I’ll get the preliminaries out of the way: I don’t care if you want to own guns (by which I mean I could care less if you own them) and I’m not some communist who thinks private companies should be done away with. Please don’t bother with these types of comments, I won’t even respond to them.
That said, I think it’s hilarious that gun lovers die from accidents all the time. No seriously, I sometimes just type “gun accident” into a news site and belly laugh for an hour or two reading about all the dumbasses we no longer have walking this Earth. Sometimes it’s sad, like an innocent person dying, but it’s usually the gun owner or a close friend or relative.
My favorite has to be the kids who find their parents’ gun and kill themself or a sibling or friend. I crack up every time. Nothing like a child’s death to start my day off right.
But the story that really made my day was finding out that gun manufacturers are every bit as heartless and negligent as any other private company. Thinking only about profits and the cost of converting to a new design, Remington has kept the 700 series rifle on the market for over 60 years, despite hundreds of accidents linked to a faulty design.
This is the kind of story I literally fall out of my chair laughing over.
The flaw causes the gun to go off spontaneously, most notably when the safety is switched off. What’s more, the company knew about this before it was even in mass production, but they did nothing and continue to produce this model of rifle. I guess it was calculated to be cheaper to settle the over 75 lawsuits than to actually make their weapon safer.
I know how gun owners like to believe they practice gun safety, but I’m curious how they account for deaths caused by accidents that could presumably be from nothing more than mechanical failure?
The bottom line is this: owning a gun only increases your odds of dying by gunshot. It doesn’t make you safer, though I don’t care if you decide to buy one and become an amusing statistic for me to laugh at. Gun companies sling bullshit arguments and fund lobby groups like the NRA in order to increase their sales, and they don’t give a shit about the quality of product they push.
If you want security, get an alarm system or better locks on your doors and windows or a get dog or take some self-defense classes. Or get a gun, and fuel my love for dark humor.
I know how Automobile owners like to believe they practice safe driving, but I’m curious how they account for deaths caused by accidents that could presumably be from nothing more than mechanical failure?
ReplyDeletePinto and Toyota not withstanding...
The bottom line is this: owning an automobile only increases your odds of dying by automobile accident. It doesn’t make you safer, though I don’t care if you decide to buy one and become an amusing statistic for me to laugh at. Car companies sling bullshit arguments and fund lobby groups in order to increase their sales, and they don’t give a shit about the quality of product they push.
That said, I think it’s hilarious that automobile lovers die from accidents at a statistical numbers multiple times higher than any other non-natural death including crime. No seriously, I sometimes just type “automobile accident” into a news site and belly laugh for an hour or two reading about all the dumbass drivers we no longer have walking this Earth. Sometimes it’s sad, like a pedestrian person dying, but it’s usually the automobile owner or a close friend or relative.
My favorite has to be the kids who find their parents’ keys and kill themself or a sibling or friend. I crack up every time. Nothing like a child’s mangled death to start my day off right.
There I fixed it for you Bret, but of course facts, statistics and reason are beyond your abilities...
Because everyone knows you need to ride a gun to work or else take the public gun with the poor people...
ReplyDeleteYou're missing the statistical giant. It should be food, because heart disease kills several times more people than cars. But food is a necessity, transportation is a necessity, guns are... compensation.
Guntheism is wrong, but you're free to practice it. Don't pretend you aren't a religion, because only a religion is not content with the freedom to practice, they have to make sure everyone subscribes to their beliefs.
Fact: there are no gun control advocates legislating to ban firearms, but there are towns and counties that have legislated to require households to own a gun. You're on the wrong side of logic if you think having a gun makes you safer. It's legal and I don't care one bit if you do it, but this isn't enough for you because you're driven to proselytize and convert me.
And frankly, that's fine too. I like a laugh, especially how you (and the other emptyheads who decided to voice their disapproval with a cowardly and castrated star ranking) didn't even address what I wrote, you just switched into "He no like gun, he bad" mode.
Bret the day you actually use some logic in that addled narcissistic brain of yours I will likely just be shocked.
ReplyDelete"You're on the wrong side of logic if you think having a gun makes you safer."
Bullshit - again you ignore the facts.
Your statism is a religion, but you can't see that, guns as a religion... I don't know, that would be more like an addiction for gunnies than a religion.
