search
top

Protecting Us For Our Own Good

Mayor Mike doesn’t want us to have guns, because we might kill ourselves with it. Think about where this line of reasoning leads? It’s not to a free society, it’s to a society where you’re not allowed to have anything dangerous, because you might hurt yourself with it. This is a recipe for the few lording over the many. It does not describe the free republic of our founders.

It’s also interesting to note that Bloomberg is only offering an anecdote. That’s like saying none of your friends have guns, and none of them have killed themselves, so clearly not having guns prevents suicides. But the actual data shows otherwise.

28 Responses to “Protecting Us For Our Own Good”

  1. Harry Schell says:

    When Bloomberg read “I, Robot”, he identified with the central control brain whose “logic is irrefutable”. Hubris and an inability to distinguish fiction from reality is a bad combination.

  2. Patrick says:

    Bloomy is at least consistent. He also wants to ban salt from food, trans-fats in baking and cooking and free-thought from all.

    For the Children ™

    Let’s see what happens when we ban private jet trips to Bermuda (his second home) because they are less efficient than just going to the Jersey Shore. Or private limo service because it cannot beat the bus.

    For the Earth ™

  3. Gerald says:

    It’s the same line of thinking behind his war on salt and transfats.

  4. BobG says:

    “It will be found an unjust and unwise jealousy to deprive a man of his natural liberty upon the supposition he may abuse it.”
    – George Washington

  5. Alpheus says:

    It’s nice to know that all there is between New Yorkers and their imminent death is the lack of a gun. Japan has a suicide rate twice that of the United States. If only they would just ban guns!

    Oh, wait. They did. Their gun control is even more stringent than New York’s.

    While correlation may *only* suggest causation, we will do well to remember that lack of correlation almost always means lack of causation.

    • Alpheus says:

      Come to think of it, I can’t help but wonder if there’s some sort of “cloud correlation”–a measurement that would tell us how different the data is from a cloud of similar, random generated data. Most correlation measurements are for linear functions, although a few would do quadratic, cubic, logarithmic, or exponential correlations as well. I’ve never seen a “random-cloud” correlation.

      Although, come to think of it, most data would either be easily observable from a given graph that linear correlation isn’t “right” for it (there’s even a “residual test” that can help make it clear, if the graph itself won’t), or there’d be a fairly high linear correlation anyway, even if the data itself isn’t best described as “linear”.

      In any case, every graph I’ve seen relating gun control measures to suicide rates between different countries, have shown something that more resembles a cloud, than any sort of functional relationship.

  6. Shootin' Buddy says:

    He’s right you know!

    Also we need to ban tall buildings in New York City or people could throw themselves off of them. No building higher than one story in New York. Let’s throw in Chicago just for good measure.

  7. mikeb302000 says:

    You guys have no integrity at all. You continually misrepresent what the gun control folks say and then argue against that, tripping over each other to say the same nonsense over and over again.

    It’s simply not true to say Bloomberg doesn’t want you to have guns. He, like most gun control folks, doesn’t want UNFIT people to have guns.

    I can understand why you want to exaggerate that into something inflammatory. To argue against what we actually do say would make you seem unreasonable.

    The best part is the way you blow smoke up each others’ asses, patting yourselves on the back for your incredible perspicacity.

    • Pyrotek85 says:

      So who is unfit? Aren’t people involuntarily committed already barred from owning guns? A lot of the times, friends/family either don’t notice that someone is suffering and prone to suicide/violent acts, or don’t do anything about it (see Loughner).

      It’s an issue of prior restraint IMO, you can’t restrict gun ownership (and making the process difficult/expensive is a restriction) because of what people might do, you need to assume they’re law abiding until they prove otherwise.

      • mikeb302000 says:

        I agree with you about the prior constraint. But, we could lower the bar a bit, let’s say violent misdemeanors disqualify as well as any wrongful gun use.

        I’d also like to see the kind of registration and licensing which would allow for better screening. It could be a giant “may issue” thing.

        • TS says:

          But NYC’s low ownership rates are not due simply to violent misdemeanors and gun abuses. Do they really have that many violent people compared to the rest of the country?

          “May Issue” means you take away all my guns. Is that what you want? Because of where I live, if the question is “may” the answer is always “no”.

    • Dannytheman says:

      Why can I not carry my gun into NY then, Mike. I am not unfit, I can carry in most States. Do you still feel that a woman should just lay there as she is raped?? You are a disgrace, and I don’t know why I ever respond to you. Bloomberg and his nanny cronies want to run my life and tell me what to do! Maybe you have stock in Taco Bell? (From movie Demolition Man)

      • mikeb302000 says:

        How did you get from your not carrying in NY to a woman lying there while being raped. What’s wrong with you Danny?

        • Dannytheman says:

          You are what is wrong with me. I used that question from a post you left on my blog. It shows others who do not know you what a wrong headed male chauvinist you are. That you would insist that a woman submit to rape, and not defend herself with a firearm, proves that anything else you say about the gun issue is CRAZY eccentric BS, IMHO.
          Nothing is wrong with me at all. I just don’t like people telling me how to live my life and make it seem that I should not be able to make my own choices.
          You on the other hand would allow nanny pansy Bloomberg to crap all over you and our Bill of Rights.

