“I do enjoy the gun nuts’ absurd claim that guns are ‘only an object,’ so why blame them for the one million deaths we’ve had already in this country? But then when you try to regulate that ‘object,’ you’d think someone proposed burning Bibles. If a stupid piece of metal can provoke this much anger and passion in the gun nuts, then maybe the link between guns and violence isn’t so questionable after well.” – John Aravosis, Romney’s gun comments were all wrong [via americablog.com]
Guns are an object that we find of value. It is still an object and can do nothing by itself. It requires human handling to do anything. I have no idea of the context you are quoting one-million lives lost. I do know that guns have, over the years, saved many millions of innocent people. You need to see the big picture and to consider the flip-sde in many more lives that would be lost without innocent people being able to defend themselves. You also need to consider how the simple existence of guns being owned by law-abiding citizens reduces crime by intimidating criminals not to take action. I’m not sure about the anger and passion of which you are speaking unless you are referring to attempts and actions by gun grubbers to limit or outright deny gun owners their right to keep the benefits that guns offer people.
Your statement is so full of fallacies and irrationality that I am concerned your brain has as many holes as a block of swiss cheese.
Interesting…. guns are at fault rather than those who hold them. I see where he is going with this. He really thinks crime springs from guns being present in our society. And he is wrong.
Another Northeastern Girlie Man heard from, this time a Georgetown educated attorney.
Bibles are objects too, yet if you proposed to regulate them, it would provoke similar anger and passion. Is he saying that because an object provokes passion at the thought of it’s regulation, then that object is dangerous? Hm, just a thought, but maybe it’s the violation of liberty that actually provokes the anger and passion.
Exactly. Take away rights that a person cares about, and you’ll get a strong reaction. Ask this fool about violating his right to express himself.
This was my reply to that idiot at his website :
Where does he specifically say “single moms are the root cause….etc?
Why are your ranting about Gay when he wasn’t even discussing that?
You have a tendency to blame “objects” for the failure of our culture…using guns
as the scapegoat for the ills of society…Romney was trying to help you focus beyond
the objects that are used to vent anger or frustration…Removing objects from society will
not resolve the problems of society…but using objects as scapegoats is the easy way out
of dealing with the root causes of violence…its easy to say “take away the guns” but that
wont solve the violence problem….it looks like you are doing something but in reality all you
are doing is postponing the inevitable reality check that its the state of mind of the person
that is causing the violence and that is where the focus should be…how many deaths or victims
could have been saved if people like yourself focused on changing the person or their situation.
You are discriminatory by calling people that own “Guns” – “gun nuts” – would you prefer yourself
to be called an anti-gun nut?? I doubt it.
You said ” It might just take all of us to have cold dead hands before the American people wake up and do something about the ridiculous culture of violence in this country.”
You just answered your own question – the american people do need to do something about the ridiculous culture of violence int this country – How about focusing on the solutions that Romney proposes….better schools, jobs, living conditions..might just help.
Oh the link between guns and violence is definitely questionable – linking it by implying that removing guns will solve the violence issue is absurd…the gun doesn’t fire itself..solve the personal culture of violence and you solve the gun issue – not the other way around…..
The twisted logic in this post is beneath contempt. I continued to be amazed by the lack of intellectual content on the gun-grabber side of the issue.
John, you Sir are a fool
Burning Bibles, Talmuds, and Korans is fun. Just not as fun as shooting.
Yeah, interesting metaphor. I haven’t seen many people moved to violence over burning of Bibles or Talmuds….
Burn the Qur’an publicly and you’ll practically be begging for someone to kill you. Burn a Bible or Talmud, your most likely to see people upset and protesting.
Take away the guns, and your setting yourself up eventually for a government that will do the above (probably not to the Qur’an) and round up those citizens as traitors and trouble makers. At the very least a government that will eventually take away ALL your rights.
Note: result will vary INDIVIDUAL to INDIVIDUAL, Historically on governments, not so much.
I would argue that they ARE indeed the same. If you took someone’s Bible, or gun, and destroyed it, it would violate that person’s Constitutionally protected rights. I reject your emotional vitriol and inject true logic. Good day, sir.
This guy’s thinking is Medieval. Accursed objects that fill Men with blood lust.
It scares me to think people are devolving from the more enlightened view of Humankind held by Adams, Franklin, Jefferson and Washington. Next thing they’ll be wanting to burn Gun Owners at the stake.
You can say the same thing about cars, dipshit. Being condescending does not make one factually or philosophically correct. Guns are about freedom. If you don’t have the balls to know that, you’ll likely be ruled by someone who does.
So because I care about my property I’m a lunatic?
Something tells me this guy rides the short bus.
You can comment to his blog on the link above. I ‘disliked’ his article and wrote a short response.
Another arrogant, self important twit that hasn’t got a clue.
