Tag: Logic an Anti-Gunner’s Worst Nightmare

I Don’t Think That Argument Will Work

Today is logical fallacy day. This is a day where the logical arguments made by anti-gunners are brought to light. First we had Josh Horowitz claiming the gun confiscations in New Orleans were a conspiracy theory that never happened and now we have another idiot spouting off statements that are quite questionable. Arma Borealis called out a local (to me) Minnesota anti-gunner for the following statement (I’ll not link directly to the anti-gunner post as I have a strict policy against doing exactly that):

I give you the argument of the guys with the “man pants” on ladies and gentlemen-” We’re saying that we’d rather have more gun deaths and lower overall violent crime, than zero gun deaths and higher rates of violent crime if given the choice” And there you have it. Nothing more to say here except “Wow” and “unbelievable”

See an increase in violent crime is perfectly OK so long as guns aren’t used. If more women are raped that’s OK so long as there are less gun related deaths. If more people are murdered it’s OK so long as those murders were committed with weapons besides guns. The main thing needed according to these people is lowering gun related deaths at any cost including lives. I’m apologize for the fact I lack the cognitive dissonance required to make this argument seem like it makes sense.

It’s also interesting that I’ve found somebody who appears to be my opposite right here in my own state. I’d certainly enjoy a debate on guns with this person but it would likely devolve into her inserting fingers into her ears and yelling “LA LA LA” at the stop of her lungs until I left.

Disconnected from Reality

I often accuse anti-gunners of making shit up and being overall disconnected with reality. These accusations are pretty easy to backup as well. Let’s take Josh Horowitz of the Coalition to Stop Gun Violence who recently stated:

Following Hurricane Katrina, the NRA promoted a conspiracy theory about mass gun confiscations in Katrina and compared New Orleans officials to Mao, Stalin and Hitler.

As pointed out over at Self-Defense, Survival & Preparedness Daily it’s not a conspiracy theory when it has actually happened. After Hurricane Katrina struck the National Guard performed massive gun confiscations leaving many residents completely defenseless against the criminal entity of New Orleans. These guns have yet to be returned which is why the National Rifle Association has outstanding lawsuits to retrieve the property that was stolen by the government.

But the Horowitz has to find a way to drum up hatred of the “evil gun lobby” (you have to hold a lit flashlight under your chin when you say that) in order to get some inkling of funding for his failing enterprise of anti-rights propaganda.

More Victims Stabbed

It seems New York isn’t the only anti-gun state where multiple stabbings occurred this week. In New Jersey a homeless man stabbed three people with a steak knife at a Burger King:

An apparently homeless man armed with a six-inch steak knife randomly stabbed three customers at a Burger King in Sayreville on Saturday, police said.

Had somebody been granted their “right” to carry a firearm this situation could have been ended sooner. Alas New Jersey doesn’t like to allow the peasants a right to self-defense so the chances are higher for this kind of scenario.

I guess those stabbed can take solace in knowing they weren’t shot… right? I also found the second to last paragraph interesting:

Police arrested Pittel after locating him inside a neighboring pizza shop. He was charged with three counts each of aggravated assault, possession of weapon and possession of a weapon for an unlawful purpose.

So possession of a weapon and possession of a weapon for unlawful purpose are two separate charges? If it’s illegal to possess a weapon in New Jersey wouldn’t possession of a weapon by for unlawful purposes by definition?

Unpossible Knife Rampage

The anti-gunners keep telling us if we place stricter controls on firearms that multiple murder rampages will be a thing of the past. Tell that to four people who were killed by a man using a knife. This happened in Brady Paradise New York where gun control laws are heavily enforced.

Violent people will do violent things regardless of the laws put into place to stop them. When these violent people wish to enact their wrath on other people they will use whatever means available to them. I’m sure an anti-gunner is going to claim the murderer in this article would have done far more damage if he had a gun but the murders all appeared to be deliberately chosen targets, as usual.

So what could possibly be done in these situations? Well a gun works very well for defending yourself against an attacker with a knife. It certainly tips the scale back to your favor.

Switzerland Votes to Keep Guns at Home

The anti-gunners in Switzerland have been pushing to bar those performing militia service from keeping their issued rifle at home. Somehow these anti-gun prats were able to get a referendum on the ballot which failed:

Neutral Switzerland is among the best-armed nations in the world, with more guns per capita than almost any other country except the U.S., Finland and Yemen.

At least 2.3 million weapons lie stashed in basements, cupboards and lofts in this country of less than 8 million people, according to the Geneva-based Small Arms Survey.

