Incendiary Image of the Day: Mikeb30200’s World View

Here’s how Mikeb302000 explains this Venn diagram:

A = criminal gun owners
B = law-abiding gunowners
AUB =all of the in-between guys, including but not limited to the following:
1. anyone who has ever violated a gun-law but has never been convicted of a felony.
2. anyone who abuses his wife or children in any way but has never been convicted of it.
3. anyone who is addicted to drugs and/or alcohol but has not yet been disqualified.
4. anyone who has ever dropped a gun or caused a negligent discharge.
5. anyone who has become elderly or otherwise physically incapacitated.

It gets worse . . .

“I apologize for the disproportionate diagram,” MikeB says, adding fuel to the fire. “The AUB section should be much, much larger.”

Mike has put this idea forth many times. I find the blogger’s complete lack of statistical data and factual evidence both revealing and profoundly irritating. I knew gun control advocates are impervious to logic, but this is indicative of, well, insanity.

comments

  1. avatar Tim says:

    I believe you give him more publicity than he would otherwise get on his own. But it is nice to see you refuting an argument that the average citizen would otherwise just dismiss. I mean, really – he does have 7 whole “likes” on Facebook…

  2. avatar AG says:

    Mike was just eager to show off the new skills he learned in his seventh grade math class. Cut him some slack.

    1. avatar ThomasF says:

      Seventh grade, you give that retarded lick spittle too much credit, my seven year old is doing Venn diagrams……. in second grade…..

  3. avatar Magoo says:

    Mike might not always be the most articulate guy around, but he’s onto something here. To hear the gun loons tell it, there are but two kinds of gun owners: 1) the proverbial “responsible, law-abiding citizens” and 2) career criminals. Obviously, that’s baloney. Real life is never that neat. People who don’t clearly fit into either category commit stupid or criminal acts with guns all the time.

    Take the recent example blogged here regarding the mom, dad, and 2 year-old. The gun owner is a CHL holder so he can’t have a significant criminal record, presumably. So he must have been one of the responsible, law-abiding citizens… right up to the moment his child’s mother was shot in the back, anyway.

    1. avatar 2yellowdogs says:

      This is, of course, true. The problem here is that Mike seems to have pulled this out of his rear end. He evidently has no data as to how large that “much, much larger” AUB section should be.

      Without some objective basis, he really has no idea at all as to its size other than his general belief that most gun owners are wife-beating, moonshine-swilling, sister-humping morons who shouldn’t have a driver’s license, let alone the right to own a gun.

      1. avatar Mark says:

        +1

        Loved the “sister-humping morons.”

    2. avatar mikeb302000 says:

      What ever do you mean by, “not always be the most articulate guy around?” Compared to whom, might I ask, the yellow dog or that Joe fella?

      You really know how to humble a guy, Magoo. But, thanks for pointing out what most of the others would not.

  4. avatar Ben Eli says:

    What is the definition for a “criminal gun owner”? Is it a person who has illegally obtained a firearm? Is it a person who legally bought a firearm but is accustomed to performing illegal or questionable activities with it? Is it a combination?

    Also does Mikeb30200 take into account the collective ownership of illegal firearms by criminals? I want verifiable numbers.

    1. avatar Buuurr says:

      “I want verifiable numbers.”

      That isn’t what he pitches. However, what he does pitch can be found in your local cow pasture.

  5. avatar Ben Shotzberger says:

    My thoughts – stop feeding the troll..

  6. avatar MAgunowner says:

    He should do a Venn diagram of MAIG mayors.

  7. avatar John Fritz says:

    So what’s the point? Sub-categories one through five are made up of people who might kill someone with a gun? So take their guns away? Is that it?

    It’s like saying all drivers who speed or fiddle with the radio or drive with only one hand on the wheel should have their license taken away.

  8. avatar Ryan Finn says:

    The sad thing is Mikey gets more comments on his asinine rants on TTAG then he does on his own blog.

    Do I think he’s trollish, yes. But let’s be honest, without him who would we vilify? (besides Helmke and Bloomberg of course)

    1. avatar AG says:

      Pretty sure TTAG readers comprise pretty much all of MikeB’s readership. I still don’t understand why someone so completely irrelevant is given so much attention here.

    2. avatar RuffRidr says:

      “The sad thing is Mikey gets more comments on his asinine rants on TTAG then he does on his own blog.”

      That’s mostly due to the a**hat he has as a coblogger. A year ago his site had a lot more regular commentors and visitors. JadeG has seen fit to drive most of them away. I left when a link in one of my posts was changed. Arguing against someone’s point is one thing, but to change their post to either invalidate what they are saying or to make them look foolish is going too far. Since there are many blogs out there where rational people can behave like adults (this one for example), I don’t feel that I need to waste any more time over there.

  9. avatar Bill Johnson says:

    ummm, Mike needs to study.

    The UNION of A and B is, surprise, ALL of A and ALL of B.

    The INTERSECTION of A and B is what Mike has mislabelled. Intersection operator is an upside down U.

    Trust me, I’m a math major.

    1. avatar Nicholas Dixon says:

      Et tu, Bill?

      Grad student or undergrad?

      1. avatar Bill Johnson says:

        Double major, math and Comp Sci. More than 20 years ago.

        Should have defined Intersection for y’all:

        The intersection is the set of all items that are members of both sets…

  10. avatar Ralph says:

    Is it just my imagination, or does that diagram look like a butt print?

