Pretty good correlation
between gun ownership and freedom/prosperity.
Makes sense. Government is the most prolific killer in modern history, and gun ownership helps protect people from their governments.
There is a subtext to the gungrabbers' obsession with taking guns away from private citizens.
Grassroots national defense.ReplyDelete
Looking only at the number of licensed hunters, Pennsylvania alone has more armed men and women than the Pakistani Army, the eighth largest army in the world.
'Course, they're all "bitter, [clinging] to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren’t like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations."
In other words, ignorant serfs who probably can't see how well Obamacare is working. They're certainly not members of the Eloi. In fairness, though, they do come in handy as semi-autonomous mobile sandbags if and when an Eloi is threatened.
The answer to both poverty and high crime rate is clearly more guns.ReplyDelete
Your biggest fan
Thank God, I lay awake at night worrying about the obviously gay Canadian troops (some of them speak French!), and our super liberal Army and Marines. We need our guns to keep them from taking our guns and rounding up Christians and putting them in FEMA camps!ReplyDelete
One thing is obvious from that map. We need to send more guns to Mexico so they can be freer and more prosperous. Maybe Obama can open some gun show loopholes, or start some other program to flow weapons south to help our good friends in Mexico and Central America.
Popeye: "Maybe Obama can open some gun show loopholes..."Delete
Well, actually, that's where I bought my first battleship. Troi and Hooter helpfully brought the military weapons / gun show loophole to my attention. I'm now browsing gun shows for an AC-130 Spectre gunship. Know anybody with one to sell?
"or start some other program to flow weapons south to help our good friends in Mexico and Central America."
Been done. And it worked better than healthcare.gov!
Mexico has draconian gun control laws.
How do you make sense of that map? Why are the countries with high private gun ownership the freest and most prosperous?
Like, say, Australia.Delete
Your biggest fan
"I lay awake at night worrying about the obviously gay Canadian troops (some of them speak French!), and our super liberal Army and Marines."Delete
Aside from the strange homophobic comment, the point is utterly moot. It is not the standard forces that one should be concerned with being militarized. Hint: The military has ALWAYS been militarized. When it comes to the military, posse comitatus should be your concern. If it is gone or disabled, so is the first safeguard. The second safeguard is found within the men and women of the forces themselves. It is the oath they took. If the oath is intact, and there is no official objection to the proclamation of that oath (as in 'oath keepers'), then this is a good sign. If the oath is being sold as 'extreme', you have a very, very serious problem.
You have a much bigger problem with militarized civilian units working under federal control. The agencies running amok (ie fast and furious) are far more of a threat to your freedoms than your marines or army, who would likely defect from any such tyranny and side with the people under such a crises. The same could be said with many of the regular police/law enforcement forces that have not been federalized.
Instead, if you want to find something to concern yourself with, you may want to start with the checkpoints, MRAPs, BILLIONS of rounds - many of them Geneva banned rounds (ie non military use). You may also want to check out the massive scandal concerning your signals data (meta data) and private communications, the use of the tax services to enforce policy, the change of command for interior forces, the general amnesties being discussed combined with wall building, and the sky rocketing incarceration rates.
Where do guns fit into all this? A disarmed population is an easily controlled population.
You'd have to be a half baked, amateur liar or a complete moron not to note the historical correlative.
Which one are you, KW?
KW, Obama is already providing Mexican mafiosos with all the guns they need.Delete
Funny you should bring up Mexico. It has some of the toughest gun control laws in the world and yet it's still dangerous. Go figure.
How are more guns protecting us from government crooks.ReplyDelete
-stealing and mismanaging our money,
-allowing their buddies in financial sector to ruin world economy,
-destroying manufacturing sector,
Guns are a single too. It takes more than a semi automatic in a locker to be free. A lot more.
For one, it takes the will and attention span of a free human being to claim the rights granted.
Citizens rights restrictions (ie 'gun rights') are just an indicator. A serious one.
All the guns in private hands have done nothing to mitigate any of the real or imagined (and I do mean imagined) problems you list. If it does take “a lot more” than guns, perhaps the guns aren’t really as nessisary as you think. I doubt very much if the American civil war you’re so concerned about is really going to hinge private gun ownership. What we’re really talking about here is the power fantasies of the weak, cowardly, and stupid.Delete
"weak, cowardly, and stupid"
And "easily led".
I see why you comment anonymously.
The point of the graph is that while gun control does not correlate with less gun crime, gun ownership strongly correlates with political freedom.
Gun crime in the United States over the past 20 years has plummeted (by at leat 50%), while gun ownership has skyrocketed (Obama is a wonderful gun salesman).
Like most liberal social policy, your perscriptions on gun control are moral preening and fact-free, and cause far more harm than good.
The point of the graphic, I think, is to demonstrate that America is just stuffed to the gills with guns, which obviously means that there's something wrong with us.ReplyDelete
But the graph backfires. It shows that there are tens of millions of firearm owners in this country, the vast majority of whom are law-abiding. I happen to be one of them.
