The anti-gun crowd can come up with some amazing (and creative) arguments why no one should be allowed to own firearms, in spite of what the Constitution says. But what if the same arguments were applied to other “dangerous” things? For example . . .

Cars are nothing more than instruments of death. Statistics prove that households with cars are much more likely to have a car-related fatality than households without cars. Every year thousands of people, including many innocent children, are killed by cars. And the cars don’t even have to have be running – every summer we hear of children who are killed when they play in cars and accidently lock themselves inside. Obviously there’s no such thing as a “safe” car.

Not only that, but practically every crime involves cars helping criminals escape and evade law enforcement. Some even injure or kill law enforcement officers as they do their job. Cars let gangs invade each other’s turf, kicking off gang wars. The only logical solution to this problem is to limit car usage to law enforcement agencies and the military. Once this is done, the streets will once again be safe for citizens.

Cars are also responsible for the needless and violent death of millions of small animals every year. Trillions of insects meet their demise because of cars. This wanton destruction of nature can only be stopped by outlawing the use of cars.

The “car enthusiasts” (as they call themselves) like to boast that cars give you freedom and there are benefits to be gained from car ownership. However, as you can see from above, nothing good can come from them. One death because of a car is too many. Even with state-sponsored training, registration and licensing of car operators, there’s no way to control the destruction brought to our society by these machines. The only possible way to end this carnage is by effectively outlawing the ownership and use of cars by the citizenry.

And let’s not overlook another common source of bloodshed:

Many states currently ban the ownership of switchblade, lockback and butterfly knives. And it’s illegal to carry knives with blades above certain lengths (see your local laws for specifics). However, this is not enough. Knife ownership is getting out of control. Practically every household in the US owns multiple knives. And they are all deadly weapons in the wrong hands.

Hardly a day goes by that you don’t read of someone getting stabbed. What isn’t reported are the hundreds of thousands who risk mutilation on a daily basis from using knives irresponsibly in the presence of small children. And before you counter with “children can be taught to respect knives,” small children are naturally curious. All you have to do is turn your back on them for a moment and they can have a knife out of the drawer and be playing with it. And then how will you explain that to a distraught mother or father or grandparent? “An accident?” Hardly. Irresponsibility is more like it!

It’s not just children for whom knives pose a threat. Adults also suffer needless injuries at their own hands or the hands of others because of the ready availability of knives (see: John Bobbitt).

While there are those who may argue that knives are safe in the right hands, statistics would prove differently. The CDC reported over two million injuries involving getting cut in 2008; the majority of these involved one type of knife or another. The only way to prevent these injuries is to ban all forms of knives in the US.

“OK,” you’re probably thinking. “That’s carrying things to an extreme.” You’re right. I am. To the same extreme that the anti-gun crowd does in trying to make their points. For every argument they make about guns and gun ownership, I can make a similar argument against a dozen other items. And they would all be about as lame as the average anti-gun extremist’s arguments.

49 Responses to Ban Everything

  1. You know, for some people, common sense comes naturally. For anti-gun lobbyists, it seems that’s one skill that was skipped as a child.

    Let’s see a statistic of where “criminals” get their firearms. Now let’s look at the options:

    1.) From legal firearm owners
    2.) Illegally

    How much of a percentage will be “from legal owners”? Not as much as they *think* I’m guessing. Sure, you may see a decrease in firearm related deaths, but criminals are determined to say the least. Do they really think that a law banning ANYTHING will stop them from doing what they want? They’re not criminals because they enjoy following laws. Ban firearms, criminals will use sharp objects. Ban those, they will use their fists. When all else fails, they’ll use whatever means necessary to accomplish what they want.

    Anti-gun people are anti-gun because deep down inside, they’re afraid of them. It’s a disorder they turn into hatred towards firearms, and therefore take away our right to defend ourselves.

    Heart issues are what, the number one killer of people in the United States? Let’s make those illegal. Oh wait.. that doesn’t make sense now does it?

    • Actually it’s really simple. The next time they say “If we ban guns, we can stop criminals from having guns”, just as them how well the War on Drugs is going.

    • It all depends on what you mean by silly, Joe. You don’t think it’s kinda silly to keep trotting out the old car and knife comparisons?

