Mathematically speaking … Why those calling for gun control are dead wrong

December 26, 2012 by  
Filed under Gun Control

(Bernie Suarez)   In the aftermath of the Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting in Newtown Connecticut many liberals, NPR news listeners, Associated Press readers, Michael Moore followers and un-awakened corporate mainstream media believers are calling for gun control. They have succumbed to the bombardment of corporate media lies, propaganda and sensationalism that comes with the global government primary goal of destroying the second Amendment. Many of us have heard the Michael Moore arguments that the second Amendment was intended by the founding fathers only in the context of the guns that were available then; that being the large barrel single-shot musket available at the time. Liberals and rejuvenated anti-gun advocates are raising this issue as an excuse to eliminate all rifles, shot guns if not all guns all together.

This is the argument they are clinging to in order to demonize gun advocates, but is there any logic to this strawman argument? Let’s examine this argument logically and mathematically:

The basis of this Michael Moore/Bob Costas strawman argument that so many zombies throughout America are echoing is that there is ‘no need’ for Americans to have semi-automatic weapons or weapons that are larger than ordinary handguns; some argue that no guns should be legal at all. They ignore the fundamental purpose of the Constitution; that unilateral government force is dangerous and that protection from large highly armed government comes from, among other things, an armed responsible civilians population willing to keep the concept of revolution and individual freedom alive and viable. They ignore the ideologies and concepts of individualism, the importance of individual sovereignty and freedom, the danger of over-reaching large government, fascism and tyranny and the known end results of what happens when individual citizens allow the government to have all the power and weapons. This strawman argument that the Michael Moore audience is presenting as proof that guns should be controlled is solely based on this fallacious argument of ‘context of fire power relative to the times the constitution was written’. However, if one applies a little logic and math one can quickly see the fallacy in this argument.

Did the founding fathers feel that if the government had more than just muskets that the people should stop at muskets and allow the government to arm itself uncontrollably? Did the founding fathers feel that is was okay to have an exponentially wide gap of fire power between the government and the people; even if it meant that the guns available to the people were futile and irrelevant? Would any of the authors of the Constitution have endorsed such gap of fire power knowing well what would happen with that gap? Were any of them confident that if the fire-power gap made the second Amendment irrelevant, that the sovereign citizens would have nothing to worry about? Did the founding fathers ever express this lack of concern? All attempts to assume that the founding fathers would have been okay with government exponentially stronger fire power (therein defeating the spirit of the very second amendment they drafted) is based on lies, wild assumption and fallacy.

That’s the logic, but what about applying some numbers? It is mathematically a fact that 99.99 percent of Americans who do own higher-powered guns and small arms will never go on a shooting rampage and kill innocent people. This level of violence in humans is so rare that it can be said with a high degree of mathematical confidence that this level of violence is essentially non-existent in the human race. Human essentially don’t resort to this level of violence unless they are under pharmaceutical drugs, are victims of mind-control and/or working for government entities with clear political agendas as we have seen in numerous recent shootings in the U.S.. In other words you can count one hundred, a thousand or a million people with guns and the odds of one of those people suddenly going mad and murdering others in a shooting rampage for no specific reason outlined above is essentially ZERO. Zero is a strong and significant number that slams the anti-gun argument to the ground once and for all.

So as we move forward in this post Newton Connecticut shooting let’s remember the basics of logic, math and reason as we watch dumbed-down Americans drink the Kool-Aid of government and corporate media propaganda based on fallacy, strawman arguments and irrational logic. Let’s remind the anti-gun liberals and Michael Moore followers that it was their corrupt government that was caught red-handed selling powerful guns to drug lords in the Fast and Furious scandal. It is this corrupt government that is working with terrorists in the Middle East, it is this government that murders Americans without trial and kills countless others with drones in the name of the ‘war on terror’. Remind these anti-gun advocates that their linear and isolated strawman arguments are falling on deaf ears because too many of us are fully aware of the history of our corrupt politicians, the long history of their relationship with drug lords and terrorists, their history of staging shooting massacres and their well known agenda to disarm Americans so they can move forward with their global government.

Finally, remind anti-gun advocates of the dangers of having a completely disarmed public in the hands of a powerfully armed corrupt government. Ask them to look at history and to point out one example where an unarmed public was able to live free at the hands of a tyrannical government. This is the nature of tyranny and fascism and we need to find a way to make these anti-gun advocates mindful, aware and concerned about our present and our future in light of our past.

http://truthandarttv.com/read_91031

Comments

7 Responses to “Mathematically speaking … Why those calling for gun control are dead wrong”
  1. John says:

    I disagree.

    I’m a relatively conservative individual and no fan of Michael Moore’s. And I support the right of individuals to keep and bear arms such as handguns and rifles as stated in the 2nd Amendment. However, pretty much everyone recognizes that this is not a right that is devoid of restriction. We don’t let Wal-Mart sell Stinger missiles and Rocket launchers in their sporting goods section. You can’t go down to the dealership and buy a tank. And if it’s discovered that neighbor is attempting to build a nuclear bomb, most reasonable people would agree that this activity is not protected by the Constitution.

