search
top

Tragedies That Don’t Get Exploited

Tam notes that a New York mother who drowned her kids when she drove her minivan into the Hudson won’t be attracting any activists looking to ban minivans, boat ramps or motherhood. This is a pretty serious question our opponents should ask themselves. Obviously this is a tragedy, but why isn’t anyone demanding the government do something, for the children. Because doing nothing isn’t an answer.

In this case, we universally accept the mother snapped, and nothing much else is to blame. At most people might murmur a bit about more funding for counseling and women’s service. We don’t blame access to cars, or boat ramps. Why? Because none of these objects carry the same spiritual power as the gun. To the extent the other side likes to suggest the gun is our god, if that is true, it is most certainly their devil. I stand by my assertion that the other side is acting in an elaborate passion play. Otherwise, why is the car not to blame? Or the boat ramp?

10 Responses to “Tragedies That Don’t Get Exploited”

  1. Gunmart says:

    Very well put

  2. Matt says:

    But the minivan is a high capacity child murder machine! Look at it! Who needs seven seats of restraint to confine a child in the event of emergency? In a traffic accident, these seats concentrate the death into the center of the vehicle. In one bad moment your entire family could be wiped out!

    Wouldn’t it be common sense to mandate no more than four seats and force large families to buy two cars to prevent such tragedies? If one car is in an accident, the other half of your family might have a chance?

    We need to do it for the children!

  3. BrokenTrace says:

    @matt Thanks for the laugh!

  4. Greg says:

    Thanks Matt :)

    I understand the question and while we all may chuckle at the “spiritual power” of guns. However, guns are intended to injure and to kill. Sure we love them and shoot them and have no intention of ever shooting anybody unless they are trying to kill us but pretending that guns are just like mini-vans is silly. Mini-vans are for transporting kids to soccer practice. “Stopping power” for mini-vans is how quickly they can go from 60 to 0 something vastly different than the stopping power of a .45 HP.

    Yes, the antis are annoying and gleefully exploit every gun related tragedy to further their ends, but we can’t pretend that there isn’t something different about the very nature of firearms. When compared to most other objects that have been used to kill only the firearm is doing its job…

  5. JayF says:

    We have heard Greg’s argument before, and it’s interesting to note when. It usually follows any analogy to another products which causes deaths. These analogies often effectively illustrate that claims or proposals made by anti-gunowner advocates would be silly if applied to another product. The purpose of the “intended to kill” argument is usually to evade dealing with the analogy. Whether the debate has been about accidents or assaults, the intent is to avoid debate.

    This evasive nature of the “intended is to kill” argument, and its use as a device to avoid debate of the anology, should itself be highly suspect.

    The “intended to kill” argument is usually made by those ignorant of guns or with an antigunowner agenda. It is surely aimed at those ignorant of guns, since those with much gun knowledge can easily see that it’s false.

    Let’s look at two guns designed specifically for target shooting: The .22 short semiauto Olympic pistol and the 34″ barreled trap shotgun. Their purpose is easily discerned not only by their design and usefulness for their target events, but also by the advertising of their manufacturers and the 99+% (far, far more than 99%) of their actual use being for those target events for which they were designed. These guns also stand out for their incredibly poor design for killing. The .22 short cartridge is so weak as to be difficult to kill with, and the 34″ barreled trap shotgun is difficult to wield indoors and difficult to carry around even outdoors for homicidal purpose.

    Anti-gunowner advocates have pointed out that these guns can kill, and have asked if one would want to by shot by one. Perhaps — to the extent that one would want to be slammed in the head by a bat or hit by a 60mph vehicle. When you point out that these guns can kill, we are back to things like bats and vehicles which also can kill, but are not “intended to kill” — which is supposed to be the point of the argument.

    Now let’s look at guns designed specifically to kill. There are guns designed specifically to kill woodchucks and there are guns designed specifically to kill Cape Buffalo. As with target guns, buffalo-class guns are often easily discerned not only by their design and usefulness for their target animals, but also by the advertising of their manufacturers and the 99+% (far, far more than 99%) of their actual use being for the animal hunting for which they were designed.

    And again, like many target guns, they are poorly designed to kill humans. While they can be used to kill humans, they are designed to kill animals, and their use on humans is a misuse of the game hunting function that they were designed for. These guns are designed to kill animals, not humans — which invalidates the argument behind “intended to kill.”

    Are there guns “imtended to kill” humans? Of course — so what about gun control (or worse) on those? If we ignore the self-defense and Second Amendment issues, we see that is still a bogus question because anti-gunowner advocates will never in the long term allow significantly lesser regulation of target and hunting guns. One could imagine a proposal that at first puts less additional regulations on target and hunting guns, but would anyone actually argue that anti-gunowner advocates would ever be content with anything less than “strict gun control” (or worse) on all guns?

  6. counsel says:

    Is why it was created an issue if. ..

    it us used to put food on a table?
    it is never used?

    Isn’t the issue how a particular person uses it?

    If you wouldn’t have a problem with Mrs. Brady having a handgun-or Mr. Obama, then you have no issue with the gun. Rather, you have an issue how an individual used that particular gun.

    Just as I have a problem with anyone who usrs a car to run down 8 innocent people.

    Hate the car because it can kill or be used to kill or realize that driver used the car(the tool available) to kill others.

    hint: cars, alcohol, and other tools are used/liked by a large majority. This is the issue. The red herring is that “they were designed to kill.”

  7. Pyrotek85 says:

    The thing is, they say ‘guns are intended to kill’ like that’s always a bad thing. It depends entirely on who you’re using it on and why. While shooting someone isn’t something to be happy about, killing someone who is after your life and thus saving your own, is a good thing overall.

  8. Weer'd Beard says:

    “Otherwise, why is the car not to blame? Or the boat ramp?”

    Because “Progressives” use cars and boat ramps. Remember they only want to restrict the rights they don’t use.

    The same goes to the constant double standard where the gun banners demand all sorts of violations upon lawful gun owners, but they’d never ask for additional restrictions for groups that may include them….like convicted felons.

  9. Arnie says:

    Excellent job JayF! I agree. I have to confess, however, that I purchased my guns to kill tyrants and thieves; but of course, neither Greg, nor law enforcement, nor any law abiding citizen has anything to fear from me. But tyrants…? I’ve said enough.

  10. Firecapt says:

    JayF,
    Your post got me fired up for hunting. I’m going to buy some of that expensive dog food, grab me my poodle shooter and…
    (snark off)

top