The star thing is just a way to tell you "F" you without having to type it in and cowardly is not something I bet you would bother to call me in particular because I have no problem jumping in on the comments - but you can view it any way you want.
Not address what you wrote - for goodness sakes Bret are you actually that delusional.
Actually I understand the sadness, frustration, and futility of any accidents especially where children are harmed - you were the asshole giggling about dark humor.
You can hate breeders all you want, just don't think some of us will not jump on this subject or others and take you to task...
You continue to show your narcissism about how "superior" your positions are but you, as proven in the past, are incapable of handling facts and logic when it is against your favored position.
How about giving us something compelling based on facts and logic and give up on trying to tell us that your shit doesn't stink...
Your biggest problem is that you think that you are superior and that with the state as your anointed bully you can just take what you think is needed and tell the rest of us what to do - the typical cowardly liberal - "I don't like it so you should not do it" you are only a few points off from your retarded twin the statist "conservative" neocon.
If you think what I said warrants such ridiculously hyperbolic insults, you are just reinforcing my view of your religiosity.
ReplyDeleteI'm really confused by a great deal of it. I would hate to see what you'd say if i actually thought you shouldn't be allowed to have a gun. You'd probably crap your diaper.
Oh, boo, hoo. Bret
ReplyDeleteIf you don't want to have some "nastiness" try stoping your constant insulting narcissism.
You are not confused and you are not that stupid, your Cranus Ferris act is at best annoying - try a new act this one is boring.
You are just trying to be a dork, I guess it is entertaining for you. At least a bit of real content other than your snarky "I'm so smart and you all are so stupid you pig-dogs taunting" would be nice.
I already know what your statist fantasies are I don't need you to actually admit to them.
I didn't say anything about "nastiness." That sounds like a word a little faggot like you would use, like "ickiness."
ReplyDeleteLook, I'm sorry it's not good enough that you can live, that you have to impose your opinions on others in order to hear them validate your stupidity. I refuse to play your stupid game of lying just to let the crazy person calm down. You can suck a fucking cock from head to the hairy base, you overbearing bully-wanna be.
You present no facts and no arguments, only empty and error-strewn insults which serve only to release your obviously pent up rage at your massive inferiority complex. I'm not superior to you, but I apparently understand this particular issue much more clearly and realistically than you. Take that however you wish.
All of your insults seem pulled out of thin air, completely unrelated to anything I wrote. You should seriously put on your reading glasses, you old faggot.
Bret, I think you meant to say you could NOT care less.
ReplyDeleteIf you could care less, then you still care a significant amount.
I have no opinion on the spittle flying back and forth between you and Radio Bloger. It looks like The Dozens but smells like Teen Spirit.
Hmm... I could probably care a little less. Like, if you wanted to own frogs, I'm a little less concerned than if you want to own guns... unless they're those poison dart frogs.
ReplyDelete[Sometimes I forget this isn't my blog, where the only person reading it is the one person commenting...]
ReplyDeleteMy daddy owned a 12 gauge. I even used it on a few occasions for skeet shooting.
ReplyDeleteYaddee, yaddee, yadda, long story short, I'm still here.
Bret
ReplyDeleteWhat exactly is your problem, why are you so caught up on homosexuals and whatever acts they are committed to?
You must be a closeted bigot, too bad it's not necessary.
You can spin around in a dervish all you like, you can even claim that I am guilty of the exact things I continue to point out you have a habit of spewing. Your constant projection is a bit telling and your insistence in continuous insults is also a bit revealing.
I'm sorry your college education did nothing to improve your pathetic lack of reading comprehension and I am also sorry you are so pathetic you find it necessary to to be snarky and in this case insulting to the point of violence.
It is what I would expect from the constant propaganda exposure in education.
Me impose a will on others - funny your the knee jerk statist.
You can have freedom or not - your ideas are obviously different, your show of defensive projection posted above is illuminating.
You are not very good at this are you Bret?
Radio Bloger
ReplyDeleteWhat exactly is your problem[?] Why are you so caught up on guns and whatever acts they are committed with?
You must be a closeted pink pistol firearm faggot who is gay for guns, too bad it's not necessary.
