texshelters

There is no Analogy for a Gun

In Current Events, Human Rights and the Constitution on January 12, 2011 at 19:27

Why do people defend the use of semi-automatic gun with magazines that hold more than ten rounds? That is a question I wonder when the guns before life crowd comes out of the wood work after yet another tragedy like we had in Tucson on Saturday, at Va. Tech, Columbine and other places.

One of the arguments is that knives kill people, so why not ban them. First, this is a technique used when one can’t defend their position. It’s called “distraction”. If you can’t defend the use of semi-automatic guns with high capacity magazines (more than 10 or 15 rounds), then make a false analogy to show how ridiculous banning weapons is. Do I really have to explain how a knife is different from a gun? Really?  I have yet to see a semi-automatic hunting knife that could shoot 30+ rounds form a distance in about two minutes. A knife is a poor substitute for a gun. If it wasn’t, the U.S. army and the Taliban would bring a knife to a gun fight. Alas for some, this distinction is not obvious.

Then there is the other false analogy: automobiles kill people, so why not ban them? First, I have never called for the banning of guns. That is the first error in the logic. Second, a car was not created to kill. A car was invented as a mode of transportation for people and goods. Outside of personal protection and hunting, both involving killing or wounding, guns have no other legal uses other than target practice, skeet shooting and so forth. I suppose you could use a gun as a hammer, but that would not be what the gun was designed for. I think using a hammer to kill would be more effective (as one gun defender suggested) than using a gun as a hammer. However, there is that trouble with the reloading the hammer to shoot at a crowd. Moreover, why don’t the people comparing automobiles to guns ever suggest gun insurance (like for cars) be mandated and what we have to take a gun use test and register our guns like we do our cars? It’s because people only use the analogies when it suits their defense of guns. If they actually thought it through, they would see the analogy is not apt.

Why can’t gun advocates admit that guns were created to kill? Isn’t that the point of a gun, to kill or wound an intruder or take down your dinner, deer, rabbit, quail or other game animal? That is the primary function of a gun. I don’t see a problem with that fact or admitting that fact.  However, those that feel compelled to come to the defense of guns at all costs can’t admit it. Even those that would support Democratic issues such as health care for all and are against the war come out to defend gun with false analogies.  Guns don’t need the help; they can defend themselves.  It’s okay, no one want to take your gun away. We want to reduce gun violence.

Why this disconnect with the reality of what a gun does? Is it that gun advocates on the left or middle of American politics are ashamed of their stance and have to deny the real purpose of a gun? Will it create cognitive dissonance to say that guns were created to kill? Most on the right have no such shame.

Yes, seatbelts can kill too, as one gun defender suggested. Really? Is that where our discourse has devolved, comparing seat belts to guns because sometimes a person dies wearing a seatbelt? Why discuss what a gun is at all then if it is like everything else? In reality, there is no analogy for a gun.

Now that we have learned that guns were created to kill, we must ask ourselves what is the best and most effective way to regulate the use of guns and how to reduce gun violence without interfering with the legal use of the tool that can kill. We can start by questioning who can get a gun and how many bullets we really need to hunt or protect our home and what type of guns we need for those purposes. The NRA, gun and bullet manufacturers, and other guns first people don’t want you to ask those question because it means that the paranoia will subside, a rational discussing will ensue, gun manufacturers will sell fewer weapons, and the influence of the gun lobby in D.C. will be reduced.

Peace,
Tex Shelters

Advertisements
  1. guns kill a few thousand people

    gov kills millions

    Guns are bad they should be banned

    gov keeps us safe so we have to have it

    How can you with a straight face make this argument.

    Why not ban gov from having guns, Im all for that.

    But no people shouldn’t have them because they could shoot someone and goto jail forever

    But the gov should have them and they should have no accountability
    for what they do

    CRAZY !!!!!! I tell you !!!

    • Chris,

      You are yet another person who completely misrepresents my argument.