On Sunday, Swiss voters made sure it stays that way, rejecting a proposal to tighten the peaceful Alpine nation’s relaxed firearms laws.

Unlike here Switzerland has mostly a homogeneous and wealthy population meaning their violent crime is quite a bit lower than ours. Due to this the anti-gunners there can’t make the claim that guns cause crime so they have to resort to a different tactic, claiming guns cause suicidal tenancies and trying to establish a connection between these guns and domestic abused:

Martine Brunschwig-Graf, a national lawmaker with the left-of-centre Social Democratic Party, blamed the defeat of the measure on women’s reluctance to vote on an issue she says affects them most.

Women are the main victims of domestic violence, and are also the ones left behind when their fathers, husbands or boyfriends commit suicide with an army weapon, she said.

About a quarter of Switzerland’s 1,300 suicides each year involve a gun, and those calling for tighter rules claim military weapons, such as the army-issued SG 550 assault rifle, are used in between 100 and 200 suicides a year.

Also apparently it’s the fault of Swiss women for not showing up and voting on this measure that caused it to fail. Of course only men perform mandatory service in the Swiss militia so it makes sense that a higher portion of men would show up to vote on this particular subject.

I’m glad to see the Swiss people are still willing to fight for their right to keep and bear arms. I love being able to point to at least one well armed European country. I like the fact that there exists a homogeneous and mostly wealthy population that’s well armed, it demonstrates that gun ownership rates do not have a correlation with violent crime.

Of course when I bring up Switzerland in an argument with an anti-gunner they always claim the country is a corner case just like Finland. I guess that’s what you have to resort to when your argument has no legs to stand upon.

More Red Star Stupidity

Yet another Letter to the Editor dealing with guns finds its way into the Red Star. This one was written by a Mark Weber of Minneapolis and thankfully it’s short:

Those who agree with the Feb. 4 letter writer who touted a safety record of 65 million gun owners not killing anyone must take great comfort in the fact that a very high percentage of people driving under the influence of alcohol make it to their destination without causing a traffic fatality.

I absolutely love this complete failure at attempting to use logic. He tries to compare owning a firearm with driving under the influence. This argument doesn’t make any sense for the simple reason that owning a firearm is perfectly legal for most people while driving under the influence is never legal. Comparing completely unrelated things doesn’t make for a good argument.

I’ll give it a try myself and you tell me if it makes sense. Those who touted a safety record of 65 million gun owners not killing anybody must take great comfort int he fact that unicorns are eaten by trolls. If I were to enter a debate with you and use that argument you’d probably just (rightfully) declare yourself the victor and walk away.

Driving under the influence would be akin to a felon purchasing a firearm which will remain illegal even if Minnesota repeals it’s ridiculous permit to purchase law. You know why? Because the federal background check will still be performed and thus known felons will be denied the ability to purchase said firearm. I can’t wrap my head around the whole idea that somebody would actually listen to some of these people and nod their head in agreement.

The Evolution of Attempting to Repeal Minnesota’s Permit to Purchase Law

I’ve been following the progress of the bill to repeal Minnesota’s redundant and ridiculous permit to purchase law. What I think is interesting is how this bill has evolved. The bill first started off as HF 161 which would have extended the validity of permits to purchase to five years [PDF].

This would have made sense in that you’d only have to renew the purchase permit as often as a carry permit. In Minnesota a permit to carry also works as a permit to purchase so those of use with carry permits never have to obtain separate permits to purchase. Likewise permits to carry are good for five years before you have to retest. Nobody could ever give me a good reason why a permit to purchase was only good for a year while a permit to carry was good for five years, they should have both been good for five years.

Well apparently HF 161 was amended with the following [PDF] which just eliminates the stupid permit to purchase all together. I’m not sure how this bill went from simply extending the validity period of a permit to purchase to eliminating it completely but I’m glad it did.

A few law enforcement organizations are opposed to repealing this requirement and cite claims of the state background checks being more thorough. I believe this has more to do with the fact that they like having the authority to tell who can and can not exercise their right to bear certain arms (you don’t need a permit to purchase for shotguns or “sporting purpose rifles” just handguns and “assault-weapons”).

If the state background checks actually caught anybody that would have been missed by a federal background check I can guarantee you that the law enforcement organizations would be touting out each and every instance to prove their point. The fact that they haven’t brought out a single instance leads me to believe it’s never happened or has happened so rarely that bringing up the numbers would be embarrassing considering the cost of doing these additional background checks.

