Kablam!

Monday October 31, 2005 - 12:49PM EDT

What is the deal with these people who say we "rely too much on technology". Morons. Why don't they stop wearing clothes and eating with forks then because that is technology that we rely on way too much. Idiots.

I hear this stuff about arguing for the existence of god based on bad things that happen and why god would let that happen and soforth. Ha. Why even bother with such a ludicrous philosophical exercise. I'll be looking for the pot of gold at the end of the rainbow with a map I got from my leprechuan friend while your having that conversation. I bring this up because of an article here it is

I like this section the best

Christianity. The Lord works in mysterious ways and must have some divine purpose for all this. In any event, a better life awaits the victims (although Christian victims might have something of an edge there, unless they happen to be gay or abortion providers in "Sin City," a.k.a. New Orleans). Islam. Allah allows such things to happen, but only the guilty need worry about their immortal fate. Paradise awaits the innocent victims (well, the Muslim ones, anyway; who knows about infidels?) Judaism. Strictly speaking, God has nothing to do with these natural disasters. (Of course, you're always free to argue the point.) Hinduism. Must have been an aggregate of bad karma, very bad karma. (But not to worry, everyone will get another shot at life anyway.) Buddhism. Maybe karma had something to do with it, then again maybe it was all those sex shops in Thailand, or those al-Qaeda cells in Pakistan. (In any event, God does not exist.)

I like the comment on Buddhism because it actually gets sort of what Buddhism is about right. Buddhism wasn't originally a religion with gods or belief in gods. That stuff was cobbled on to it later by a bunch of freaks. Ha. Anyway. The writer is a teacher of religion at Skidmore college. I'm guessing she teaches from a historical and philosophical context and not from a theological base in that she wouldn't treat one religion as superior over the others. I do wonder though whether she subscribes to one of those moronic faiths.

So I think this person has some sense right? Then I read this article on gun-control. This person is somehow relating abortion-rights to gun-rights. Any respect I had for her in the religion article is almost gone now. I looked at a short bio of her and it all becomes clear after reading it. She is an avid hunter and runs a ranch in Montana. She just used her intelligence to trumpet something she likes. I wonder if she ever really critically looked at the situation. She is arguing that women have a right to defend themselves and guns are the best way. Holy flipping shit. What is the deal with these "guns are the best way" people. In the article on guns(found here) she says Most gun-rights advocates would prefer to live in a world in which no woman should need a gun to ensure her safety. But as long as contraception fails, as long as rape occurs, as long as men abduct women, stalk ex-wives and girlfriends and threaten harm to their children, the options to choose an abortion and a gun must equally remain fundamental women's rights. The first sentence says it all. She is qualifying or tempering her arguement with that statement. That one is particularly sinister. You see it all the time in various different things. To make their opinions seem more logical or rational people will qualify a strong statement of opinion with these utopian hypothetical situations. I hope I don't do that too much. Its pathetic. It is as if somehow if they hint that they would do the opposite of what they think they are proving that they see the situation with an observant eye. That they have really taken many things into consideration and their opinion is the best. It is a fake out, a feint and I'm not buying it. It is so cleverly constructed feint that I'm almost at a lost on how to decipher it. Prefer to live in a world where no women should need a gun. Wow dude. How in the hell can you prefer something that never exists. That is not a strong prefence or one that can be taken seriously. Should is conditional statement and it is a subjective opinion. Preference to live in a world that should exist. Prefer to live in a world in which your subjective opinion defines its existence. Is anyone following me here? It makes no sense. Preferences are choice, something over something. This statment about prefering a world that should exist is a double choice. She is prefering a preference. It means nothing, that kind of statement. You have to remove either prefer or should to make the sentence make sense. Either you prefer to live in a world where women don't need guns for protection or we should live in a world were women don't need guns for protection. First one is a choice second one is an opinion. Now with that said if that is your preference or your opinion being vehment gun-rights is doing nothing to support either. Even with all that said. How much fucking deterrent or defense is a gun anyway. That is the real question.

I would tend to believe that people who purchase guns legally aren't the majority who commit gun crimes. I don't know for sure though. If they are then there are other questions to explore. So if I assume that most of the gun crime is done with illegally obtained guns how does one stop it. More police more enforcement? Maybe. I would argue that the fastest and best way would be to just restrict the amount of guns made. You go to the manufacturers of guns. They may not be directly responsible or a traditional culprit. But if you make it so that guns are a rare piece of equipment you obviously are going to reduce the amount of illegal traficking. There just won't be that many guns around. A gun can be small and hard to track. Its existence alone is going to be hard to deal with regardless of laws and enforcement. Gun control laws are kind of a losing battle and their effectiveness is always going to be limited. Though there has been some happenings is taking on gun manufacturers the focus is still not on them. A gun is hard to make, not just anyone can make a gun. If you stop the manufacturers from making them you are not going to have that many guns. Besides the millions they have already made. You have to take the gun manufacturers to task. You have to just limit them outright or shut a bunch of them down. That is going to be the only effective solution. But that is sacrilidge according to some. There are some areas in the country where gun violence is horrible and a huge problem. There are others where it isn't. Even in those areas in which it is a huge problem. Guns in themselves are not make up the core of the issue. But you have to be able to give these areas a chance to mitigate part of the problem on the way to a solution. It just seems like such vehement defenese of an instrument of killing is misguided. Lets be clear here that guns are made to kill first, no illusions there. If the only reasons you have to keep your gun are constitutional right to arms and self-defense in only the most rare of situations then you have a weak arguement. That one is not willing to allow giving up their guns a chance, a let'see what happens in response to the problems encountered is troublesome. What about all the people that go through life without a gun for protection. A whole lot more than people who have them. They seem to make it. So the self-defense thing is so very weak. I just think that the gung-ho gun-rights people are maybe just being paranoid and scared. Not really looking at the situation with a critical eye. It is just an idea planted in their head and they blindly accept it without examination. All they look for is as many reasons they can find to keep it in their mind.