      I never said a thing about about banning guns or giving the government guns.

      Are you for random killing and killing using guns anytime anywhere?

      If not, what should we do about it?

      Peace,
      Tex Shelters

      • You want to end violence? (gun being a tool used for violence)

        Stop state violence

        You have armed thugs walking around packing heat pulling it on anyone who disobeys them.

        What kind of message does this send?

        Its ok for them but not for you?

        You cant just pick and choose who gets to use force and who doesnt.

        Monkey see monkey do

        We should be able to buy anything the police or military can use on us.

        Its only fair

        • Chris,

          I already wrote about armed thugs, i.e. the police and military. Certainly, there should be reduced police violence as well.

          What does that have to do with the use of guns by individuals to kill? What does that have to do with Columbine, Va. Tech, Tucson, etc. that I mention? Certainly, if we reduce police violence it might make a difference to other types of violence, but that is not the topic. I was talking about the random non-police violence.

          Just wondering.

          Peace,
          Tex Shelters

  2. We can start by questioning who can get a gun and how many bullets we really need to hunt or protect our home and what type of guns we need for those purposes.

    Tex, I’m about as strong of a 2nd amendment fan as one can be, I think I should be able to go to my local Wal-Mart and buy a Tommy Gun. I can admit guns were invented to kill, guns are a survival tool though whether used for war, personal protection or for feeding your family. As far as how much ammo I can buy, would you not think if you own a gun you should practice and practice a lot? Personally when I go to the range I’ll shoot a at least a couple hundred rounds at a time, if I drag out the ’22’s for the kids we’ll go thru a 1,000 rounds or more in a day. So I have to ask, what is the relevance how much ammo I buy if I already jumped thru all the hoops to own my tools in the first place including going thru background checks and being finger printed proving to be an upstanding citizen? What difference does it make if I might collect several 100 fire arms? Hell I can only shoot 1 or 2 at a time, so what’s the relevance?

    • I think you missed the point. It’s how much ammo you can shoot at one time, not how much you can buy.

      Practice make better, especially when done correctly and maintaining the gun. Have at it. But you missed the basic argument. Would you like guns everywhere, everyone to have a tommy gun, even insane people? If so, fine. If not, it’s a starting point for sane gun regulation.

      Peace,
      Tex Shelters

  3. we must ask ourselves what is the best and most effective way to regulate the use of guns and how to reduce gun violence without interfering with the legal use of the tool that can kill.

    You don’t, here’s what you do, If someone uses a gun in a crime it’s life in Prison, no second chance. You institutionalize the violent mentally ill, we need to forget political correctness. You also could try to stop the black market gun trade but good luck with that one, it’s an exercise in futility just like the war on drugs and Prohibition of alcohol. Other than that you can try to regulate all you want and you won’t make a single person more safe than he is now, remember we still have the black market and I know how to reload ammo and cast my own bullets, I bet I can even make my own powder in a pinch.

    • Here’s the difference between drugs and guns: drugs can be made at home or grown in your yard. Guns can not be made by an individual. If you regulate the manufacture of certain guns and enforce gun show regulations, it would be a start. You can’t make guns without an industry you can regulate. Drugs are complete different and also addictive in a way guns are not.

      Peace,
      Tex Shelters

      • Tex Fully automatic weapons you know true assault weapons and Machine guns are already regulated, they have been since 1934 you can’t buy new ones since the late 20th century and the ones you can buy each have to have their own tax stamp which carries even more indebt background checks than a concealed carry. As far as insane people go if they are a danger to themselves and others then they need to be institutionalized as I said below. There are far more dangerous things I can build from things at the local walmart than a gun. BTW most anyone can build a crude gun at home out of not much more than a pen tube and a rubber band. You can go to ace hardware and build an effective hand canon out of black pipe. EZ stuff to do also instead of leaving one end open you cap both ends and you got a great big firecracker that can do a lot of damage. Regulating any of it is an exercise in futility. Our army and other countries use fully auto weapons so those same weapons are available on the black market and their easier to get than a single shot shotgun at the walmart. Tex as I said below you lock up the bad people when they cross the line for life, you institutionalize the mentally ill who are prone to violence. Tex, we can’t even stop the smuggling of human beings into this country, how do we stop something as small as a gun or just the parts of the gun that can be put together later? You can’t!!!

