The World According to Keitho

Just another weblog

Do you feel lucky today?

Posted by keithosaunders on January 15, 2011

Gun owners can rest easy.  Those of us who are in favor of legislation to prohibit automatic weapons, or to limit the size of the clip one can purchase, are a fringe group.  We are destined to stand on the sidelines so that the majority of Americans can be free to protect their families.

The state of the gun union is strong.  Since last Saturday’s murders in Tucson sales of guns in Arizona are up 60 percent.  Why wouldn’t people want such an effective implement of protection? After all, since last Saturday’s tragedy there have been over 300 gun fatalities in the U.S.  Probably a few more have died in the time it has taken to write this post.  With protection like that who needs police?

In Friday’s NY Times there was a man-on-the-street article that interviewed gun proponents.  Here is an excerpt:

I carry a gun because it is a personal preference and for my own personal safety,” said Representative Jason Chaffetz, Republican of Utah, one of several lawmakers who carry a concealed weapon in their districts. (His is a Glock 23.) “It’s not for everybody. Not everyone should rush out because of what happened last week and start carrying, but I like it, and I do it.” Representative Gabrielle Giffords once said that she herself owned a Glock — the same firearm the man accused of shooting her is said to have used.

I’m just your standard boiler plate pinko liberal, but for the life of me I can’t figure out how having a gun would have averted the tragedy in Tucson.  The second Loughner began shooting there wasn’t a thing those people could have done.  The only way a gun works in your favor is if you shoot first! 

Here’s another citizen.

Erich Pratt, the director of communications for Gun Owners of America, said his organization and others were girding for at least a skirmish in Congress. “But I think after the November election it’s going to be very tough for Carolyn McCarthy and even the Peter Kings,” he said “Why should the government be in the business of telling us how we can defend ourselves?”   Mr. Pratt added: “These politicians need to remember that these rights aren’t given to us by them. They come from God. They are God-given rights. They can’t be infringed or limited in any way. What are they going to do: limit it two or three rounds. Having lots of ammunition is critical, especially if the police are not around and you need to be able to defend yourself against mobs.”

Is this man fucking insane?  God gave us the right?!  I’m a little unclear on who governs the country:  Is it God or the constitution?  Pratt feels that the most effective way to protect himself is to have the potential to murder dozens of people in less than thirty seconds.  Safety first!

Finally let’s here from David Workman:

Dave Workman, senior editor of Gun Week, a publication of the Second Amendment Foundation, said the gun control lobby was trying to exploit the shootings. “The average gun owner,” he said, “is saying: ‘I didn’t fire any shots in Tucson. I just want to go hunting, or protect my family, and this is just going to create more paperwork and more headaches for me.’ ”


I don’t know if it is possible to quantify the number of times a gun works as protection but it would be dwarfed by the amount of deaths by accidental shooting.  I wonder if the Colt AR6920 had been around in the 18th century if the 2nd amendment would have been worded differently.



12 Responses to “Do you feel lucky today?”

  1. jb said


    I may or may not address the rest of this posting, since it consists of little but the flotsam and jetsam that has been the floating debris of discussion of anti-rights groups for years.

    But your last paragraph is sheer fantasy. Not only do you have no concept of a “right” . . . you make up statistics in your head, despite clear and umambiguous proof to the contrary.

    I’ll give a clue on “rights.” Whether you agree they are God-given or not, is not the issue, so that was a straw man argument. You have completely inverted the role of gummint and constitutions in regard to rights.

    Understand rights; understand the proper role of gummint (at least in America–if you want what your logic calls for, I can suggest a number of gummints that are more than willing to tell how to do everything in your life–but that is not the role of American government); and understand that a human being possesses rights–individually or collectively, BEFORE the institute a government to carry out certain tasks. That whole understanding has been turned on its head, and you are cheering such nonsense on.

