for the inanimate object that kills someone--it's always the person who did the harming/killing. I am not counting the mock public trials that liberals try to use to arbitrarily outlaw something they don't like at that particular moment in history. "Tobacco kills people!"

(Now, before anyone's head explodes, I want you to know I am a non-cigarette smoker and always have been.  Both my parents and three of my grandparents died as a result of smoking cigarettes for years, in my opinion. But I am not blaming their illnesses and resulting deaths on anything other than the fact that they voluntarily chose to use a product that could cause harm for some people if used properly. Hundreds of millions of people smoke cigarettes and don't get cancer or lung disease and die.)

And look at how many tobacco companies changed their ways after all the lawsuits and hysteria. Most went out of business, and the ones who stayed in business now only produce health-conscious/safe products. (Explanation for liberals: Tobacco companies didn't really go out of business or change their products very much. I was attempting to be humorous by using irony. Liberals, go here to find out what irony means.)

Where is the liberal outrage at the steak/butcher knife manufacturers for making such lethal weapons? And where is the outrage at the auto manufacturer who made the car the drunk driver used after consuming the deadly weapon made by the alcohol industry to kill an innocent family?

Since logic dictates that one standard be applied for inanimate objects used for mayhem, it naturally follows that if we are going to control guns, we should also "control" all other inanimate objects commonly used to harm/kill people.

Liberals try to use emotion to trump truth, logic and the rule of law.  They want to blame society/culture/environment/child-rearing/low self-esteem/Republicans for many prosecutable offenses. It's not that person's fault, after all.  Let's not hold people accountable and responsible for their actions--let's share the blame.

Thankfully, our law enforcement officers never arrest guns or knives or golf clubs or falling pianos.  They arrest killers.

But who knows? In 1969, if liberals in Chappaquiddick had pursued the alcohol and auto industries because of drunk driving accidents that killed innocent people, perhaps Ted Kennedy could have been President instead of Senator-for-Life.

No comments:

Post a Comment