What the actual fvck is this guys point? He’s all over the place. First, he acknowledges the point that “guns are only an object”. Then, he makes a snide, condescending remark about it without actually refuting it. Then he skips right on to the next point, banning/regulating them, as though he did refute it.
Guns aren’t inherently bad. Blah, blah, blah. Why do people get mad when we try to regulate them?
Is this what passes for logic in the anti-gun camp? Please tell me this guy isn’t actually getting paid for this drivel.
How many millions of people have died as a result of biblical ideals? Several…
How many millions of people have died as a result of biblical ideals? NONE. How many people have died because power mad megalomaniacs have interpreted the Bible to suit their own insane fantasies? Several. . .
There, fixed it for you.
Bibles analogized to guns?
One is a book for spiritual education, the other is a defensive tool. Apples and orangutans. This joker is a tool.
Secondly, he is proposing trashing the First Amendment in order to trash the Second. Would this guy recognize logic if it ran over him?
Mr. Aravosis, I have a quick question for you.
Are newpapers just objects? Yes?
Ok, then. Let’s say the government started regulating newpapers. They require you to pass a literacy test before allowing you to purchase one. They limit the number of newpapers you can purchase a month. They put limits on just how much news can actually be printed in a newspaper. They outlaw the Sunday edition because no one needs that much news.
Would you react strongly were that the case?
Given that I assume you just said yes, does that make newspapers something more than a object? Do you worship newspapers? After all, it’s merely regulating an object.
What’s a newspaper?
I tried to come up with an analogy for websites, but it just didn’t work as well.
John must think Islam is a religion of hate and Muslims are dangerous to society. When U.S. forces burned Korans, millions of Muslims reacted with anger and passion. Obviously, the link between Islam and violence is strong, right John?
Burn Ammo, Not Bibles. That’s my new motto. It’s not as catchy as “Make Love, Not War,” but it’s all I got.
What we really need in this country is a rational conversation on the regulation of cars and associated motor vehicles. I propose we draft legislation that will make these tools of transportation safer and more sensible for everyone on the road. First, we must strengthen the laws restricting ownership and operation of a car. A 12 year old child can buy a car! Think of the children. These machines of death and destruction are responsible for over 42,000 deaths and 230 billion dollars of damage every year. And yet we have no law regulating the sale of these dangerous machines to minors. This is just wrong.
Also, the licensing laws for the lawful operation of these speeding chunks of metal are a joke. Any child 16 years of age can spend 1 hour or less and procure the necessary paperwork to drive death, disguised as a vehicle. This is madness. We need to enact reasonable restrictions on vehicle ownership, requirements for vehicle operation, as well as restrictions on vehicle performance. Do not despair: your ability to legally drive your car will not be impaired. Any reasonable person would not object to the strengthening of the laws if we can save just one child from dying a horrific death in a car accident right? Right?
/sarc. What if we were talking about cars instead of guns? How many of these radicals would be willing to accept “reasonable restrictions” on their ability to drive a car? Maybe we should have someone who is more eloquent than I write up an article comparing their “reasonable restrictions” on guns with comparable restrictions on cars, a tool which the majority of the population of the US owns and uses on a daily basis…
Comment removed and made into a separate post. Thanks!
Directly infringing on property rights = something to become upset about.
from JA blog’s About Us page:
John Aravosis “has a degree in rhetoric from the University of Illinois (Champaign/Urbana)”
“John has also been honored as one of the “Out 100,” and by the Advocate as one of the fifty “most powerful gay men and women in America.”
Typical that Illinois was somehow involved in JA’s gun-grabber’s education. Using JA’s ‘object’ reasoning (not mine) about guns, a case could be made that the spreading of the AIDS virus (which has been heavily influenced by unprotected and promiscuous sex, as practiced by many (not all) men in the gayy community) is because of using the gay male penizz ‘object’. Therefore, if the object itself is the dangerous and destructive source deserving to be banned or faulted for the problem then to reduce AIDS spreading further it would seem that JA should call for gay male penizzes to be banned. I wonder if JA will now call for chastity belts to be placed on all gayy men?
My first cup of coffee is still kicking in here so I am not sure how well I am articulating the similarities in his logical argument or making my own case. I am of course not spelling certain words correctly on purpose so my comment doesn’t get held in computer check. If I took the time to re-write this piece it would read far more clearly. I don’t have the time.
Guy looks like a date rapist. Jus’ sayin’.
As history has shown. The bible or prayer book and guns have been used together. During the American Revolution “Give them Watts”. The MM were running out of wadding for their rifles. So the preacher gave them the prayer books to use. Just to show that Americans hold both the Bible and guns as freedoms. Americans today as back than will not stand to have their freedoms walked on by the government.
His kind of thinking is not the stuff by which America was founded…