      The first line of the post was also a major deviation from the truth.

      why no one should be allowed to own firearms

      Who exactly are these fanatics who say NO ONE should own firearms?

      Now, Joe, I realize it would be foolish of me to expect you to notice any of these bizarre discrepancies in the post, not with your bias-blinders on. But, take heart, you’ve got plenty of company.

  2. Oh man, please don’t use cars as your example. Some of the gun-grabbers will say ‘good idea, you’re right’ and try to get you to ride to work on a llama.

    • From Wikipedia: “According to an article in the National Women’s Studies Association Journal, while in the kitchen she noticed a carving knife on the counter and ‘memories of past domestic abuses raced through her head.’ Grabbing the knife, Lorena Bobbitt entered the bedroom where John was sleeping and proceeded to cut off almost half of his penis.[1]”

      So scissors are OK – as long as you don’t run with them.

  3. Well said. We should also look into banning smoking, drinking, swimming – ~4,000 people drown every year and falling – especially among the senior community. ~15,000 people die every year from falling where most of the stat is made up the 55+ group. AARP should be all over this one. Outlaw falling now!!!!

    • What??? That is absolutely ridiculous! While falls are a significant cause of injuries, you can’t outlaw falling. Try blaming the cause, not the effect. It’s GRAVITY that you’re after! Gravity must be stopped, NOW! Oh, and let’s not forget the damage caused by food (causes choking, esp. with small children) and water (floods). These are the real issues that need to be addressed to save lives. It all has to go.

      (LOL, just couldn’t help myself)

      • Get at the root cause, I like it. Water causes people to choke. When people drown, 9 times out of 10 (according to a statistic I just made up) it is in water. Water was used by Bull Connor to attack civil rights marchers. We should definitely ban water.

      • There is only one thing that is common to all accidental deaths, injuries or malfeasance, and that is life itself. We should ban all living things. No exceptions! If we leave any living thing it might evolve into some gun loving monster or worse a liberal.

        • Yup, just when I thought I was at the root, you proved me wrong. Life itself must be banned. Then, finally, we’ll all be safe again. Good work, soldier!

    • We absolutely must ban dihydrogen monixide. Approximately 10 people are killed in the US EVERY DAY due to this lethal substance. The worst part is that the government doesn’t have any sort of restrictions on usage or licensing requiring in order to be able to obtain dihydrogen monoxide. This is absolutely appalling and must stop NOW!

  4. Did you know that one of the leading causes of death is obesity? And what do people use to overindulge on ice cream? SPOONS!!!

    Hey, if we can save just one child, it will be worth it. Ban spoons!!

    And did you know that books contain dangerous ideas?

    And don’t get me going on the dangers of allowing mushy-headed liberals to vote.

  5. I just popped out of the drum circle 2 c what’s goin’ on on the interweb. U guys are BLOWIN MY MIND! Grate ideas. I’m gonna make soft spoons outta hemp for Pete.

  6. A kitchen knife is a phallic object. Those who own them must be compensating for something missing in their lives.

  7. The gun grabber’s mindset is just a short ways away from totalitarianism IMO. The same logical extremes have been used by China, USSR, Nazi Germany…

  8. Hammers, did that. Screwdrivers yeah. Table saws. Mainstream media stating the words “Gun violence”. The last being the worst because it should be pointed out that guns aren’t violent, it’s the person who is using the gun in a violent manner. But don’t worry what has been said makes sence so those apposed wont listen anyway.

  9. Ban everything? Welcome to Massachusetts. Home of the bean and the cod, where Martha Coakley talks only to the governor, and the governor thinks he’s God.

  10. Prehaps Judge Dredd’s antagonist Judge Death had the right of it. Only the living seem to commit crime, ergo make living illegal.

  11. I think both sides make ridiculous arguments. Most of the deaths listed by the author and commentators are self-inflicted. Guns have the ability to kill many, and at range, making them different from the “weapons” listed which require contact. Most criminals get guns through “legal” means. http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/guns/procon/guns.html Even persons trained with guns make mistakes. I was shooting skeet once, the first time I fired a weapon since I was 6 and my father helped me hold the rifle. A police officer was shooting with us and handed me a loaded shotgun with the safety off. I’ve never taken a gun safety course and even I know not to do that. Personally, I don’t care much which side “wins”. Another point is that the word “bear”, as in the “right to bear arms, in an organized militia”, is not a synonym for “own”. Finally, countries with very restrictive ownership laws have incredibly lower murder rates.