You can spin around on a cock all you like, you can even claim that I am guilty of the exact things I continue to point out you have a habit of spewing. Your constant erection for men is a bit telling and your insistence in continuous insults is also a dick revealing.
I'm sorry your lack of education did nothing to improve your pathetic lack of reading comprehension and I am also sorry you are so pathetic you find it necessary to to be armed and in this case insulting to the point of supporting violence.
It is what I would expect from the constant propaganda exposure in the NRA.
Me impose a will on others - funny you[']r[e} the knee jerk atheist.
You can have freedom or not - your ideas are obviously different, your show of offensive projection posted above is illuminating.
You are not very good at this are you Radio Bloger?
[Nice formula, by the way, of stealing every other word I use and turning it back on me... clearly you learned that from your education... in 3rd grade. I believe that's the rhetorical "I'm rubber, you're glue" trick. Good luck with the AIDS, old man.]
I just want to point out (and by the way, I'm not denying that Bret is NOT an across the board libertarian) that someone can be opposed personally to something (whether that is using drugs or alcohol, going to church on Sunday and praying to Jebus, or owning guns) without wanting to use the state to ban that activity. That seems to be Bret's position here, though that doesn't mean he's not wrong on his facts (I'm not commenting on that here), just that there is no anti-liberty stance inherent in believing people shouldn't do certain things as long you don't seek to pass a law against it.
ReplyDeleteBret's problem is that he isn't consistent in this pro-freedom position.
What are you talking about? I think people should be able to buy land mines, hookers, and meth. I don't understand what anti-freedom position I have ever taken.
ReplyDeleteYou guys are never going to be happy with me or my opinions as long as you keep associating me with the government you old assholes selected and which I had nothing to do with. Kindly step the fuck back and check your premise when criticizing me as a "statist," as if the tribal nonsense you guys advocate is even worth pursuing while we have private kingdoms ruled by a despotic nobility that will obviously seize power in a true oligarchy, cutting out the elected middleman.
I don't understand how it's an improvement to dismantle the people's ability to choose their leadership in favor of dropping the reins on the ground for the first asshole to pick up. I find anarchy to be grossly anti-liberty and anti-freedom, because it subjects people to true "might makes right" with no checks or balances, no ability to appeal, no ability to file a greivance, really no recourse at all. That's not freedom, it's oligarchy wearing the mask of anarchy.
I don't understand how it's an improvement to dismantle the people's ability to choose their leadership
ReplyDeleteThe people have that ability now? Yeah, like the current "democratic" system isn't rigged to keep those oligarchs in power.
I find anarchy to be grossly anti-liberty and anti-freedom, because it subjects people to true "might makes right" with no checks or balances, no ability to appeal, no ability to file a greivance, really no recourse at all.
Where do you get this stuff? Yeah, the thousands rotting in U.S. prisons for the victimless crimes of drug use, possession and distribution are not subject to an arbitrary "might makes right" (because the state is more powerful than you and has the "law" on its side) system, and they have plenty of recourse through our kangaroo courts ruled by the black-robed tyrants. Tell me some more fairy tales, Bret!
Seriously move to Somalia and stfu. I do not understand what you think anarchy will be like, but the only fairy tale here is your bullshit notion that people just spontaneously and kindly work together. The new Hippies are anarchists.
ReplyDeleteWhile you waste time writing about the evil state, you could be writing about how we need to legalize drugs. But I guess it'd be easier to just build society from scratch than to patch a few fucking holes. You are so fucking stupid sometimes...
Jakson's Law: the first person to mention Somalia in a debate on anarchy, loses.
ReplyDeleteNice try Bret
ReplyDeleteIt's obvious you are a child and cannot help yourself.
Continue to attack if you wish, continue your delusion if you wish. It is truly problematic that you can only go so far before you start slinging insults, in fact you never stop with the insults typical of some spoiled frat-boy. Asking to grow up would be too much it seems.
After getting skunked at least three times now I would have though you would have caught on by now, I guess you blew off all that money on college.
The biggest problem Nik is not the application of "Jakson's Law" but that we can dig up quotes that are revealing.
ReplyDeleteLike - "I’m really sick of living in a “volunteer” society, where things only get done by those who volunteer to do it. We end up short changed, impoverished, and callous."