    So the question becomes "Where do we draw the line?", or alternatively "How do we determine where to draw the line?" I think most reasonable people recognize that the answer is we must balance Individual Rights vs. Public Safety. On the balance, I would say restricting automatic and semi-automatic assault weapons as well as high-capacity magazines improves public safety and does not inappropriately infringe on anyone’s 2nd Amendment rights, just as existing restrictions on the sale of military hardware is not an infringement.

    I would also support raising the minimum age for purchasing guns to 21 and closing the loophole that allows individuals to purchase firearms at gun shows without having to get a background check.

    Lastly, I would point out some logical fallacies in your argument. First, "essentially ZERO chance" is not a convincing argument. That’s essentially the same as saying to those parents in Newtown that "statistically speaking, your children aren’t dead". It’s asinine and irrelevant. By that logic, since there is a statistically zero chance that anyone will be killed by a surface to air missile then they should be legalized.

    And secondly, you’re mischaracterizing and misapplying the lessons learned from the Fast and Furious scandal. The "government" didn’t sell any assault weapons to drug lords. Those guns were bought legally in Arizona but aroused suspicion because single individuals who could pass a background check were purchasing dozens of the weapons at a time.

  2. sj says:

    John,

    I’m not aware of anyone who says they want stinger missiles, rocket launchers or a nuclear bomb and have a right to them under the second amendment. We’re talking about pistols and rifles and shotguns. So that argument is absurd.

    When it comes to the Bill of Rights "public safety" isn’t a consideration. "Public safety" could be used as an excuse to squelch every one of those rights. You’ll note that the Bill of Rights makes no mention of "balancing" these rights with "public safety" or anything else.

    liberty & justice,

    sj

  3. gmathol says:

    I’m not for gun control in the USA at all. It is a good thing if Americans kill themselves, brings us the rest of the World a chance for peace.

    So please dear Americans, buy guns and keep the killing.

  4. Lincoln says:

    I can’t believe there is still people defending a law that was written 200 ears ago.. To me there is no difference between religious fundamentalism and bill of rights funding fathers mindless believes.. Utter primitive

  5. Jim Trimble says:

    Lincoln, I can’t believe you actually said something so idiotic.

  6. Joe says:

    Ahh, the old hoary "draw the line" argument. I first won that argument in 1995 IIRC.

    John, many things you say are incorrect. You certainly can buy tanks, no special license is required, but they’re expensive. Cannons and field artillery, too. And with the appropriate licenses, machine guns and even various kinds of high explosive. Regarding nukes, the main limiting factor is the cost and availability of the materials, rather than us laws.

    Here’s why, If you had enough money to buy a critical quantity of pu239, you could easily afford to purchase a medium-sized island, or lease secured land, a "villain’s lair" if you like, from any of many tinpot dictators, to which the materials could be sent, and where the device could be assembled. In fact with that kind of money, you could probably purchase congressional approval to assemble it at pantex if you kept it quiet.

    Basically, with enough money, you can waltz around any weapon restrictions that exist, anywhere.

    If an individual owned a company registered offshore, he could certainly buy rpg 7 launchers and russian strela manpad missiles. He would however have to get state department approval to import them to the US proper, but they could certainly come by container to many countries happy to accept such deliveries for "processing fees". Or you could transport them yourself. These things are bought and sold by us interests all the time. That’s how the Syrian rebels are armed.

    There’s more. The founders of the US fought, and defeated what was then arguably the strongest enemy on earth, The British Empire. The weapons used, cannon, rocket, and musket, were the highest tech that existed. And the second amendment clearly existed for the purpose of defending The People (at large, ie civilians) from the best weaponry available, to ANYONE who would threaten their liberty or wellbeing, inside or outside the US, weaponry intended to be possessed and operated by The People for their own defense. Not licensed or specially blessed people, which would defeat the purpose, just people. Can you, with any moral honesty, articulate why we must be forced by threat of violence to have less, in relative terms, than they did? They’d have called you a fool for suggesting that they have bows and arrows while their oppressors had cannon and musket.

    Other than total weapon freedom, innocents in those days were no more immune to violence from their neighbors than we are today, but they did fine. Everyone had the best weapon they could afford, but they didn’t fear their neighbors.

    Do you realize also that the gun laws you are so magnanimously proposing for "the common good" and "public safety" are more restrictive than those applied to ordinary citizens under Saddam Hussein’s Iraq? Should we really have less freedom than they did?

    If there was a second civil war with the purpose not of "ending slavery" but of "removing dangerous weapons in the interest of public safety" and "drawing the line" which side would you support, John?

  7. Joe says:

    Oh, and John, is your post also implying that Americans are morally inferior somehow to New Zealanders, who’ve been allowed to have the rifles you want banned, or to the Swiss, who MUST have such rifles, and can freely own as many as they can afford? Why do you think Americans are any less trustworthy or responsible than The Swiss or The Kiwis?

Speak Your Mind

Tell us what you're thinking...
and oh, if you want a pic to show with your comment, go get a gravatar!