    1. avatar Buuurr says:

      Yep! I see it too, Ralph.

    2. avatar JOE MATAFOME says:

      Your right Ralph, it does look like a butt print, and that’s because he pulls all this foolish nonsence out of his ass. I hope this isn’t flaming because I did my best to be kind.

      1. avatar Ralph says:

        That’s your best? JOE, I’d hate to see your worst!

  11. avatar JOE MATAFOME says:

    All I have to say is WTF!!! I would say a hell of a lot more, but I’d like to stay on RF’s good side and flaming would just bring me down to the trolls level.

  12. avatar Magoo says:

    It’s easy to sharpshoot Mikey for errors, but not quite so easy — or satisfying — to look for the obvious truth in what he says. Still, there it is.

    1. avatar Matt says:

      I think we could agree there’s not a strict dichotomy. Where I would disagree is on the size of A ∩ B. I would say it’s smaller than the diagram suggests, not larger. It’s kind of a moot point anyway because a gradient with shades of grey is a better visual metaphor than a Venn diagram.

      Whatever the logical structure of the problem, it’s not sufficient to answer the question of whether this or that gun control proposal would be a net benefit (leaving aside freedom and rights). For that you need data.

      1. avatar Daniel Zimmerman says:

        Um, again, Mikey doesn’t have any f-ing idea how large A ∩ B is. He just thinks it should be a lot bigger because it validates his world view. No one would argue that there isn’t an area where the two groups intersect.

        Until he or someone else presents some actual data that can be examined, this is all just useless autoerotic stimulation.

    2. avatar Buuurr says:

      “Magoo says:

      April 28, 2011 at 2:13 PM

      It’s easy to sharpshoot Mikey for errors, but not quite so easy — or satisfying — to look for the obvious truth in what he says. Still, there it is.”

      Actually it is easy to dismiss, Magoo. It is easy to dismiss because if this were any other range of people you would be up in arms. Let’s say that we replace gun owners with the word black people. Let’s go ahead and then replace it with white people. Let’s then go ahead and mix it together with any other random group you can think of and all you get is shit. There is no supporting data. It is just a thought put to diagram which makes it seem like something to the sheep out there.

      1. avatar Magoo says:

        The exact elements and proportions of the diagram aren’t that interesting to me. I’m sure Mikey will overstate while you guys will understate. You guys can fight that out, but first you need rigorous set definitions or you will run each other in circles.

        For me, the breakthrough is that “responsible, law-abiding citizens” commit irresponsible and/or criminal acts with firearms every day. That’s more than the gun lobby will ever admit.

        1. avatar Robert Farago says:

          I think it’s every other day.

        2. avatar Buuurr says:

          “Magoo says:

          April 29, 2011 at 7:04 AM

          The exact elements and proportions of the diagram aren’t that interesting to me. I’m sure Mikey will overstate while you guys will understate. You guys can fight that out, but first you need rigorous set definitions or you will run each other in circles.

          For me, the breakthrough is that “responsible, law-abiding citizens” commit irresponsible and/or criminal acts with firearms every day. That’s more than the gun lobby will ever admit.”

          Whoa! Whoa! You mean that you are just figuring that there are people out there that make mistakes and are not responsible all the time? My issue isn’t with the statement. My issue is with the mope who makes these statements everyday, bloats them beyond reality and then has the good sheep believe the crap he spews.

        3. avatar Magoo says:

          It’s not my logic. It’s the official position of the NRA: If anything bad ever happens with a firearm, the “responsible, law-abiding citizens” are not to blame. It’s those other gun owners, the ones who aren’t “responsible, law-abiding citizens.” Neat trick.

    3. avatar Bill Johnson says:

      I was not intending snark, nor did I invalidate his point.

  13. avatar mikeb302000 says:

    C’mon guys. You who demand exact numbers and statistical proof to back things up are doing that to avoid the argument. You know I don’t have that, and I don’t give a shit about it.

    One of my points with that silly little picture is that there’s a gray area which many of you deny. Some of you, I dare say, are in violation of certain regulations, you know the old bad-rulers-be-damned thinking, but that doesn’t make you criminals. You’re in the gray area.

    Another idea which that image helps to visualize is the gun flow from the right side of the picture to the left. Guns delivered to a an FFL guy, for example, who begins to turn a blind eye on the gang bangers sending their girlfriends into the shop, moves himself from the area B into AUB. The guns of course end up in the area marked A.

    It’s like Magoo said a couple times. You want to attack me for not having statistics, well I don’t like statistics. You want to accuse me of being a troll, well that bullshit. You want to question my motives, not one of you is a mindreader. The only thing you don’t do is comment on the diagram and the Truth About Guns that’s represented there.

  14. avatar Buuurr says:

    “The only thing you don’t do is comment on the diagram and the Truth About Guns that’s represented there.”

    There is no truth represented. None whatsoever. For the same reasons I have car insurance, life insurance, home insurance and all other kinds of what ifs. I use stats. I am sure every other ‘thinking’ creature on this forum does so as well for many of the same reasons and many more I cannot even begin to name. We base our decisions and lives around these things called numbers, they say when the sun will rise and when it will set. They even tell us how fast we go in a car. Amazing! For you to think anyone here will ever take you seriously based on ‘because you said so’ is ludicrous. Maybe you should create a site called TheTruthAboutEmotionsandOpinions. I bet on there you would have no one question you.

Write a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

button to share on facebook
button to tweet
button to share via email