Dumb statement
Some idiot: Guns Didn’t Save Their Lives and Guns Won’t Save Your Life
That statement makes sense, if you’re a moron. Because, if you’re a moron, you think we gun rights people walk around saying that guns make us ten feet tall and bulletproof, which we don’t. We say that a gun is the most effective tool for active resistance of violent crime, an assertion that has been supported many times in varying studies. If you have a gun and someone walks up and shoots you, you’re dead. With a gun. But most criminals don’t walk up and shoot you. They don’t want to kill you. They want your car, your wallet, to rape your wife or child, or some other various shenanigans. These kinds of things are clear to folks who aren’t delusional. But being reality-based isn’t generally in the repertoire of the anti-gunner.
They then decide to compare crime in Phoenix to NYC (complete with wild west reference) to prove how dangerous guns are. Except that if you pick any two cities at whim, you can draw any conclusion you want. Looking at other cities, I can get any conclusion I want. I think I’ll get a job doing climate research.
They also note that the American Rifleman doesn’t feature armed citizen stories anymore, which is a fabrication. They do. And there’s other sources that round up self defense stories.
And the blogger uses the Violence Policy Center method of research by asking you to google up some phrase.
One of the things a lot of pro-gun sorts assert is that we’re winning because our opponents are stupid. They’re right.
December 2nd, 2009 at 11:01 am
I think the comments are even more stupid.
I got a headache.
December 2nd, 2009 at 11:28 am
Aperently the Murder, Rape, Robbery, Assault, Burglary, Theft and Auto Theft rates in Wild West Pheonix are all the same. Wow, With rates like that, it makes it look almost like that graph is made up or something.
December 2nd, 2009 at 12:18 pm
Again the Antis show that their stupidity is consistent.
December 2nd, 2009 at 12:27 pm
Aside from the general shreiking hysteria of the comments, what amuses me most is the doublethink of anti-gunners:
According to them I should be hysterical about all of the heinous crimes caused by guns and I’m clearly “nuts” if I’m not…but if I make any preparations, like say, buying a gun, to protect myself and my family from all of those heinous crimes, I’m clearly paranoid because heinous crimes such as home invasion and rape never happen.
December 2nd, 2009 at 1:15 pm
I wish you hadn’t linked to that. I couldn’t help but to go leave some comments. Now I’ll be there all day hitting refresh haha
December 2nd, 2009 at 1:44 pm
Well, having a gun saved the life of the cop that got the killer. Or was a fugitive cold-blooded cop killer coming up behind the officer while he was doing paperwork in his car just to chat?
December 2nd, 2009 at 3:45 pm
I hear the “it wouldnt help you in an ambush” argument a lot. The response I’ve formulated is “Ok, sure. In that very specific scenario, my having a gun didn’t help me. In that very specific scenario, how did it hurt me?”
I usually get blank stares. Sometimes I get arguments that now my killer has more guns. When that happens, I say, “what do I care? I’m dead.” If they go into trying to make me feel guilty, I tell em that its pretty obvious that my killer could get guns without me, so if he wanted more he could just go get them.
December 2nd, 2009 at 4:19 pm
If those who assert that having a gun doesn’t help save your life, then why aren’t they calling for us to stop providing guns to the hired guns? And what about those, elected and apointed government officials, who are protected by hired guns and want to disarm the rest of us–why aren’t they leading by example and disarming?
December 2nd, 2009 at 7:19 pm
“I got a headache.”
I weep for humanity.
December 3rd, 2009 at 2:01 am
Don’t worry, after “Guns Didn’t Save Their Lives and Guns Won’t Save Your Life”, he plans a sequel called, “Doctors didn’t save their lives and Doctors won’t save your life.” It’s planned for release just after Obamacare passes and the waiting time to see a doctor for a checkup jumps to 18 months.
December 3rd, 2009 at 9:08 am
Excuse me, Uncle, but the only thing you got right in that post is providing your gallery of fanboys with examples of condescension and sarcasm. Well, maybe you’re right about the American Rifleman articles, but who really cares about that.
The title of the article which you so denigrated did not necessarily include those ideas you ascribed to it. The article itself elaborated nicely on the idea that carrying a gun doesn’t ensure safety. That’s all. It said nothing about gun owners thinking they can walk around feeling “ten feet tall and bulletproof.” Those are your words.
The stats were chosen to make a point. What do pro-gun guys do when they present stats? Do they pick ones that argue against their ideas? Of course not. And there’s nothing wrong with what was presented in this article. Out of Phoenix, NYC and the country. Gun friendly Phoenix is the dangerous place.
And finally, your generalization in calling your “opponents” stupid is just wrong. That’s a trick that you and other leaders in the pro-gun movement perpetuate. Thousands of your followers then pick up on it and pretty soon you’ve got millions repeating the same nonsense. Pro-gun folks are smart and honest while the gun control people are stupid and dishonest. I think that’s a false message and you should stop preaching it.
December 3rd, 2009 at 9:15 am
Mike, I note that you didn’t address my point. Because you’re stupid. Go away, the adults are talking.
December 3rd, 2009 at 12:15 pm
Pro-gun folks are smart and honest while the gun control people are stupid and dishonest.
I would like to thank MikeB for once again proving this statement.
December 3rd, 2009 at 12:21 pm
Here here!
