More Hilarity Regarding Magazine Bans
I need to keep mentioning this because it's important: If you aren't well-trained in a subject, it's dangerous and foolish to try to legislate it. Consider all the internet "equality" and "freedom" and "safety" acts to come out of Congress.
One of the items during so-called "Assault Weapon Ban," is being bandied about for renewal-a ban on "high ( Read more... )
That's actually been the case for quite a while. The first time that I heard the statistic was under Clinton.
"As for Christopher Krauthammer, who thinks that the US should emulate European democracies, in disarming the citizens, does he mention how that worked out for the Jews in Nazi Germany? Or does he conveniently forget little factiods such as Hitler being voted into office? Or are 'European Democracies' only those countries that have conditions that he likes, and those that have conditions he doesn't like are somehow magically not 'European Democracies'."
Or he suffers from "that can't happen here"-ism. "That was in the past. Humans are more evolved now. Except anyone who opposes me... they're Neanderthals who we need to exterminate."
"Gun control freaks seem to be good at cooking the data, the latest little mischief thay have gotten up to is that when they compared the number of deaths in 'mass shootings' that were stopped by the police, vs those stopped by armed civilians, they conveniently considered 'mass shootings' to be only those incidents in which there were 4 or more deaths. Which leads to a pre-determined conclusion, because as it turns out, most such incidents which are stopped by armed civilians are stopped before there are 4 deaths."
Yup. Or they come out with the, "well, cops have special training, and we can't have civilians responding, because they might hit bystanders." First, cops don't have "special" training, unless one means that in the "short bus" sort of way, because the average cop can't shoot well enough to graduate from an intro-level class, if I (or any other competent instructor I know) is teaching it, let alone anything advanced. Which is not necessarily a "slam" against cops - shooting is only a small part of what they do. And second, given that immediate, on-site response averages 2.5 dead, and the delay for cops to get there yields 14 dead, simple math tells us that the on-site civilian would have to kill a dozen innocent bystanders in order for it not to be statistically-preferrable for him to respond.
Reply
**Or he suffers from "that can't happen here"-ism. "That was in the past. Humans are more evolved now. Except anyone who opposes me... they're Neanderthals who we need to exterminate."**
"Can't happen here-ism" is irrational recursive nonsense. If you bother to look at history, there are certain (mistaken) actions which have been done numerous times by countless civilizations, including using fiat currency, and disarming the majority of people. These mistaken actions have 4 things in common:
1. They end up badly every time they are implemented.
2. The people who propose implementing them are very often aware that these actions have always ended up badly in the past.
3, The people who propose implementing them, have always had the "Can't happen here-ism" attitude and think that their civilization is somehow more evolved or smarter than those civilizations in the past.
4. The people who have the "Can't happen here-ism" attitude are very often aware that those who have implemented such mistaken actions in the past have ALSO had the "Can't happen here-ism" attitude, but that since they are somehow smarter and more evolved that those others, that their "Can't happen here-ism" is true, even though the "Can't happen here-ism" has always been false in the past.
The way I see it, given that "Can't happen here-ism" has always proven false in the past, the odds are vastly greater that it will prove to be false in the present and future as well, and that those who think it is true in their case, are as deluded in the present as those who had the same attitude in the past.
People are funny, the same irrational people who insist on intelligent design when it comes to how life came to exist on the planet earth insist on irrational, non-intelligent actions when it comes to running their lives or politics. Irrationality is a dice, and what some people consider 'useful' irrationality is nothing more than a loaded dice. A dice that rolls all 6's might be useful, but only until the game changes. When the problem confronting you changes from getting the highest number on the dice to "what is 2+2" the ability to actually rationally do math becomes instantly far more useful than the mindless ability of rolling 6's all the time. If you are reduced to irrational actions to salvage your situation, it means one of 3 things:
1. You seriously screwed up in the past, causing an emergency you could have avoided by past rational action.
2. You are dealing with the unknown, in which case you will only be irrational temporarily, once you discover a way of dealing with the situation, you will (hopefully) revert to rational behavior and repeat that action in the same situation.
3. You have had some really bad luck, putting you into an emergency that could not have been predicted, and which will not last very long.
I cannot help but wonder whether so many parents are really opposed to the idea of armed guards in schools, or whether it is just a few parents claiming to be opposed, who are making some really loud noises. I find myself puzzled by most people, because they seem to be able to control themselves emotionally, but are completely unable to control themselves ethically. I'm just the opposite, I'm depressed and scared all the time, and wish I knew the secret why most people seem to be happy and confident. However, when after reading the evidence on something, I come to the conclusion that my previous ethical beliefs were morally wrong, then I am able to change my mind on the matter. For instance, I used to be opposed to guns, and in favor of circumcision. After reading the evidence on the subjects, and several months of thought, I was forced to take the opposite attitude on both subjects.
Most people don't seem to be able to do that, not only will they not change their ethical attitudes even when shown evidence that their beliefs are wrong, but they will sacrifice the lives of their own children, rather than change their ethical attitudes.
Reply
Leave a comment