You’re Already on My Shit List California, You Don’t Need to Keep Trying

First California Senator Boxer starts an attempt to change all states into California by mandating that every state be a may-issue state for carry permits. Now California’s other Senator, Feinstein, is trying to get the current administration to further restrict what types of rifles can come into the country. Her reasoning for this? Well:

Since December 2006, more than 30,000 people have been killed in Mexico in drug-related violence. Every day, there are reports of ruthless and brutal gun murders as Mexican drug trafficking organizations (DTOs) fight for control of smuggling routes and terrorize anyone who might get in their way. The DTOs have killed mayors, judges, and other officials who have tried to stop the carnage. They have even targeted young people, murdering 14 teenagers at a birthday party in Ciudad Juarez in October of last year.

First of all Mexico isn’t our problem. Second of all preventing guns from crossing the board is going to be difficult when the agency in charge of doing that is likely allowing those guns across the border. Oh I love this line:

The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) and other federal, state and local law enforcement are working to stop this gun trafficking and related violence, but they need additional help.

Actually, they’re probably not. You know what would be great? If California’s senators would stop trying to take a giant shit all over my rights. You people in California should seriously consider recalling the both of them and getting some competent people in their place.

There are Lies, There are Damned Lies…

And then there is this fucking idiot. Yes I found more things to write about in the Red Star’s Letters to the Editor section. Surprised? You shouldn’t be. It seems the intelligence of the average people who write to the Red Star is lacking. Let’s take a look at what A. Gail Bier of Duluth, MN wrote in regards to repealing Minnesota’s Permit to Purchase requirement:

Let us be clear about what a repeal of the state handgun purchase law would really mean.

Yes let’s be clear on what this will mean:

It would allow people with histories of stalking, domestic violence, mental illness and drug abuse to buy an automatic weapon with less review than one needs to obtain a driver’s license.

Um… I… I don’t know how to address such blatant lying. I believe Mrs. Bier is a politician with the type of lies she’s spewing. Criminals who are ineligible to purchase firearms are taken care of by the FBI’s National Criminal Instant Background Check System (NICS). Whenever you purchase a firearm the dealer makes a phone call to the FBI’s NICS hot line where your information is given to operator. The FBI then tells the dealer whether the sale is a go, no-go, or delayed (in which case you have to wait for up to three days for a decision).

The Minnesota system is purely a redundant waste of money as it performs the same thing as the FBI system which has to be performed every time you purchase a firearm from a dealer. Personally I’m sick of paying for redundancies which do nothing but inconvenience lawful citizens.

Repealing this law also won’t allow you to buy an automatic weapon, also know as a machine gun. This total fabrication makes me wonder if Mrs. Bier is really this stupid or has malicious intent. Here in the frozen tundra of Minnesota you can’t buy any automatic firearm unless it’s on the curio and relics (C&R) list (basically the machine gun has to be 50 years or older). If the the machine gun you want is on the C&R list you have to then get approval from the Bureau of Alcohol Tobacco Firearms and Explosives (ATF) as well as the approval of your local sheriff. Upon receiving approval from both agencies you need to pay a $200.00 tax stamp to the ATF and then when you receive your paperwork you can finally purchase your 50 years or older machine gun.

Repealing Minnesota’s permit to purchase requirement will not loosen the restrictions on purchasing a machine gun and most certainly will not allow you to do so “with less review than one needs to obtain a driver’s license.” You know how many federal checks I needed to be performed in order for me to get my driver’s license? Zero. You know how many federal checks I needed to purchase a firearm? One every time I go to purchase one.

But little miss Malice didn’t stop her lies there:

It would actually increase law enforcement costs by substituting homicide investigations and protection for law enforcement officers for the much less expensive and preventive measure of checking existing databases.

Really? How so? Every firearm purchased from a dealer will still require a NICS to be check be performed. Private sales between two resident Minnesotan’s doesn’t require a permit to purchase. Likewise the permit to purchase only applies to handguns and “assault weapons.” There also hasn’t been any state so far that has noticed an increase in homicide rates after repealing a gun control law. So how the Hell does Mrs. Bier come to her conclusion? Oh that’s right she’s an anti-gunner which practically guarantees she knows nothing about firearms. She doesn’t stop there though:

It would mean ignoring valuable state databases that contain information that does not exist at the federal level.

Such as? What valuable information is in the state database that also isn’t in the federal database? So far nobody has been able to tell me that. If you can’t tell me exactly what valuable information is in the state database then it can’t be that valuable. Likewise she mentions the federal system meaning she has some knowledge about NICS. This leads me to believe her entire letter was written with malicious intent as her previous statements lead readers to believe there were no checks on domestic abuses, the mentally ill, or other ineligible person.

