In the following video clip Larry Wilmore makes some interesting points but they revolve around a logic that is illogical. Let me explain;
Tonightly: After a mass shooting at an Oregon community college, Larry breaks down how the media addresses gun violence in America. (7:30);
Here is a great example of what's wrong with the gun debate on the left;
Watch how Larry Wilmore freaks out over guns;
More guns is your answer?
My head hurts (thus losing his ability to think logically)
Once Larry Wilmore's head starts hurting he reveals what people on the left think which would be distrubing enough by itself if it wasn't for the fact that Larry Wilmore actually thinks he's making sense;
He starts his example of what's wrong with the gun debate from Fox News by comparing guns to sharks (so wrong I can't even go after Fox news for this which is distressing);
The argument is simple. In an example where guns are like sharks... if you don't have sharks around then no sharks can eat you.
In other words, if you don't have guns around then no guns can shoot you, i.e. this is the logic he starts with is that signs work;
Next, Larry Wilmore explains how guns are dangerous like sharks by their mere presence;
In other words, if he had put up a "no sharks allowed" sign up there would be no sharks.
How he thinks this might work is interesting. Somehow a shark, swimming in the water, would read a 'no sharks allowed' sign and back off.
In the same way, Larry Wilmore is saying having a sign up saying no guns allowed will stop guns from coming into the building.
BUT GUNS CAN'T READ
We know criminals wouldn't care about no guns signs (ever seen back robbers look at a no guns sign in a bank and leave?) so obviously Larry Wilmore is expecting the guns themselves to read the signs. His analogy just gets crazier from here.
True. Allowing guns to roam around freely with thier sharp teeth is just a recipe for disaster.
So if everyone had been packing sharks then everyone would have been safer. Suggesting, of course, that having sharks to defend yourself is just stupid.
I would have to agree with Larry Wilmore here, packing sharks to defend yourself is just stupid.
If you pack a gun instead you could just shoot the shark and no one would die (something as big as a shark in 4 feet of water would be a much easier target than a bank robber or mass murderer with a gun already drawn)
In other words, "liberals" have a tendency to think that guns have a mind of thier own like sharks do. How these many mistaken ideas can coalesce on one side that normally sticks to facts is startling and I try and explore that in the next part. But I think the source of the problem lies in a fear of death mixed with bad marketing of the debates and the issues for money making purposes.
I think this image helps clear up some of what I'm saying;
Here is an image of a common problem, expressed by a dog but found amougst toddlers as well, i.e. guns lying around carelessly, without their safety on, that get triggered. (leaving a gun lying around - especially a loaded gun - is like leaving your car turned on and leaving the house for a week long hike, with kids nearby).
Notice that EVERY gun has a safety.
(a lock so the trigger can't be accidently depressed)
(a lock so the trigger can't be accidently depressed)
IN other words the owner of this gun LITERALLY just left the gun lying around, loaded and without it's safety on.
A dog managed to shoot it accidentally like kids shoot each other if they get their hands on a gun lying around the house. Doesn't happen in countries like Switzerland where they are trained to handle guns, just in the US where we treat them like cars but not worthy even of getting enough training like we do when we learn to drive and no test to pass to prove you can drive/shoot. i.e. by this method is it any surprise we end up with armed untrained idiots?
The fact that it is possible to handle guns safely has been proven by other countries so the problem isn't a sentient gun (like using a metaphor of a shark would suggest) its the people handling the guns;
The problem is that people are mistaking a statistic for the answer, which is true in the most superficial way, which further proves my point that people's emotional responses are making them illogical to such an extreme as to be the source of the gun debate problem. I'm not saying that if the left fixes it's illogical issue with guns the debate will straighten out, Fox News is way too good at messing things up for it to work, but of Fox news owners were in prison the debate would be fixed because the trouble makers would be out of the way, THEN we can have a reasonable discussion without the Oligarchs purposely trying to mess up the debate.
Here is a look at the statistic and what statistics has to say about such a superficial correlation (even in statistics you wouldn't call this a cause and effect relationship between more guns and gun deaths... as a percentage of gun owning people to guns, the Swiss would beat us hands down);
Assuming a correlation between the quantity of guns and gun deaths while leaving our variables such as type of gun culture involved and type of training the average gun user has is called a type 2 error in statistics.
With news like this i.e. "GUNS = DEATH" people are getting even more scared and thinking even less rationally.
I've gone into more detail here:
Guns Don't Shoot Themselves. There Are Many Other Explanations For High Gun Deaths In The States VS Iceland or Switzerland
Look at Fox News, a network known for it's lies and deceptions, and notice the conext they create for debate:
At 4:52 Fox News claims that Gun Free Zones are criminal protection areas which seems excessive and helps confuse anyone looking at the issue. Gun Free Zones aren't criminal protection areas, they are blind spots in our cultural consciousness.
Somehow we think that putting up a sign saying "no guns"...
Can stop a crime from occurring. Apparently being a criminal means they listen to rules if you put it up in sign form...
To say that the "gun free zone" sign attracts criminals may not be a proven thing and thus Fox News is caught in an exaggeration or lie (as usual) but surely you don't think putting up a sign is going to deter criminals, right?
I don't understand why this is going on (after 65 years) but given that this is an emotional reaction I can explain the inconsistencies in the logic fairly easily. I should say that I know how the word "gun" can shut off the thinking faculties in even the most successful people. The fear of guns seems to be almost pathological as the fear of death must be. A whole culture based on buying stuff an planning predictable futures brought to an abrupt end by the loud sound stick. A car is not so loud, not so scary. But a gun is just terrifying as we are naturally scared of loud sounds to begin with and we only know of guns in context of killing and death while we know of cars in context of fun (car trips) AND "accidents" (death) AND murder. With no guns people may start using cars for mass murder (like they used swords in the past or clubs and stones before that - with bow and arrows in between).
CNN: 4 killed and 44 hurt by Car Assault.
This interesting blindness to cars VS guns as tools of death is expressed in this 1950s Bugs Bunny cartoon where is walks past a car (barely missing it, i.e. inches from death) and says that 'having guns is dangerous';
65 years later we are still having the same debate so lets just accept there is an emotional element in the discussion on both sides that is so strong it is blinding everyone to various extents.
This has been the best debate so far
CNN: Amanpour Gets Involved In the Gun Debate (Once... better keep her off US News as she's a real reporter and might actually help!)
Ultimately, if you read the Declaration of Independence in context of the second amendment, you are left with the very strong impression that the Founding Fathers wanted weapons for hunting AND as balance of power against a tyrannical Government.
But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.--Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government. The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world.
(Notice how much the British sounds like present day GOP Congress? i.e. by not helping the people as per Article 1 Section 8, the GOP are fulfilling the requirements laid out in the Declaration of Independence allowing revolution! Surely, with today's armaments, the population is inadequately armed to fulfill it's Constitutional responsibility of overseeing the Government)He has refused his Assent to Laws, the most wholesome and necessary for the public good.
He has forbidden his Governors to pass Laws of immediate and pressing importance, unless suspended in their operation till his Assent should be obtained; and when so suspended, he has utterly neglected to attend to them.
He has refused to pass other Laws for the accommodation of large districts of people, unless those people would relinquish the right of Representation in the Legislature, a right inestimable to them and formidable to tyrants only.
So to say the Founding Fathers meant the second amendment for hunting just proves that the liberals have their thinking caps off for this one (and they are stomping on it out of frustration).
Overview of my gun posts;