Articles!

[conuly]

Lori Klein, Arizona State Senator, Pointed Loaded Gun At Reporter Richard Ruelas's Chest

There's a lot to be shocked and appalled at in that story - like, say, the fact that this woman sees nothing wrong with casually pointing loaded guns at people - but I think what gets me the most is this quote:

In Arizona, Klein's handgun has become a symbol of the gun control debate, and while she supports those who want the right to carry guns, she says it's a personal choice that she isn't forcing on anyone.

"I don't like chocolate ice cream," she told the Arizona Republic. "Am I going to force you not to have any?"

You know, I'm more on the "gun control" side of the spectrum than the "gun activists!" side of the spectrum (and it's worth noting that the gun activist quoted in the article thinks this woman needs to NOT HAVE GUNS until she learns not to point them at people!), but I can see how reasonable, thinking people can look at the evidence and look at the second amendment and come out with two different opinions on the subject. Or three, or four, or five different opinions!

I don't see how comparing guns to chocolate ice cream counts as reasonable. I'm upset on the behalf of gun activists that she just made them all look stupid by association, and I'm furious on behalf of women and, y'know, people. Seriously. CHOCOLATE ICE CREAM? I'm not going to bother prying it out of your cold dead hands, because... well, I can't bring this analogy any further.

An Austrian driver has won the right to wear a pasta strainer in his driver's license photo. It's religious headgear. Apparently.

Owner of Killer Bear Chokes to Death on Sex Toy

No comment.

Comments

[mc776]

I'm trying to think of how you can handle chocolate ice cream so grossly negligently as to create an imminent threat of violent death to a random stranger.

That senator should be in jail, and I say that as someone who believes normal citizens should have the right and power to carry guns without requiring further occupational justification.

[leora.livejournal.com]

Basic rule of gun safety: You never aim a gun at someone you do not intend to shoot.

Someone who can't manage that rule should not be handling guns. This would have been true even if the gun had been unloaded and had a safety. The fact that she did this with vastly few safety precautions is just amazingly awful.

My opinions on gun control waiver, but certainly people who can't handle that should not have guns.

[xianghua.livejournal.com]

This.

I lean towards the gun-friendly side of things. (It may be genetic, I *am* a Texan. ;)) But my god, it's such a "Stop making my side look stupid, people". That's the very first thing you learn in gun safety classes, is don't point it at people! PERIOD.

[leora.livejournal.com]

Oops, and I mean waver, as in vary, as in it's way too late at night right now.

Oh, amen to that.

[marveen.livejournal.com]

I own, ah, several boomsticks, and one of The Rules is There is no such thing as an unloaded gun.

You point it in a "safe" direction. Always. Until and unless it's disassembled and lying in a pile of pieces on the table.

This guy demonstrates how NOT to follow "trigger protocol." (http://reason.com/blog/2011/01/05/he-was-the-only-one-in-the-roo) Trigger protocol is another one of The Rules: Don't put your finger on the bleeping trigger until you're ready to fire.

(For those unfamiliar with the Glock, it has a "trigger-integral safety" that is on the front of the trigger face. No separate safety=you had damn well better remember trigger protocol.)

Just like with automobiles: if everyone follows The Rules, nobody will get hurt.

As for chocolate ice cream:

[marveen.livejournal.com]

I can, actually, see the metaphor there. Chocolate ice cream makes some people uncomfortable when they eat it (lactose-intolerant) and can be life-threatening for others (severe allergies involving anaphylactic shock). Other people can't imagine life WITHOUT chocolate ice cream.

Voila, the complete range of reactions to the Gun Issue, from horrified revulsion and physical withdrawal to strong attraction and interest. (Personally, I fall somewhere in the middle: chocolate isn't my favorite flavor, but neither will I turn it down, since some ice cream is always better than no ice cream. ;)

Re: As for chocolate ice cream:

[conuly]

That is scary.

Re: As for chocolate ice cream:

[elenbarathi.livejournal.com]

Chocolate ice cream makes some people sick when they eat it, not when somebody else eats it. People who get sick from ice cream may choose not to eat it. People who don't eat ice cream are not in the least bit threatened by other people eating it, because there's no way those other peoples' dietary choices can affect their own bodies.

This is why ice cream is a ridiculous metaphor for firearms. Yes, you can kill yourself with ice cream if you work hard enough at it, even if you're not a bit allergic to the stuff. No doubt there are plenty of anorexics and bulimics who feel 'horrified revulsion' at the thought of chocolate ice cream, but that's neither here nor there. How many murders, suicides, and fatal accidents every year are attributed to chocolate ice cream?

Since chocolate ice cream is not a controlled substance and nobody feels any need to lobby the government about it one way or the other, let's try a couple metaphors that fits the facts a bit better:

1. "I don't like tobacco," she told the Arizona Republic. "Am I going to force you not to have any?"

2. ""I don't like marijuana," she told the Arizona Republic. "Am I going to force you not to have any?"

3. "I don't like cocaine," she told the Arizona Republic. "Am I going to force you not to have any?"

Re: As for chocolate ice cream:

[marveen.livejournal.com]

I don't care for Budweiser, am I going to force you not to have any?

Yeah, sure I am: Prohibition works, every time, without fail.

Re: As for chocolate ice cream:

[elenbarathi.livejournal.com]

As we all can see by the stunnung success of the War on Drugs at creating a drug-free America.

Seriously, the big fallacy in Lori Klein's metaphor is the equating of something that doesn't hurt other people with something that is specifically designed for that purpose. .

It's similar to Richard Dawkin's recent claim that getting hit on in a hotel elevator by a strange man at 4:00 AM was no worse than sharing an elevator with a noisy gum-chewer. If Richard Dawkins himself were ever to get hit on in a hotel elevator by a strange man at 4:00 AM, he would soon learn the difference between feeling annoyed by someone's 'preferences' and being threatened by their behavior.

So will Ms. Klein if anyone ever sticks a loaded gun in HER face.

Re: As for chocolate ice cream:

[marveen.livejournal.com]

Well-said.