I attracted a comment on Keri’s blog from a fellow who calls himself Guido. He refers to my rant from yesterday when I was blowing off steam about the shooting.
Guido said…
I read Dr. Momentum’s commentary and it’s just plain sh*tty.
When will you people learn? Even if you ban these types of weapons, the morons that commit these types of assaults will still continue to execute them. Period.
Take the guns away and some chemical engineer somewhere with a grudge against an old waitress girlfriend will put a couple of drops of some mixed concoction into a restaurant’s water supply, possibly killing dozens.
What then? Stop teaching chemistry in our schools? Close all restaurants and live in a box?
This blog gets more entertaining daily. Please keep me laughing.
Well, there’s a reason I called that post a “rant,” but this comment is a few notches lower than one of my rants.
I don’t remember anybody making the argument that getting rid of these types of weapons would stop people from killing people. But that’s a common straw man argument that people throw about whenever gun access discussions come up. It’s easier to argue against that than to face the question about whether or not these weapons ought to be available.
Guido can’t really expect people to believe that guns save us by preventing chemical engineers from poisoning too many people in their killing sprees. I’m thinking that he’s joking on that.
But the one thing that’s hard not to notice is that nobody seems to want to answer the question Keri was asking: why does someone need an assault weapon?
The reason nobody wants to answer is because they don’t like the answer, which is obvious to everybody.
Nobody needs one of these assault weapons. Honest people who own one of these weapons should be able to admit it.
But instead of that, we get distractions like “‘Assault weapon’ is a political term, so it doesn’t mean anything. Gun collectors don’t use that term.” That’s not an argument. And it doesn’t matter where the term originated. It really doesn’t. Yes, “assault weapon” is not the same as “assault rifle” and it may make you feel better to blame politicians (liberal politicians!) for the confusion, but it still doesn’t explain why anyone needs an assault weapon. They don’t.
They want them, though. Maybe they should be allowed to have them and maybe they shouldn’t. But to even have that discussion with someone, I think that person needs to admit that they don’t need them.
Posted by James at December 13, 2006 9:10 PMI don't think anyone should own any sort of weapon until they understand the effects of the weapon. If you want pepperspray, take a taste. If you want a taser, feel the juice through your body. If you want a semi-automatic military class weapon, get shot in the foot or something.
It should be a part of the application process.
That's how I ended up being the proud owner of a lightsabre.
Posted by: Derek at December 13, 2006 11:58 PMAt least that would separate out the poseurs.
Posted by: James at December 14, 2006 6:49 AMI think "Guido" has confused chemical engineers with chemists, but I'll let the chemist post about that.
How tiring to hear the same boring refrain of "guns don't kill people, people kill people." I refuse to debate this for the nth time as the chance of changing his or her mind is negligible (kind of like debating abortion, which I also don't do anymore).
Moving on.
Posted by: Patti M. at December 14, 2006 8:59 AMYes as we said back in school chemical engineers are glorified plumbers. In fact their intramural softball team nickname was the plumbers so they actually called themselves that.
chemists are the ones actually working with the chimicals, CEs design reactors and pipes, etc. to contain, carry the chemicals.
Assuming that you are looking for non-houshold type chemicals that only a chemist might have access to. I think you'll find that those are more tightly controlled than guns are. You need a special liscence to obtain certain chemicals and they need to be access controlled once you have them.
Posted by: B.O.B. (bob) at December 14, 2006 9:24 AMYou couldn't keep a daisy-cutter bomb on a flatbed in your backyard under the "bombs don't kill people, people kill people" argument, so why apply it to assault weapons?
I just don't get it. Sounds like avoiding the issue to me.
Posted by: Chuck S. at December 14, 2006 9:36 AMI can think of people who need assault rifles. I Think, for example, if the African-American residents of New York City all owned assault rifles and regularly displayed organization and discipline, cops might be less likely to use them for target practice.
Posted by: DG at December 14, 2006 11:18 AMI think we should launch an ad campaign that changes the "glamour" aspect of owning a gun.
When did Steven Seagal become a pussy? When he stopped doing movies with martial arts, and started doing movies with guns.
Ditto for Van Damme. Are these guys even around any more?
So how about something like, "Real men kill with their hands. Only pussies need guns."
Or maybe, "Need a gun? Buy viagra instead, limp dick," you know, only clever.
You people are much better with words than I am. Let's have some slogans.
:-P
Posted by: Maggie at December 14, 2006 11:19 AMMaggie, nice ad copy!
How about this:
"Stop over-compensating for your small sausage with your big gun. Cialis soft tabs are here!"
Oh, wait--that's spam.
Posted by: Patti M. at December 14, 2006 11:51 AMGo with the spam angle, I think it works!
Why so small sausage? Make her remember you with AR15
or
Take your Award - Mr. Smallest Weenie 2006 year's supply of assault weapon ammo
or
more shooty-shooty, more pleasure
or
Ryan, better than warm milk: muzzle flash
Posted by: James at December 14, 2006 11:58 AM"More shooty-shooty." I like it. It's snappy and to-the-point.
Posted by: Julie at December 14, 2006 12:01 PMOK, so let's stop calling it an assault weapon and call it an AK47 or whatever. Fine. NOW tell me who "needs" an AK47?
LOVE the slogans! ;-)
Posted by: Karen at December 14, 2006 12:03 PM"Guns don't kill people. Small guns kill people. AK-47: Making America safer, one suburban militia at a time."
Posted by: Mike at December 14, 2006 12:13 PMOh..."more shooty-shoot, more pleasure" definitely wins!
Way to make the double entendre, James!
Posted by: Patti M. at December 14, 2006 12:57 PM