    P.S. Just to make any further discussion interesting, one, the Glock Loughner used was a semi-automatic, which means–pull the trigger, it shoots one bullet–get that real simple part of it right. It is not an automatic. Two, despite what you might gather from my words, I have never owned a gun. Three–get your other numbers straight, too. The other day, you said 400 people have been killed by guns since last weekend. Today, you’ve revised downward to 300+. SO which is it? And again, what are the facts and demographics out about those “shoots?” Since there are 40,000 death in automobile crashes a year (769.23076 a week), it would seem to me that you would be far more worried about banning the automobile.

    • jb said

      After all, if it would save one life, we SHOULD ban the automobile. That is part of your chain of logic regarding guns.

      To spice it up a bit, and give you a real statistic (I have several times given you the sources/links of the real statistics, which you have obviously ignored), 2.5 million times last year, perfectly law-abiding, registered and licensed gun owners used their legal guns to prevent the bad guys from hurting or killing them and their loved ones. 2.5 MILLION TIMES, Keith! If guns were banned and those 2.5 million were hurt or injured, what would be your take on matters then. Eh?

      If you want to get some actual figures on accidental “shoots” and your “I don’t know if it is possible to quantify the number of times a gun works as protection but it would be dwarfed by the amount of deaths by accidental shooting fabrication of statistics, go here. THe lives guns save ABSOLUTELY DWARD the number of accidental deaths!

      You are making it up as you go along. Not very logical nor persuasive in light of the facts.

    • This is a quote from the site you directed me to: “The accidental gun death rate has been falling since 1930 and US accidental gun deaths per year were down to 824 by 1999”

      Sounds like a lot to me.

      I don’t believe that 2.5 million stat, but let’s assume for the moment it is correct. Why would the number go down if you could only fire 6 or 8 shots in a clip instead of 31? That’s all we’re talking about. Even I realize that this country is way protective of their wealthy class — read gun companies and manufacturers — to ever consider banning guns. Are you telling me that people won’t buy guns if they can only kill 3 people at a time instead of 20?!

      It’s all about the hatred of government. Or is it? The right wing was delighted to have government start a pair of wars. Where was the outcry for less gummit when we fabricated evidence to go into Iraq?

  2. jbiii said

    Man, you are thinking like Loughner!

    I gave you the stats on the sites I linked. They are GUMMINT sites, for crying out loud! Are you so intent on proving your point beyond reason that you will dispute ANYTHING that refutes your argument?

    Stop the right wing/left wing BS. I am neither, so hitting me with silly nonsense truly is water off a ducks back.

    Speak to the truth if you have a case, rather than getting all emotional. 824 accidental deaths over against 2.5 million is .0030339 ratio of deaths to people protected by guns (and whether you BELIEVE the facts or not is immaterial–you sound stupid-silly like the Church did trying to dispute Galileo about geocentricity with that nonsense). Surely you cannot be that UNreasonable to pretend that is worse than automobile deaths, which I noticed you DID NOT address. But then, your intent is not facts and figures, you are sold on the leftist marxist notion of ridding the citizenry of guns, which is really right-wing of Joseph Stalin’s playbook. Hitler only killed 6 million; Stalin murdered 36 million. You make no distinction between 36 million and 824???

    Let me ask you a question you asked several posts earlier . . .

    Are you NUCKING FUTS????

    Geezopete, man, you need to get a grip on reality. You are so stuck on IDEOLOGY that if a fact about guns smacked you in the face, you wouldn’t even notice!

    And Dude, quit changing the subject whenever you sense your argument falling into the toilet.

    I have made it clear I am not right wing nor GOP nor a gun owner, and I am way more correct and knowledgeable than you about why we SHOULD NOT HAVE gone into Bosnia, Iraq, Afghanistan, Vietnam or Korea. Ya wanna get into a discussion about those?? DO your really??? Since only Iraq can be blamed on a Republican? (And don’t hit me with Afghanistan, that was on Clinton’s agenda long before it was on Bush’s agenda. You don’t even want to switch subject with me unless you really know your shit!

    Damn, Dude, are you so intent on being right about guns you will PROVE yourself wrong about guns and everything else except the Mets and Giants?