    • Not sure if FRONTLINE is the best place to go for an objective opinion piece about criminal sources of guns. Actually I’m not sure PBS understands the word ‘objective’, as there is always somebody holding the purse-strings in the background.
      Their crime gun expert admits that the source for most criminal guns is straw purchasing, a federal crime for which the penalty is up to 10 years in prison and/or $250,000 fine. Well here’s a thought, why not use current laws, prosecute to the maximum extent, and maybe your straw purchaser will get the idea that 10 years of their life is not worth a $200 kick-back.
      Sadly it is currently in your governments’ best interest not to do so, thereby giving the impression that current laws are ‘weak’ and they require ‘new’ ones.

    • You are correct about one thing: “bear” is not a synonym for “own”. However, the word “keep” is.

  12. I also think that the TSA has gone way overboard with what they ban from flights. Personally, I think that instead of taking the fingernail clippers and small tool kits, they should offer each passenger a knife. That way if anyone tries anything at least a few people are likely to stab them.

    • I wonder if a few armed civilians on the planes on 9/11 could have stopped it all from happening. How come sky marshals aren’t on every single plane after the fact?

      The more you outlaw, the closer to anarchy we get.

  13. I’m impressed. As a gun owner, veteran and a democrat, I got through a whole page without an Obama bashing.

  14. very well said, everyone. Good job. Lets make sure we vote before we’re told that voting is dangerous and we’re stuck watching hogs with wrist watches a few more years.

  15. we need to ban our attempt to defend ourselves, cause apparently the value on our own human life and good of the population is down. there is a difference between responsibility and ignorance, dumbass rich liberals: you are taking the latter because all you have in this world is your little boxed in home, and you don’t even give a damn about the rest of what the world and your fellow humans are going through. and even if you do, all you sacrifice is a little tinsy bit of your glorious wealth for something that actually didn’t help those in need: they were most likely cheap political tricks to mask what was really going on: money laundering. DO SOMETHING for a change, outside of what you know and are comfortable with, and LIVE.

  16. Just a thought: Don’t try to reason with them, if you make a strong, logical arguement they will just push it to the side. There is no way that we can prove that the more guns in a given population can cause/limit crime (too many variables). So if we just say “here is a million deaths that was allowed because the victim didn’t have a gun” they can say “You can’t prove that the victims would have survived if they had a gun” and we can’t. They have everything on their side. All we have are our “beliefs” and our arguments that mean nothing to them.

  17. The typical liberal spin is never let the facts get in the way of a good story. You could give them hard facts about guns and they will just ignore it as it does not fit into their world view.

  18. 1) here we have one extreme arguing against another
    2) I believe the saying “guns don’t kill people, people kill people

    That being said, I believe that firearms should not be banned. People should be restricted in the ability to posses firearms. After 10 years in the industry I have seen the good and the bad. I believe in the second amendment. Even though I believe in our right to defend ourselves I would never hand a firearm to a criminal or anyone that cannot handle one safely. You used cars as an example. Cars are not designed to be destructive devices. They are used for transportation. In order to drive a car legally we must take a written and practical exam. Yes accidents happen with cars as well as firearms. In order to purchase a firearm you only need to have a clean record and be at least a permanent resident of the United States. What I’m driving at here is that cars/guns aren’t the problem it’s stupid people that are the problem. Arguing for either extreme is foolish. If you are of at least average intelligence and have no criminal record then you should be able to take a comprehensive course and pass it. Those who argue against that…..grow up!

  19. Seriously? Theese are your arguments?

    I’m not against weapons, au contraire, I love guns.

    But you can’t compare a weapon, something that has been designed to kill, to a car, that has a completely different purpose.

    So stop being childish and pointing theese kind of retarted arguments and use your brains for a sec.