Sometimes I think that gun control zealots are people who don't know, or don't think they know, any law-abiding gun owners. They think gun owners as scary people from somewhere else, rather than their friends and neighbors. They are the other. If they met a few people who owned guns they might lose their phobic reaction.
Virtually every gun in this country was a legal, owned or possessed by someone who could do so legally, until it wasn’t. The retired cop who shot and killed a young father for texting during the previews was a law abiding good guy with a gun, until he wasn’t.Delete
Several of my neighbors own guns, the only one that really worries me is the conservative conspiracy minded gun nut next door who brags about the 44 gun arsenal he has in his 2 bedroom condo. I figure if I’m shot in or around my home, there’s a very strong likelihood that it will be by one of those 44 guns. Nobody in my neighborhood feels any safer with this nut around.
Quiz: Which is more dangerous: living next door to a guy with a 44 gun arsenal, or accepting a ride home from Ted Kennedy?
>>Virtually every gun in this country was a legal, owned or possessed by someone who could do so legally, until it wasn’t.<<Delete
Except for the ones bought in brown bags on street corners.
>>The retired cop who shot and killed a young father for texting during the previews was a law abiding good guy with a gun, until he wasn’t.<<
I guess we can't even trust cops with guns now. Let's disarm them too. That's the logical ending to your line of thinking.
>>Several of my neighbors own guns, the only one that really worries me is the conservative conspiracy minded gun nut next door who brags about the 44 gun arsenal he has in his 2 bedroom condo.<<
I don't believe you live next door to a conservative conspiracy nut. I believe that you're so far off in left field that anyone to the right of you looks scary. Remember what I was saying about a phobic reaction?
In any case, there are no ideological litmus tests for second amendment rights. Just because you think your neighbor is off his rocker doesn't mean that you get to take his guns. He thinks you're off your rocker too.
But think about the other gun owners you mentioned. I know you're fond of referring to firearms as >>murder machines<<; now tell me why such nice people would own murder machines, and why they haven't used them for their supposed purpose yet.
The truth is that there are plenty of law-abiding gun owners in your neighborhoods. All of them are peaceful, even the one who scares you because you can't tolerate disagreement.
KW has mentioned on this blog before that he works on really big murder machines for the US Navy. Apparently murder machines are okay when in the hands of all powerful government.Delete
Right, then. People own guns to protect themselves from the gummint. So what you're saying, then, is that the biggest military machine in the history of the world, if it chose to move against the citizenry, would be stymied by people who shoot children in schools. Sound reasoning!ReplyDelete
If that were the reasoning, it would be less sound than your verbal comprehension of the text.Delete
He made the claim that gun ownership helps protect people against the government. How so? Are you suggesting that if the government, through the use of the military, or the military itself, in a coup, decided to move against the citizenry, then all the gun owners in America would rise up to ... what? You do realize that the military has an arsenal of weapons of inestimably greater destructive force than all the guns in America, right?Delete
Nobody" "Are you suggesting..."Delete
I'm not suggesting anything.
Sorry, Fat finger...Delete
Nobody: "Are you suggesting..."
I'm not suggesting anything.
Great. So you agree that it's silly to contend that gun ownership in America somehow "helps protect" the people from a government with enough destructive power at its disposal to wipe out everyone on earth forty times over if it chose to do so?Delete
I would also like Dr. Egnor to explicate the link between gun ownership and prosperity. He used the term "correlated." Need I remind anyone that correlation is not causation? The average global temperature has risen since the mid 19th century, during the early days of the Industrial Revolution and carbon release. During that same period of time, the number of pirates in the world has declined. So the decline of pirates is clearly correlated with the increase of temperature. From this, does it follow that the decline of pirates has CAUSED the increase in average temperature?Delete
BTW, "Admiral," "Anonymous" is not equal to "nobody." It's a reply option. Clearly, "somebody" is writing this. I guess calling me "nobody" is just another example of the Christian charity we've all come to expect!Delete
There is certainly a correlation between gun ownership and prosperity. The causation is probably via: political freedom causes second-amendment type rights, and vice versa, and political freedom causes economic freedom causes prosperity.Delete
Then why is China so prosperous, under a dictatorship that has no conception or tolerance of Second Amendment rights or any other rights enshrined in the U.S. Constitution? And is poised to become the world's largest economy in a couple of years.Delete
Nobody: "So you agree that it's silly to contend that gun ownership in America somehow "helps protect" the people from a government with enough destructive power at its disposal to wipe out everyone on earth forty times over if it chose to do so?"Delete
Why would I agree with that? Tyrannical governments don't. They always confiscate privately-owned weapons. Do you honestly think the US government would nuke Washington DC, LA, and NYC if it wanted to tyrannize the American citizenry?
Nobody: "I guess calling me 'nobody' is just another example of the Christian charity..."
If you need charity, ask for it.