        • BTW Tex, how do you regulate other countries gun makers? You can’t remember the US is not the only maker of weapons. Also, there are already millions upon millions of ak47’s out there and their dirt cheap, they can be smuggled in a piece at a time and assembled at home, how do you stop that? You can’t, like I said we can’t even stop human sized objects from entering this country. It’s an exercise in futility and most people don’t make or grow their drugs they get them from smuggling operations. Gun parts building a real gun at home? A Riffled Barrel would be the hardest thing to make, you can buy them or you can scavenge them off another gun the barrel doesn’t know if the gun is auto or not and for the other parts A little plate steel, a file and some patients you’d be surprised what someone can do without a full blown machine shop.

        • Jake,

          So just give up and let the shooting commence? Really?

          We need some regulation and if nothing else, enforce the prohibition on guns for the mentally ill.

          I mentioned the automatics before you had mentioned them. I could think of 100 things we can do, but I would like for once someone to admit that there is a problem as a starting point. If you don’t think there is a problem, fine, just admit it. I think there is.

          Peace,
          Tex Shelters

          • I never said there wasn’t a problem Tex, there is a huge problem. You said that a true 2nd amendment person couldn’t admit what guns were invented for. Killing. I did, guns were defiantly invented for killing people. I just feel your approach to the problem is wrong you think my approach to it is wrong. That’s fine we will just have to agree to disagree since we are so far apart on the solution.

            • I didn’t say “A true second amendment person”. I said a “guns before life person”. Funny how you would translate that Jake.

              I agree with the idea of enforcing the laws to keep the mentally deranged way from guns as you suggest. I even admitted that. I also know there are other things we haven’t tried yet. Keeping large magazines out of the public would help. And you can do that at the manufacturing plant.

              Peace,
              Tex Shelters

              • Is there a difference? I think not. Guns don’t kill Tex, people kill, it takes a person to pick up the Gun for the gun to be of any use. Guns are a tool to make people more efficient at killing, just like a chainsaw makes a person more effective at cutting down a tree. I’m a card carrying member of the NRA, I believe in the following statement.

                “You Can Pry My Guns From My Cold, Dead Hands”

                BTW Tex, I think you’re confusing idiots who pose with their guns on their MySpace page or post to youtube (a few thousand idiots who are trying to prove they are men) to true believers (10’s of Millions). I fall in the latter. I would never pose with a gun, I don’t even pose with the animals I take to feed my family. You might be surprised by what I do and don’t own, I like Black Powder Muzzle Loaders, I like bolt actions rifles to semi-auto, I prefer magnum revolvers to semi-auto pistols. That said I think everything ought to be legal.

                • Sorry Tex I miswrote: “I like bolt actions rifles to semi-auto”

                  Should have read: I prefer bolt actions rifles to semi-auto rifles.

                • The fact that you can discuss this means you fall in the later category Jake.

                  So, who can kill more, a man with a revolver, or a man with a semi-automatic?

                  The gun is the tool used to kill. Without it, fewer people would have been killed at these mass shootings. So, feel free to ignore the place the tool plays in the number of deaths and wounded, but without it, there would have been fewer casualties.

                  The irony is that if the shooter has used a different gun with a different round, Gifford’s would have likely died on the spot.

                  Peace,
                  Tex Shelters

                • Yes, I believe in the second amendment but believe we also need to protect the public.

                  Some people, and I am not saying you, will put guns before life every time because they are deluded by their fear and paranoia.