  20. hey, some of my best friends are guns, but damn, this post is just stupid. childish, with a schoolyard mentality, exceeded only by the comments that follow. grow up and make big-boy arguements in favor of citizen gun rights…

  21. In regards to this logic. Yes guns are tools, as spoons and cars and planes and other inanimate object are. But it comes down to the use, there’s a reason why nuclear bombs are restricted from the public. Automatic rifles, hand weapons, rifles, their sole purpose is for killing and doing it efficiently more than any other tool (i.e realistically try killing 50 ppl with a knife as quickly with an assault rifle) , whether the human motive is self defense or murder, spoons, cars, books though possible are not. Complete all out banning is unrealistic. Reduction or restriction is for common sense safety reasons, civilians should not have access to such things, they should be in the hands of trained military and police enforcement authorities. It just makes criminals stand out more if they own such things, face it also having a gun is just more for psychological security, are you realistically going to carry a gun in public all the time, or have the time to rush into your closet, unlock your box or cabinet, then load your gun when someone already bursts into your home or has a gun already held to your head if mugging you. It really offers little protection. It really comes down to pros and cons, for every story of successful use of protection using a firearm, there are countless more of murders, accidental deaths, mishandling. Is it really worth this cost? The reason why crims, psychologically deranged have guns is because the gun industry, us legislation, ingrained US culture, make it so readily and easily acceptable and available in the first place.

    If fear is of an oppressive government or the country under attack the second amendment, by the logic that banning cars, spoons, books, fertilizer, gas tanks, saws, nailguns, fuel, matches, might be done as well if you ban guns is really implying they are just as effective weapons with a mind intent. So why need guns then? But if you are saying guns are indeed needed for protection you are then implying that they are indeed an effective tool for killing more so than the spoons and cars. And again it defies common sense to make such things so readily accessible to the public whether they be crims, law abiding citizens, or mentally deranged individuals or terrorists.

    And PS the US is already under attack, from deranged lunatics and terrorists and your gun carrying has made no difference.
    I see it in the US news EVERY MONTH OR TWO, if these were to happen in other countries believe me you would hear about it. But they don’t to what is now a pandemic extent for the united states.

    Please…. please …please realize this has nothing to do with Democrats vs Republicans, or asking complete outlaw of guns in America which is unrealistic, they have their place in the military and enforcement groups… which means they aren’t toted by deranged persons in schools killing innocent children…it is just common sense.

  22. response to “Bobwantssanity”

    In our recent 20th century we can look at just three countries where only the military and law enforcement had access to weapons. After all, using your logic their military and police were highly trained in use of such weapons and would have protected the Disarmed population form violence. Well the three countries are Russia, China, and Germany and during our recent 20th century the governments of these countries have Murdered 200+ Million Disarmed Human Beings. That is a fact Bob unless you have been living under a rock or are a devout communist supporter. My question to you Bob is, are you a jew? I am speaking form real life experience, I had a close friend that is a jew, he and his mother both educated attorneys were against gun ownership, always talking about greater safety for everyone, etc., etc., One day some years ago, specifically in 2006, I found photograph of my friend and his mother while browsing on the Internet. I asked him about it, he was drunk at the time and stated that he and his mother were members of the American communist party. WTF, I mean WTF, I thought that I knew the guy pretty well. Yes I always saw him as a liberal with progressive / pro-socilaist views. So my question to you Bob, once again is are you a jew or a Krypto-jew that supports communism? Let us also not forget that approximately 80% of Russian Commissars that were in charge of communist indoctrination (government people that forced people to accept communism by brute force) were jewish. Also, 150,000 of high-ranking officers and soldiers in socialist / nazi military forces were of jewish background / descent. Source, “Hitler’s jewish Soldiers” by jewish professor of history at Yale, former U.S. Marine, and former volunteer in the israeli Army Bryan Riggs.
    How about our current politicians that have been trying and are still trying to Disarm the American Citizen? You know , people like dianne FEINSTEIN, barbara BOXER, carl LEVIN, charles SCHUMMER, joe LIEBERMAN, richard BLUMENTHAL, john ROSENTHAL, deborah WASSERMAN-SHULTZ, michael BLOOMBERG, rham EMMANUEL (dual-citizen israeli & American), henry WAXMAN, darell STEINBERG, adam SCHIFF, etc., etc. etc. These people are jewish also that is a fact anyone can look up. So my question to you still remains, Bob are you jewish? Why are you so desperately trying to Disarm the American Citizen? What plans do you and your liberal / progressive / pro-socialist / pro-communist kind have in store for the American Citizen once you were to Disarm them?

Leave a Reply

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