    Stick to the argument YOU raised. You don’t know shit about the Constitution, the 2nd Amendment, or why the things you say have no bearing on either. So quit trying a Paul Krugman on me.

    • Calm down, bubehleh. You gave me some unquantifiable stat — 2.5 million people saved by guns — and expect me to accept it as gospel. If you were to tell me that 2.5 million people prevented robberies with guns I still won’t believe you, but at least it would be approaching reality You can’t prove that a death was prevented, nor do I believe that there are 2.5 million Clint Eastwoods out there. You can call me whatever you want but I’ll take 2.5 million robberies over 1 death.

      Now forget about that argument and respond to my original question: What is the harm of reducing the clip size to lower the death toll when insane people such as Loughner go off?

      I’ll take my answer off the air.

  3. jbiii said

    Keith . . .

    Instead of quoting other people’s talking points, go and learn for yourself.

    You might find that you have to re-think things. That is the mark of an educated man. Insisting otherwise is rank immaturity.

    I know you know the difference, or I wouldn’t bother any further with this, or any discussion.

    • jbiii said

      Further stat . . .

      824 accidental shootings versus 300 million population . . . the ratio is 0.000024.

      40,00 automobile deaths versus 300 million population . . .. the ratio is 0.0001333.

      Six times worse. So why are you worried about guns? Your ideological enemy is automobiles.


  4. jbiii said


    I am calm to the point of chuckling watching you dance the political version of the Charleston around your own words. FYI, had you read the links, this one would have given you the figures. So would the FBI report, if you had done your homeork and read the whole thing.

    That aside . . . why reduce clip size? What is your point? I’d much rather know I had 30 rounds when the bad guys like Loughner show up, than only six. Are you saying that had Loughner only had six rounds, then only brain-wounding Giffords, killing Roll and the young girl, and merely wounding three others, that would be okay? My Man, do you consider the wieght of the words you key, or are you a total slave to the news reports that are as clueless and irrational as you are?

    The other aspect of the right of a citizen to possess arms was to fight off oppressive gummint. Jefferson said the tree of liberty needed to be fed regularly with the blood of patriots AND tyrants. If he and the founders were correct (oh, my!), then every citizen should have the arms gummint has. And I can guarantee you there would be no deficit nor debt were that the case, and you leftists would be following the lemmings off the cliff in absolute panic that no one was listening to you.

    Geezopete, man . . . read, and THINK.

    Lemme try it again. Rights exist BEFORE gummint. Folks ok gummint to serve them and their rights. A man has a right, with whatever, to defend himself and his own. The American Constitution acknowledges that fact as in EXISTENCE already. The Constitution does not “grant” rights, it acknowledges what already existed before said constitution came into being. Which is why I think Scalia is as goofy as the other 8 on the court. They don’t get it any more than you get it.

    But try, Dude. Get over the propaganda you have swallowed whole, and reason for yourself.

    • If that is true — 2.5 mill pulled a gun in self defense -=- not only is it shocking but bat-shit frightening as well!

      Here is my last response and then I’ll drop it adn concentrate on the Jets tomorrow. Let’s say I’m carrying a gun for protection. All of a sudden Loughner shoots me at point blank range. I reach for my gun but….I’m dead! I wasn’t any safer for owning a gun, just as Giffords wasn’t.

      Sure, I agree that in certain instances you can use a gun in self defense, but I also want to take all the necessary steps to avoid catastrophes. If simple background checks can eliminate a percentage of insane people from getting their hands on weapons then I am all for that.

  5. jbiii said

    I did not say robberies, by the way, so associating robberies to 1 death is 2.5 million times too ingenuous.

    You have exhausted all the arguments of the Brady Bunch and the left. Find something new by which to convince yourself. As I said, I don’t even own a gun, but your reasoning makes me wonder why I don’t.

  6. jbiii said


    You need to read Socrates’ discussion with Plato’s bro Glaucon.

    Google it if you need to . . . 🙂

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: