Search YouTube

Saturday, October 31, 2009

Guns don't kill people. Bullets kill people.

That's just the truth. It isn't the GUN that kills people, it's the flippin' BULLET! So I would suggest letting everyone who wants to carry a gun, carry a gun.

In fact, maybe WalMart can go ahead and start stocking bazookas. And as long as nobody can buy bazooka bullets anywhere then everyone is safe.

Many of my American compadres are shaking their heads in disbelief about this position. Cuz the truth is, many Americans feel strongly about their right to bear arms.

Truth be known, this is the one, singularly defining difference between Americans and Canadians: Americans want to carry a gun and Canadians want to carry a hockey stick.

Truth is, since the advent of grocery stores like Kroger or Loblaws, we don't need weapons to feed ourselves.

Let's smile, laugh and giggle more. It's time to evolve past the knuckle-walking stage and learn to be happy.


Kevin Thomason said...

I don't know where to start on how wrong you are.

Happy said...

I'd be pleased to hear your argument!

Gdun said...

First of all A bullet is the projectile that flies out the muzzle of the gun. I believe you mean ammunition, or cartridges. If you are trying to take a serious stance on something, try to sound like you know what you are talking about. But then again, you've probably never been around guns.

Also, guns are a necessity for those of us interested in self-preservation. Then again, you might not of figured that one out either.

Dustin said...

The biggest problem with your theory. Its TOO LATE.There is absolutely no way to control nor "lock up" all the ammunition. Not to mention the people that re-load, have stockpiled ammo etc etc. Youre concept is not even plausible nor realistic. It doesnt even make sense. That projectile is a piece of various metal(s). It doesnt think nor go screaming downrange at someone on its own. It takes a human factor ( I know Im stating the obvious here but youre blaming bullets for death) to attain, load and squeeze that trigger. "Get Happy"..Really? Its THAT simple? Tell that to the hundreds of thousands unemployed because the US GOV chose to bail out the rich of america but not the tax paying citizen.Tell that to the crack dealer born and raised in poverty,with seemingly no other choice than to deal to survive.. Youre point of simply "getting happy", it takes more than that...Its hardly about the 2nd amendment when it comes to points debating your theory.The FACT is if anybody were to ban ammunition..The people who WILL KILL, HAVE KILLED AND WILL DO HARM UNTO OTHERS WITH A FIREARM WILL BE THE ONLY ONES CAPABLE OF INFLICTING HARM. i.e. The rest of us Law Abiding citizens will just be un-armed sheep,waiting to be slaughtered. Can you imagine the chaos and homicide rate if you got your way? Thousands would die! If the doers or evil knew no one could fire back..Wow..This country would become alot less crowded.

Happy said...

@Gdun: Thanks very much for the insight you have provided. Having said that, I do hope your aim is better than your ability to debate a serious issue....

Happy said...

@Dustin: My commentary was a play on the old phrase: "Guns don't kill people...People kill people" and on the reality that the carnal slaughter causing the death of the living being is the projectile (aka bullet) from the gun.

I'm sorry that you read into my post beyond its intended position....

gdun said...

"Gdun: Thanks very much for the insight you have provided. Having said that, I do hope your aim is better than your ability to debate a serious issue"

So you are saying i have no ability to debate a serious issue?
Please explain, because once again you left us with no information

Anonymous said...

Moderating your comments like a true liberal. The reason people carry guns is to kill other people. That's why cops carry guns. They want to kill people so they carry a gun and go kill people.

Kevin Thomason said...

I tweeted your blog post. This is simply an example of how the grassroots works to ferret out bad ideas and correct them with good ideas.


wsr6racer said...

Please read the following:

The Remainder Problem:


Ammo and gun sales up in California:


Ammo makers can't meet demand:

[i]We are working overtime and still can’t keep up with the demand,” said Al Russo, spokesman for North Carolina-based Remington Arms Company, which makes bullets for rifles, handguns and shotguns. “We’ve had to add a fourth shift and go 24-7. It’s a phenomenon that I have not seen before in my 30 years in the business.”

Americans usually buy about[b] 7 billion rounds of ammunition a year,[/b] according to the National Rifle Association. In the past year, that figure has jumped to about[b] 9 billion rounds[/b], said NRA spokeswoman Vickie Cieplak.[/i]


Matthew said...

Im not really sure where to begin on this but I will start by asking do you live in the city or a small town or in the country? I my self currently live in a small town, but grew up in the country. I have grown up fishing and hunting and growing food on a farm. I grew up poor. Many times the farm didnt produce enough food to get through the winter so we hunted for food. We had little to no money. For $10 we could get up to 100lbs of meat, but we had to go shoot it, or go to the grocery store and for that same $10 we could get mabey 10lbs of cheap meat. There is one reason why your argument to ban bullets sucks.

Greg Ryman said...

We all know inanimate objects can't kill someone. A weapon is what someone makes an object become through action. I carry a knife on a daily basis. However, it's a tool for opening boxes, tightening screws, and so on. However, if I were to use that same knife against another person, it becomes a weapon.

The same concept applies to firearms. There are many uses for firearms these days, least of which is to kill others (civilian terms, not military or police). Many, many, people own firearms for target practice, hunting, and just having fun. However, the other use for a firearm is a weapon. This is why the police carry them, this is also why many people own firearms in their home or carry them for self preservation.

The notion that we're to be unequal in terms of self preservation goes against the laws of nature. The age old saying of "Don't bring a knife to a gun fight" holds true for any situation. If the bad guys are going to have illegal guns, I want to have my legal gun to combat their actions. We can't wait for the police, when seconds count, they're minutes away.

Not to mention, Warren vs. District of Columbia, the court ruled that the police were not liable nor responsible for the protection of the citizens. Anyone who believes that calling the police will save them is seriously delusional.

Let's not forget, that when confronted with an armed person, we call the police. Why do we do this? Oh, that's right... The police have guns!

Truth be told, there are billions of firearms in the United States, and there are more deaths from car accidents than there are from shootings. Maybe we should ban cars? Oh wait... Maybe it's the fuel in the cars that kills people?

Happy said...

@Kevin: You'll recall I said this was a message within a message.

The broader message I was looking to introduce was the idea that, as humans, we know we are capable of certain behaviour (for example, killing each other) but are able to do better (that is, aim for the ideal) if we try.

The specific message concerns people being killed by weapons.

If you've had a chance to look at my other blog postings you'll hopefully recognize that humour - or attempted humour - is a means for me. Such was the case with my play on words "Bullets kill people."

I certainly look forward to the grassroots approach that you mentioned replacing the bad ideas with good ones. It seems to me too many people are being killed by gun shots, knife stabbings, etc. Relying on everyone to carry a weapon for self defense is as implausible as anything else I've heard. I'm looking forward to some further ideas from you.

Happy said...

@Matthew: My family and I have lived on a farm, in a town, and in a very large city.

I very much appreciate the sincerity of your message. You raise an excellent points.

I'm not suggesting we take away anyone's food or anyone's hobby, for that matter...

I'm sure you agree and join with me in saying there should be a way to reduce the gun-related crimes and deaths that presently happen.....

I'll say it again, it is not about "guns" per se, it is about reducing the negative impact that weapons have on our society....

Matthew said...

Here is another story of when I was 22 years old. In California, where I currently live. I was fishing in a semi-remote area on the Sacramento river. Its a fairly well known area to the locals but place is not marked on the map, we call it second beach. lots of good fishing and a decent spread out are for camping, swimming. Me and my friend were just fishing just a few feet down river was a small family with some small kids. Now I carry a gun everywhere I go. out of the corner of my eye I spotted a mountain lion, in this area its relatively flat farm land mountain lions dont usually hang out there.
I noticed he was getting closer and closer so I pulled out my pistol and fired a warning shot hoping to scare the lion it didnt he just kept getting closer, and was moving towards the family. so I did the only thing I could think of I killed the lion. Turned out he had rabies. It took the sherrif almost an hour to get there. If I wasnt armed with bullets in my gun who knows what would have happened. I got quite a few more storys of good reasons for guns. I understand theres also lots of bad things that people use guns for. People also use cars, money, baseball bats for bad stuff too.

Happy said...

Thanks for that story, Matthew. I again appreciate your sincerity.

Please understand that I am not trying to take YOUR gun or your ammunition away from you.

I am trying to get people talking about the bigger issues.

What role does government have in this, if any? If providing international security is so important, what about security in our own back yards?

Mike said...

"If providing international security is so important, what about security in our own back yards?"

Whose role is it to secure your own back yard? Is it realistic to expect the government or anybody else to provide security for you in your own backyard? The only reasonable way I can see to do that would be to have the entire population pulling security for each other. Since about 10% of the population can be counted out as pathologically inclined toward violence that isn't justifiable, this is mostly unworkable. It would also create a privacy nightmare.

I'm not saying that everybody should go armed, mind you. There are people who shouldn't - that 10% I mentioned, the mentally ill and a few others. But if more people went armed, if more people were "civilian sheepdogs" who watched out for themselves and for their neighbors, then the world would become a bit better place.

I feel it's a moral obligation to make sure everything in your neighborhood remains safe and to keep criminal elements from preying on your neighbors... but at the same time I would oppose making it a legal duty.

BTW: Why didn't you publish my other comments?

Happy said...

@ Mike: I am not aware of any unpublished comments but if I have failed to push the button it was an oversight. I will check.

Matthew said...

"again appreciate your sincerity"
isnt that liberal speek for "F-U but since you tried heres a cookie"
then you go on to say "Im not trying to take away your gun or your bullets" but didnt you first say lets ban bullets? Nice how you back petal. I also remember you saying on the facebook discussion you stated "if no one had bullets you could brandish an unloaded gun to deter the crime", I just gave you one example why brandishing a gun dont work. YOu way of answering me was "I appreciate your sincerity" ??? then you ask "What role does government have in this, if any? If providing international security is so important, what about security in our own back yards?" Why should I rely on the government to take care of me? I would rather take care of myself. I ask you is the government gonna supply me with my own personal bodyguard? As you know when seconds count the police are minuets away. So untill the government can appoint someone to be my personal bodyguard I will take care of myself, that means I will carry a gun, a loaded gun. Cause an unloaded gun is nothing more than a expensive paperweight. Id rather be judged by 12 than carried by 6.

Happy said...

I don't use words like "sincere" in an attempt to mean anything but "sincere."

Also, when you talk of me taking steps back... you are showing that you are not understanding me.

I take responsibility for not being clear enough.

The title of the blog was to draw attention to the issue. The blog post is not a piece of policy to be written in laws, it is the launching point for a discussion -- a logical, rational discussion.

I hope that helps.