                  Peace,
                  Tex Shelters

  4. 🙂 G’day Tex! Are you sure you’re not a closet Aussie?

    I was so very sorry to hear the news of the Arizona shootings. My deepest heart felt condolences to all US citizens, family and loved ones of the victims.

    We’d make ya welcome Doll, are you a dab hand at sandbagging? We could do with some more hands on deck at the mo….

    • Lynn,

      I was doing to check in with you about the flooding. Hows it going. I am good at digging holes, so I bet I could do a sandbag or two.

      Thanks!

      Peace,
      Tex Shelters

      • It’s pretty brutal Tex, not for me personally, Melbourne and Victoria are experiencing some minor flash flooding and its so humid my toilet paper has gone all damp….but Queensland and New South Wales…the devastation and loss of life, is incredible and its just keeps coming…its just so relentless….and of such epic proportions…..

        • Hugs to you, Lynn. I’ve been thinking about all the critters where the waters keep rising, be they two-legged, four, six, eight…

  5. Here’s the deal:

    Only sane speaks to sane.

    The very mention of “gun” turns some people insane.

    The word twists brains. Precluding thought.

    Tex, these folks will never hear you. Ever.

  6. “I think you missed the point” you said to one of these folks, Tex.

    Ah, Tex.

    Will the Pope ever be a Jew? That’s when they’ll get the point. No, not even then.

  7. I’ve been thinking of calling that mental health hotline in Arizona–the one the media has been vaunting where you can supposedly report on your neighbors if they are acting peculiar…

    Would it be wrong of me to report our entire nation?

    • Little Sun,

      Well, it would be appropriate if they could do anything about it. If only…

      A hotline for those that want to use a gun would be a good idea though.

      Peace,
      Tex Shelters

  8. G’day g’day Little Sun! Only yesterday I heard a wildlife specialist talking about the possible extinction of the Northern Hairy nosed wombat. As of July 2010 there was only 138 left alive, all in Queensland. We still don’t know if they have survived 😦

    Sad and Soggy hug back at ya…

    • Lynn,

      The only consolation is that they weren’t shot to death like other species or like some ranchers want for the Mexican Wolf.

      Viva los lobos!!

      Peace,
      Tex Shelters

  9. So, who can kill more, a man with a revolver, or a man with a semi-automatic?

    It depends. Revolver is far more reliable than semi-autos. Semi-autos Jam and the rate of jamming goes up as magazine capacity increases. When an semi-auto jams you have to stop and clear it. Also 9 mm rounds are pretty weak, may take 2-3 shots to take someone down even when hit in the head. A 357 mag round can kill with one shot even when hit in the leg. I have 1 semi-auto pistol a 1991 colt 45 ACP 7 +1 mag, it’s nice with a lot of stopping power but it’s not as reliable as my 357 mag. When my life is on the line I will take the 357 every time over any semi auto including my own 45.

    • BTW, more effective Hollow Point ammo also tends to jam more in a semi-auto more FMJ ammo does.

    • It depends. Ha ha.

      You know the answer. It’s okay to not want a ban on semi-automatics, but don’t pretend they aren’t more deadly.

      Peace,
      Tex Shelters

  10. Tex, you and J ought give your blogs a that a boy, I’m convinced Rachel Maddow is reading both of your blogs. I also think she may be paying special attention to my comments and my saying on J’s blog her info was wrong she was talking out her butt. Tonight she just mentioned the firearms act of 1934. She had it almost right. I think she ought to eliminate the middle men and contact me personally. I could educate her to where she doesn’t look the fool when she talks. I also know the history as to why they wrote the laws the way they did to get around the 2nd amendment.

    • Jake,

      We were having a fairly decent debate, but now you brought in guilt by association, a false link as it is to Maddow, and you completely forget the part in the second amendment that says, “A well regulated militia.”

      I am sorry you have a Maddow fetish, but I have nothing to do with here nor does my blog.

      Peace,
      Tex Shelters

Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: