Monday, November 12, 2007

Good luck with that.

Cleveland had a gun buyback, hoping to lower crime.

It's yet another attempt to avoid talking about the HUGE ROARING STAMPEDING MALE ELEPHANT IN MUSTH taking over the room.

Gang and thug violence is not a gun problem. It is a culture problem.

They say:
"Easy access to guns equals more violence"
That's odd. I have very easy access to guns...multiple guns, in fact...and ammunition for those guns. But I have never, not once, had violence in my home.


Tam said...

Wow! They're giving you two fallacies for the price of one!

1) They're offering to "buy back" something they never owned in the first place.

2) "Easy accessibility" of guns? Never before in the history of our republic has purchasing a gun been more difficult than it is now. Guns were easily accessible in the 1920's, when any ten year old with the dosh could mail order a machine gun legally.

Weer'd Beard said...

Worked like a Charm in Mass!

Unless by "Worked" you consider people turning in guns, or crime actully being lowered.

What really happened was GFW relatives handed in gran-pa's duck hunting gun or deer rifle. Or worse, gran-pa's war bring-back. Also us gunnies got to clear the shelves of the local gun shop for POS rusty Lorcins and Jennings that may or may not be in firing condition for a small profit.

Consider the $200 gift card a "Tax refund" as eveybody else is just getting skrewed for a waste of tax monies

BobG said...

Never underestimate the stupidity of politicians.

straightarrow said...

Easy accessibility to the genitals of the irresponsible by the irresponsible= more violence.

Thugs, gangbangers,and run of the mill criminals don't just happen they are trained into it either by commission or omission of the acts of the irresponsible gene contributors.

Perhaps now would be a good time to run a stastical analysis of the above mentioned miscreants and pass a law denying access to genitals for the most frequently offending group. At the very least, require registration and licensing so that confiscation can begin if the problem remains after the new law is passed.

Isn't that just as reasonable? And I would wager a damn sight more effective at quelling violence.

Somehow though, I think the same groups that would be affected by the new law would be most vociferous in their protestations. Despite the fact that they would disabuse everybody not causing the problem of their rights.

comatus said...

Well straight, I hope I'm not the first to mention that you may be out on a limb there, ethically. Did we miss a lick in the Bill of Rights, or were the framers really that prescient? It's hard to avoid the "Beethoven abortion" quibble, and its corollary that involves an Austrian, nameless due to Godwin's Law.

Fun to play with though: if confiscation isn't acceptable yet (to use Brady jargon), maybe a 5-day waiting 'period' wouldn't hurt? Or an Assault Genitals Ban, for the ones that spray offspring everywhere? Or just making the ammunition hard to get...

No, we're falling to the Social Conservative Error. Were it you, me & our host having a little committee meeting, we'd almost never be wrong in deciding who should breed-a. Put that power in the hands of Da Peeple and its representatives, and you get a different outcome entirely: probably just what we've got now. That thought alone should put saltpetre in your bully-beef.