I encourage lawmakers to support responsible gun ownership and the safety of Minnesotans by voting against the repeal.

And I encourage you educate yourself on subjects before you write letters for public display that make you look like an idiot. I’m also getting sick of the term “responsible gun ownership.” The way it’s always used seems to imply the only responsible gun owner is one who doesn’t own any firearms. I’m a responsible gun owner and a tax payer so support me, and yourself as a fellow tax payer, by repealing this expensive and redundant law.

The Second Amendment is Only Irrelevant if You Forget Why it Exists

Nothing gives me material to write rants about quite as consistently as the Letters to the Editor section of the Red Star. There is always some statist asshole writing about things he doesn’t actually understand. Take Roger Harrold or Edina, MN who wrote a rather idiotic little letter:

I’d like to make a case that the Second Amendment, important if not essential 220 years ago, makes no sense today. The right to bear arms at the time of the Revolutionary War was understandable.

Makes no sense today huh? I can point to a great case that would demonstrate otherwise, the events in Egypt. The people of Egypt are in revolt but still have no managed to give Mubarak the boot. Part of this problem comes from the fact that the people of Egypt are unarmed, if Mubarak wanted to stop the rebellion and had an army willing to follow his orders there would be nothing the protesters could do except become martyrs.

We have the second amendment because the founders of this country threw off the shackles of a tyrannical monarchy and didn’t much care to see such events happen again. The second amendment ultimately exists as a final check against government tyranny, should the government get out of hand we can remove them through force if they’re unwilling to surrender their power peacefully. This makes the second amendment just as relevant today as it did over 200 years ago.

Another case for the second amendment is self-defense. As a living entity I have a right to self-preservation. There is no way to justify to me that I shouldn’t be allowed to defend myself against an aggressor with any and all means at my disposal. The second amendment gives me the best tool for the job, a simple mechanical device that can propel a projectile at high speeds towards my attacker. By trying to take this simple device from me you are stating you wish me harm at the hands of another. You are telling me you want me to die at the hands of another. You are flat out saying you want me dead. You’ll have to excuse me if I take some offense to your statement of wishing harm upon me. The letter continues:

We had no standing army to speak of, no National Guard, no well-trained and equipped police force to defend us. For many, guns were needed for hunting as part of their livelihood.

If our country had just gained its independence in 2010, I don’t think we’d see the Second Amendment.

I believe if we gained independence in 2010 we would have the second amendment codified in our system of law. Why? Because we needed those guns to toss the British out on their asses last time and we would have needed them if we decided to do it now instead of 200 years ago. Also I laugh at his statement of a “well-trained police force.” Most people I know who are into firearms are much better shots than the average police office who only has to qualify with their firearms once a year. I’d trust a man who competes in any competitive shooting sport to have my back more than a police officer. Mr. Harrold continues on with his poorly thought out diatribe:

Dolan points out the differences between the United States and other developed countries in homicide rates involving guns. They are staggering.

Yes Finland and Switzerland doesn’t have nearly as many homicides involving firearms yet are pretty well armed nations. The problem with violent crime in the United States is multifaceted. Unlike many other countries we are not made up of a homogeneous culture of people with means. Switzerland and Finland are well armed but their populations are made mostly of people with a decent amount of money, a similar culture, and similar beliefs. The United States populations ranges in every aspect including wealth, race, religion, and personal principals. That coupled with the war on drugs (which caused a spike in violent crime that has subsided since) are far more plausible explanations for our higher homicide than the tool that isn’t exclusive to our country.

I have a Ph.D. in counseling psychology. Don’t ever think that we will be able to stop deranged minds from doing what happened in Tucson

Having a Ph.D. doesn’t mean jack shit. I’d bet money Mr. Harrold is also a Keynesian which has been demonstrated to be a failed system of economics. But had Mr. Harrold stopped his sentence there he’d have sounded slightly more intelligent. Of course he didn’t stop there:

without better gun control.

If gun control is the answer why has violent crime been dropping in the United States even though the rate of gun ownership and carry permits being issued have gone up? We have more people legally able to walk the streets carry firearms yet our violent crime is going down? The “assault weapon” ban sunset and yet our violent crime rate is going down. Florida, one of the first states to convert to a shall-issue carry permit state, noticed their violent crime rate drop when they switched the law over.

How can you say with a straight face that gun control works at preventing violent crime? It’s been proven time and time again that gun control doesn’t reduce violent crime yet when we loosen gun control laws violent crime either remains unchanged or goes down.

The problem is anti-gunners don’t have a leg to stand on. Their arguments are proven false time and again yet they’re so invested in being right they’re unwilling to look at the actual data.