December 3rd, 2009 at 12:44 pm
Uncle, I didn’t address your point? That’s funny, I thought I addressed all your points and your slick put down, calling me stupid and not an adult, proves the last one.
December 3rd, 2009 at 12:46 pm
I guess I should have specified that you should address them intelligently. Which you didn’t. I could address your alleged rebuttals but why waste my time?
And my opponents are stupid. That’s why they lose. Over and over and over.
December 3rd, 2009 at 2:01 pm
MikeB302000,
Who cares? Perhaps people who believe in telling the truth. Guess that explains your attitude.
Pointing out when one side has lied is appropriate, don’t you think?
Uncle is right, you don’t address the main point. You didn’t address it on my blog, you don’t address it here.
Should we ban or greatly restrict everything that didn’t save their lives? Guns didn’t, we never claimed they would….but the author pushes for greater restrictions on firearms.
Tasers didn’t save their lives, should they be restricted also?
Were the cops carrying Mace or Pepper Spray? Should they be banned because they didn’t save the lives of the ambushed cops?
December 3rd, 2009 at 4:44 pm
What? Guns don’t make you invincible? They can’t guarantee your absolute safety? Can anyone spell “DUUHHH”?
Got news for the mikebs out there; nothing, absolutely nothing can ensure your safety. OK? Now that we’ve got that cleared up, how does this undeniable truth of life have any bearing on the question of whether government should be allowed to infringe on basic human rights? Eh? Hello?
That’s what happens when you make sense– the anti-libertarians can either shut up and slink away, or as in mikeb’s case they’ll embarrass themselves. It’s great.
December 3rd, 2009 at 6:32 pm
Only people who are concerned about the truth, a set to which you do not appear to belong, MikeB302000. But, then, we already knew that, did we not?
December 4th, 2009 at 12:15 am
Mikeb are you saying the cops would have been safer if they had been unarmed? If not, then what is your point? There are only two options, unarmed or armed. One is a certain death sentence in the face of murderous thugs, or armed which may give you an opportunity to save your life if you are not taken completely by surprise.
Are you saying that we should all just submit to murder because being armed didn’t save these people who let their awareness wane and paid the price? And that somehow they would be less dead if they hadn’t been armed?
Are you really ….never mind I know you are.
December 4th, 2009 at 4:47 am
The Parkland incident proves one thing only:
You can do everything right, have good training and be properly equipped, and yet you still get killed.
There are no guarantees in life.
However, because they were all armed, at least these four officers had a chance to make a fight of it (as it seems one of them managed to do), something that is denied to the vast majority of the world.
To MikeB302000, you seem to believe that denying me the ability to respond in kind to a deadly force encounter, as these LEO did, is a right and proper thing to do, simply because I am not law enforcement myself.
With all due respect, you don’t have the right, and God willing, you never will.
December 4th, 2009 at 10:01 am
No Mark, what I believe is the “deadly force encounter” you keep talking about is a fantasy you nurture in order to justify and aggrandize your gun ownership. While all of you are doing that, facing about as much chance of a “deadly force encounter” as being hit by a meteorite, your guns are supplying the criminal world in a little thing called “gun flow.” And let’s not forget that every once in a while, one of you guys goes berserk and raises some hell. That’s what I believe, or at least that’s part of it.
December 4th, 2009 at 10:10 am
See, Mike, this is why we think you’re dumb. In the same comment you say that deadly force encounters are a fantasy which rarely happen, but that we are providing the guns for all those fantastical happenings.
Pick one. They happen, or they don’t.
December 4th, 2009 at 10:21 am
Yep criminals are a serious danger to us all (and also implied if they ONLY have guns…give them a Machete and they vanish in a puff of ether)
But having guns to protect ourselves from violence is somehow a fantasy.
Oh and the elephant in the room is the “fantasy” happens EVERY DAY and in substantial numbers.
http://www.thearmedcitizen.com/
But MikeB won’t address such things…meanwhile leaving his ass exposed for a good spanking. Why?
Well I agree, He must be stupid!
December 4th, 2009 at 12:37 pm
“acing about as much chance of a “deadly force encounter” as being hit by a meteorite”
So you’re claiming 300+ people per year in the US are killed by meteorites never mind the ones that hit near you?
Another fantasy number just like your 10%.
Just be quiet MikeB. You are making yourself look stupid.
December 4th, 2009 at 12:54 pm
If “deadly force encounters” are a fantasy that don’t really happen then logically that means violent criminals aren’t a problem and we shouldn’t worry about them.
If criminals / violent crime doesn’t happen because it’s a “fantasy” then “gun flow” is a trivial matter right?
December 5th, 2009 at 12:51 pm
I’m tired of reading all these comments about MikeB being stupid.
He is not.
MikeB suffers from mild retardation which is very different than simple stupidity.
December 5th, 2009 at 5:55 pm
“But most criminals don’t walk up and shoot you. They don’t want to kill you. They want your car, your wallet, to rape your wife or child, or some other various shenanigans.”
I’m curious if any studies or statistics exist on this idea. How many people are shot because murder is the objective versus how many are shot with a different criminal objective? Anyone know?
December 6th, 2009 at 9:42 pm
I doubt Wanda, that anyone does. When I was young, it was all about the swag. A robber would do all he could to avoid killing, he was just after the swag. In subsequent years it appears that the swag, though welcome and taken is really just an excuse to exhibit power over another by killing him/her.
So, I suspect there must be a lot of overlap between the two issues you ask about.