          • mikeb302000 says:

            “That you would insist that a woman submit to rape, and not defend herself with a firearm,”

            I never said any such thing. In fact in the extremely rare cases in which a woman has defended herself from rape with a firearm, I’ve applauded.

            What I do say is those instances are so rare, that more harm than good comes from women or anyone else carrying guns. For every prevented rape, you’ve got multiple MISuses of the gun, some of them every bit as devastating as rape.

            • Sebastian says:

              You don’t have any statistics on how many rapes a year are prevented by women resisting with firearms. It would be relatively impossible to get an exact number. In essence, I’m suggesting you’re going by what your instinct tells you should be true rather than you know is actually true.

              It’s OK, we all do this, but the question is will you admit when you boil it down, it’s a hunch rather than statistics.

              • mikeb302000 says:

                The choice is not between statistical proof and a hunch or a feeling. That’s where you’re trying to be tricky.

                I do admit my ideas are usually not based on stats, you yourself have agreed to the limitation of statistics in the proving game.

                I base my ideas on much more than “my instincts” and a “hunch.” I use logic and reason, I try to be objective, I use deductive thinking, I continually try to step back and see if it makes sense, whatever we’re talking about at the moment.

                • Alpheus says:

                  The problem with relying strictly on logic and reason, is that you could start with what you think are reasonable axioms, and develop a world-view that is completely separate from reality.

                  That’s fine, if you’re just developing a mathematical system. It can be utterly devestating, though, if you attempt to aply your system to real life. Indeed, entire industries have been bailed out, because of faulty axioms, or axioms that originally matched the world, but subtly departed from it as the world changed. Hence, the need for taking measurements every now and again–and the need for statistics.

                  But since measurements, especially something like rape and attempted rape–are difficult to measure, you need to take a grain of salt with those measurements too. Since a lot of us here are engineers, there is a tendency to trust not only “hunches”, but “logic and reason” that isn’t backed up by statistics. And when you present us with statistics, you can bet your booties we are going to check them with a find comb and a microscope, to see if there are any flaws!

                  Especially statistics that come to the conclusion that guns ought to be banned. There have been so many glaringly flawed studies that have reached such conclusions, that we can no longer attribute those studies to incompetence: they are the result of out-and-out malice, through and through, whether intentional or subconscious.

                  In particular, if you’re going to make the claim that “What I do say is those instances are so rare, that more harm than good comes from women or anyone else carrying guns. For every prevented rape, you’ve got multiple MISuses of the gun, some of them every bit as devastating as rape.” you had better back up those claims with a lot of hefty, solid statistics! Hunches and fuzzy warm logic aren’t going to cut it, especially since (so far, at least) both logic* and statistics haven’t been on your side!

                  *The reason I say logic isn’t on your side, is because there are perfectly valid logic systems that conclude that it is more beneficial for as many people as possible to be free to carry guns as much as possible–so logic alone isn’t going to convince us in our eyes.

    • TS says:

      “Guns,” responded the mayor. “But having said that, we have reduced the number of guns in the city, and I’ll tell you where it shows up. Health Department put out the suicide statistics yesterday.”

      He didn’t say anything about “unfit” people, though I am sure you “read into” his words and convinced yourself it was implied. The thing is when you compare NYC’s gun ownership rate to the rest of the country, or compare it to the rate of people who you think are unfit (let’s throw out a number like 10%), you’ll see that NYC is indeed reduced the number of guns in the city from FIT people. Unless Bloomberg wants to claim that that many New Yorkers are unfit- “his famous 90%”.

      • TS says:

        Secondly, Bloomberg said that they have reduced the number of guns, but did not point to a reduction in suicides- but rather a static report that their rates are lower than the rest of the country. Did the suicide rate drop when they reduced guns? How does NYC compare to other wealthy largely populated urban areas with more guns? He didn’t even bother with a cheap correlation for me to respond with the obligatory “correlation does not equal causation”.

    • BobG says:

      I doubt if you even know what integrity is, Mikey. You are one of the most dishonest writers I have seen, constantly sniping, telling falsehoods, and twisting facts, dropping insults and running, and in general a lying coward. Don’t dare to talk to anyone else about integrity until you show a bit yourself.
      I usually don’t respond to vermin and trolls, but in your case I’ll make an exception.

      • mikeb302000 says:

        BobG, That is an outrageous personal attack. Even if you really believe what you wrote, it’s you who is avoiding the issue and turning it into a personal attack of my use of the word “integrity.”

        My point, that you guys exaggerate the gun control argument because what we actually do say is not that unreasonable, must be so hurtful to you that you immediately attack me instead of what I’m saying.

        Oh, and of course I’m vermin and a troll.

        • Dannytheman says:

          “Oh, and of course I’m vermin and a troll.”

          Might be the first time you told the truth EVER!!

        • BobG says:

          I don’t like hypocrites who go on about other people’s integrity when they have none of their own; you talk about other people exaggerating the gun control argument, and then run away when people ask for proof. You constantly attack and run when others ask for reasons and facts, and never stand up and deliver any. I am attacking you because of WHAT you are saying; YOU are lying, twisting facts, and refusing to put up facts when you run off at the mouth/keyboard. I look at a person like that as a troll, so quit trying to act like some sort of picked on victim; if you act like an asshole, people are going to treat you like one. If you don’t like it, try using reason and facts to argue with, instead of a bunch of bullshit.

          • mikeb302000 says:

            BobG, in other words we disagree. I have a different opinion than you do. Are you not capable of expressing yourself without name calling and insults? Is that because you’re right and I’m wrong?

            • BobG says:

              I stand by what I said. And don’t act so innocent about name calling and insults; I’ve seen your writing, and you are a hypocrite and a liar. I’m not insulting you, just speaking the truth.

    • Patrick says:

      Explain Draconian permit fees to exercise a fundamental right.

      Explain the fact you even need a permit, at all, to own an item expressly protected by the US Constitution in furtherance of the exercise of a fundamental right.

      Don’t lay the line about keeping bad people from guns. Other states do it quite well with nothing but a NICS check.

      How many gun stores in NYC? How many council members actively supported zoning to stop the sales of guns and the creation of ranges?

      Bloomberg wants guns gone. Period. He puts money into groups that actively support the denial of personal ownership of guns in the USA. Read that again: he pays money for people to do this. Likewise he is leading the lobbying efforts to get government the ability to deny rights just by your name being on a “suspicion list” – aka the “Terrorist Watch List”. The problem is that list – and others like it – require no Due Process convictions, no proof and offer no means to challenge your accusers and/or remove your name from it.

      He is also pushing to eliminate state preemption of gun laws at the municipal level, including supporting those communities that wish to ban guns altogether.

      Bloomberg is also behind the defense of several lawsuits that aim to deny the right to lawful people by way of permits to own. He also denies that the right to personal defense exists, even despite the Supreme Court ruling it does. Further, he denies that the right – even the one he cannot avoid – does not exist outside the home. He states openly and plainly that the government can restrict the exercise of a fundamental, enumerated, constitutional right to a place within ones home and nowhere else. Ever.

      Please provide me a counter-point of pro-gun actions by Bloomberg and I will reconsider my view.

      But while you are considering the above, please explain your own personal views on the matters at hand. You know where we come from – we are not mincing our words.

      – Do you agree that the Right to Bear Arms exists as an individual right, not encumbered by some enlistment or control by a government “militia”?

      – Do you believe that that right exists for the personal defense or yourself, others and your personal effects?

      – Do you believe that the right – like every other fundamental right recognized in the USA – exists everywhere? Or do you agree with old Mayor Mike that it ends where the government wishes it to end, including the line of your doorstep?

      – Do you believe that you should be required to pay for a permit to exercise a fundamental right? Any right, not just RKBA?

      – If you can be forced to pay for permit and ask permission to exercise a fundamental right, would you support background checks and permits with fees to go to church, or to post your opinion online?

      I think we’d all appreciate straight answers to the questions, if you are willing to provide them. We are on record with our direct and honest views of all of the above. We can respect someone who honestly disagrees with our viewpoints, but one thing that makes us laugh and look at people with disrespect is when they try to hide their actual intent behind measly words of “support” for the 2A. Just man up and say what you mean. We’ll take that kinder than lies that are not nearly as clever as people think they might be.

  8. Gareth A says:

    “You guys have no integrity at all. You continually misrepresent what the gun control folks say and then argue against that, tripping over each other to say the same nonsense over and over again.”

    And the same can be said of you, more so in fact.

    How many times have you applauded people who refer to advocates of responsible laws as “gun nuts” or the more unscrupulous “gunloons”?

    And no integrity? Let’s see, one side of this debate:

    -Has frequently referred to semi-automatic guns a “rapid-fire”, “weapons of war” and claimed they “belong on a battlefield”, all to unscrupulously imply them to be actual military weapons in a deliberate attempt to hoodwink the public.

    -Made a list of at least a dozen “dangerous” features of said weapons, with descriptions of how these make a weapon more deadly – of which only two can be said to be truthful.

    -Arbitrarily claimed a “reasonable” limit for magazines, stating that anything abve that number is “high” capacity, even the *standard* magazines for several firearms.

    -Has created a new term “assault clips” to describe said magazines, again attempting to invent a more “scary” description to hoodwink the public.

    -Has claimed on several occasions that their opponents have no “need” for whatever they want banned without admitting that they have literally no legitimate “need” for the ban – a lie of omission

    -Has demanded “compromises” where they get whatever they want and the other side gets nothing, or when true compromise has been suggested, made the false claim that what they want is “right and decent” and as such, they should not have to compromise

    All of these suggest little to no integrity. Which side in the gun debade did these examples come from: the Gun Control side, or the advocates of responsible legislation?

top