Anonymous: "Then why is China so prosperous..."Delete
Theft of intellectual property, rape of the environment, and intimidation of the populace for starters.
No, "Admiral," I don't think the U.S. government would nuke any part of the U.S. if it decided to enforce a true tyranny over the country, as opposed to the imaginary tyranny that you and Glen Beck thinks it has already imposed. I merely point out that it COULD do that, if it wished. Quite obviously, it has lethal power far below that of nukes, which would be totally sufficient to the purpose of subduing the country, no matter how many handguns are out there. Do you seriously disagree with this, "Admiral"? Do you imagine that all the handgun owners in America would be a match for the greatest war machine in the history of the world, if the government chose to unleash even a fraction of that machine? As to your "charity" comment, keep showing your true Christian colors, "admiral." You bitterness helps erode your religion, a good thing.Delete
Right, "admiral," China is guilty of all those things and more, including terrorizing religious believers into submission. China is a bad place. But you seem to have missed the point. The point is that political and religious freedom is not necessary for prosperity, thus undercutting Dr. Egnor's argument.Delete
It should also be pointed out that long before America existed, China was a hugely prosperous world power without any of the political liberties that we have in America today. Also, while Europe was muddling through the Dark Ages, the Islamic world was a paragon of scientific and economic advances, again without any of our conception of liberty but with a devotion to the Koran -- just not the same conception of the Koran that jihadists have today, and these jihadists remain a fraction of the world's Muslims, most of whom want the same things from life as everyone else.Delete
Nobody: "... political and religious freedom is not necessary for prosperity"Delete
It depends on what you mean by "prosperity". One can build a burgeoning economy on the backs of slaves. You and the Doc just define "prosperity" differently.
Yes, "admiral," of course, that's the point! One CAN build a burgeoning economy on the backs of slaves -- see the Antebellum American South, with the sanction of Scripture! But you have now agreed, in spite of yourself, that Dr. Egnor's argument fails. Just because prosperity is correlated with things like political and religious rights, and gun ownership, it does not follow that those things CAUSE, or are in any way related, to prosperity! Thanks for agreeing with me in spite of yourself, "admiral." And no, obviously, Dr. Egnor and I don't define "prosperity" differently. The U.S. is prosperous with certain intersubjectively agreed-upon rights, and China is equally or more prosperous without any of those rights. Go figure.Delete
BTW, what are you an "admiral" of? The rubber ducky in your bathtub? :DDelete
Also, have you worked out yet how all the gun owners in America would be a match for the U.S. military? Love to hear it.Delete
Nobody: "what are you an "admiral" of?"Delete
I'm Admiral of Central Command Sandals, Montego Bay, Jamaica. No ducks involved, although I do support the Ducks. Anyoldway, I'm looking to acquire a C-130 Spectre gunship through the Gun Show Loophole. Know anybody with one for sale? No fixer-uppers, pls.
Nobody cont: "have you worked out yet how all the gun owners in America would be a match for the U.S. military?"
It may surprise you to know that some of those gun owners are in the military. In fact, according to DHS, veterans are a terrorist threat. Especially if they support the Constitution. But in any case, that was your claim, not mine. We've already had that discussion.
Nobody, etc, etc: "You bitterness helps erode your religion"
Nope. I'm a bitter clinger. :-D
if you are talking to nobody does it mean you are talking to yourself?
[Also, have you worked out yet how all the gun owners in America would be a match for the U.S. military? Love to hear it.]Delete
300,000,000 guns would be a significant problem for the US military. Door-to-door street fighting is extraordinarily dangerous for the military (ask the Marines in Fallujah), and in a civil war the military would not have complete freedom of action (nuking Omaha would be counterproductive).
Furthermore, many of the privately owned weapons would be owned by the families of the military themselves, and more soldiers would probably fight on the side of the rebels than on the side of the government.
300 million privately owned weapons absolutely preclude imposition of military rule without consent of the governed.
Everyone in Afghanistan owns an AK. That map is just wrong.ReplyDelete
What's indisiputable is that high gun ownership corresponds to a high rate of murder and violent crime.ReplyDelete
As for defending freedom and making "prosperity" (money), there's zero evidence that gun ownership creates prosperity (ask Africa or Mexico), no evidence it protects freedom (ask Australia which bought back its guns.)
But Egnor believes that enabling kid-killers will make "prosperity", that is, money. So kid-killing is necessary for money-making.
Conservative Christianity is a kind of death cult of child sacrifice. We wants money-- I mean "prosperity"; kill the kids, and money will come.
[What's indisiputable is that high gun ownership corresponds to a high rate of murder and violent crime.]Delete
The worst slaughters in the 20th century-- in Nazi occupied territory, in communist countries-- occurred where private gun ownership was illegal.
The highest correlation with gun murders in the US is which political party governs your municipality. Virtually all gun crime in the US is committed by Democrats in municipalities governed by Democrats (Chicago, New Orleans, Washington, Newark, Houston, yada, yada.)