Exactly what is wrong with having government agencies paid to do a job no one is volunteering to do? You would put orphaned children into the hands of Catholic priests, who I'm sure would love the return to the church welfare state.
ReplyDeleteYou guys are so ignorant of gaping holes of the reality that accompanies your ideology because you've busied yourself with finding the hairline cracks in others. It's highly amusing, but it doesn't make for very good debate.
And I'll stop pointing out your Somali homesickness when you stop advocating for their system, or lack thereof.
Bret,
ReplyDeleteAgain you mistake someone for an anarchist, I'm a Jeffersonian Agrarian it's not perfect but it is the only thing close and I am not convinced of the statist position, anarchism, nor the popular but empty of reality "liberalism" or "progressive position".
You propose that we somehow are ignorant of the holes in ideology - yet again you show your inability or resistance to remember others positions , because multiple posts point out the problems with the "right", anarchism, and in particular the mountainous holes in the Hamiltonian Federalist Constitution.
Of course your version of "debate" is to ignore facts, spew out platitudes without support and then dance around saying everyone else is ignorant, stupid, or worse.
Nice try with the "what about the children" thing it is very effective with some, but I already have had children (most of them closer to your age) and that tactic doesn't work (you may understand when you have some of your own).
Now the funniest thing is that you have continued to try and push some button thinking that I would get as irrational as you have become over some "homosexual" issue - likely the absolute last thing that would make me upset... I have lived with and among homosexuals most of my adult life, family, friends, and schoolmates, while I am not a homosexual by biology (you cannot choose what you are) far from afraid of them as a rational individual I am convinced they preform a valuable function in evolution. In other words it is a good thing we have them.
At least you have calmed down a bit...
"Exactly what is wrong with having government agencies paid to do a job no one is volunteering to do? You would put orphaned children into the hands of Catholic priests, who I'm sure would love the return to the church welfare state."
ReplyDeleteI'm sorry but this is a specious, sweeping generalization. The charge that "orphaned children" would automatically be "molested by the Catholic Church" is obtuse.
Honestly.
I grew up Catholic and in a Catholic society here in Quebec. While one can't deny it does happen but to assert, and I'm hardly the poster boy for Catholicism, it's the norm is outrageous.
The Catholic religion, I think you know (or should know) is pretty big. It also is divided between the Orthodox and Roman churches. The problem seems to be within the Roman ranks yet we use that secular brush to bash religion.
You don't like it when we charge government, for example, financial inefficiencies and other banal stupidities (demanding empircal evidence), yet you have no problem attacking an entire Church based on some cases?
I thought we were "never" supposed to impugn the majority for the action of a minority. No?
Now, whether the Catholic Church is doing enough to deal with the issue is another matter.
Another matter best left for the courts to decide, but good luck waiting for that to happen...
ReplyDeleteSo you're telling me that we should just throw children into the arms of admitted pedophiles who cover it up? It's okay because... they don't all abuse them, they only shelter the abusers... so it's okay...
When the Catholic Church turns in priests to be legally tried for their crimes, maybe people will have a better opinion of them.
And I had a Catholic upbringing, which I think qualifies me for making critical statements of those assclowns.
I'm not saying that we should do that. Nor am I entirely disagreeing with you. There are problems. I'm just not ready to impugn the entire religion for a few assclowns.
ReplyDeleteFirst of all, I love how the comments have taken on so many lives of their own apart from the post.
ReplyDeleteTC: I'm in no way trying to say all, most, or even that many priests are pedophiles. I would also like to point ou tthat plenty of other Christian denominations harbor molesters, and my wife actually knew an Orthodox Jewish Rabbi who was accused of abuse and was blindly defended despite the increasing number of victims coming out of the woodwork in the process.
My point is this: private charity has failed. It's not that private charity is bad, or that it should end, but it has very evidently failed as a monopoly source of help for the downtrodden. Governmental programs have shown great success at providing a much better minimum level of care and support than private charity alone.
My friend runs a government program. It's not easy that's for sure. Cover your ears Nikk, I'm ok with private/government co-op initiatives.
ReplyDeleteI'm ok with private/government co-op initiatives.
ReplyDeleteWhy? Do you have fascist tendencies?