Category Archives: Fallacy

A re-look at gun control on Occam’s razor edge

A re-look at gun control on Occam’s razor edge

Back in January I wrote an article about the false logic of gun control and how the argument between gun control and gun rights fairs when placed within the constructs of Occam’s Razor; the logic principle that the argument that makes the fewest assumptions is the right one.

In the current debate concerning guns in America, I am always astounded by the twisting of facts, logic and reason that the gun control zealots put forth in order to defend their case.  By all sense and logic, gun control cannot be viewed as anything other than a means to oppress a free people and to disarm the law abiding.

When looking at the pro-rights argument against the pro-control argument one needs to cut through the hyperbole and sensationalism with Occam’s razor.

Plainly put, Occam’s razor is the process in which, when you have two competing theories, the one that makes the least amount of assumptions is most likely the correct one.  By using the “razor” to cut away the most assumptions you are left with the correct answer.

To apply this to the gun debate, I argue that gun control, when cut to ribbons by the razor cannot stand.

The argument for the 2nd Amendment.

  1. An armed people are a free people 

That’s pretty much the only assumption that needs to be taken into consideration for the 2nd Amendment.  Freedom does not guarantee safety, it does not ensure absolute happiness, it only assumes that if people are armed they will be free so long as they remain so.

The argument for gun control requires a lot more assumptions to be made (many of which have been proven false).

  1. The 2nd Amendment is about hunting (because hunting is a past time and our founding fathers could always go to Wal-Mart in order to buy some meat)
  2. The founding fathers didn’t know what weapons would be available in the future and wouldn’t have written the 2nd Amendment if they had (they just fought a revolution using the same guns as the tyrants army, why would they then turn around and deny the same to those who follow)
  3. Gun control will stop criminals from getting guns (there are a number of shootings in “gun free zones” that have proven this false)
  4. The government will never turn on its people (I guess we’re just ignoring the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina)
  5. The police are enough to keep you safe (i feel that Alexian Lien might feel differently as no less than 5 cops sat and watched him dragged from his car and beaten in front of them)
  6. Criminals will follow gun laws (just like they follow the signs at “gun free zones”)
  7. Shall not be infringed doesn’t mean that the 2nd Amendment can’t be infringed (a single mustard seed of doubt means you have doubt so too does a little infringement mean you are infringing)
  8. Gun control only fails because we don’t have enough of it (and our government is in debt because we don’t spend waste enough money)
  9. Only the government needs guns, law abiding people don’t (i guess that’s true…if you’re a tyrant)
  10. Armed citizenry couldn’t stop tyranny (see 1775-1783)

Those are just 10 assumptions that I have heard the gun control zealots use that come to mind.  I’m sure many of those reading this have heard even more.

The long and short of it is this, you have to make a LOT of assumptions in order to get on board with gun control while the 2nd Amendment only requires you to make 1 assumption.  And that assumption just seems so rational and has been proven in history that it boggles my mind that people still choose to deny it.  At this point it’s more fact than assumption.

So the next time you find yourself in a war of words with some “enlightened” gun control advocate, don’t forget to bring your razor.


Lies My Government Tells Me

Lies My Government Tells Me

With the recent signing of the UN Arms Treaty and its potential to undermine American sovereignty in regards to the 2nd Amendment, Sec. of State John Kerry and the Obama Administration has assured the public that they are not going after guns.  History, both recent and spanned, tell us that taking the government’s word in regards to “what will and will not happen” is tenuous at best.

Here is a list of just some of the lies our government tells us.

Social Security.  Putting aside promises that may have been made by FDR that the number would not be used for identification or that the program would be voluntary (yeah right) there are concrete promises that have been quickly tossed out.  Did you know that when the government was trying to cram the social security ponzi scheme down the American throats they made a lot of promises and even made PAMPHLETS detailing them.  For instance:

After the first 3 year–that is to say, beginning in 1940–you will pay, and your employer will pay, 1.5 cents for each dollar you earn, up to $3,000 a year. This will be the tax for 3 years, and then, beginning in 1943, you will pay 2 cents, and so will your employer, for every dollar you earn for the next 3 years. After that, you and your employer will each pay half a cent more for 3 years, and finally, beginning in 1949, twelve years from now, you and your employer will each pay 3 cents on each dollar you earn, up to $3,000 a year. That is the most you will ever pay.

Then there is this gem:

What you get from the Government plan will always be more than you have paid in taxes and usually more than you can get for yourself by putting away the same amount of money each week in some other way.

Considering I am more than 3 decades away from collecting social security yet by the Congressional Budget Office’s own calculations social security will be out of money in 2023, I wonder if the government will live up to its promise that I will get more than I paid into it.  Eventually all ponzi schemes fail and social security is no different.

Speaking of money given to the government under false flags, as a Pennsylvanian I pay a funny little tax that the rest of the country may not know about.  Do to the tragedy and damage from a flood Pennsylvanians pay the “temporary” Johnstown Flood Relief Tax.  Now, don’t think me heartless because it is good to help those who have been victim of a terrible natural disaster…except the Johnstown Flood occurred in 1936!!!

I find that the term “temporary” is just fertile soil for the government to sow a harvest of lies.  They figure that after enough time people will just become used to it and forget about the matter entirely.  I have 77 years of taxation as proof.

The previous examples just deal with money but the lies the government tells us have been much more nefarious.  I’m speaking of things such as the Tuskegee Experiments.  The Tuskegee Experiments was a clinical study conducted over FORTY years from 1932-1972 wherein the government lied to 600 black American men in order to conduct experiments on syphilis.  The poor black sharecroppers were told they were receiving free health care yet were unwilling guinea pigs of the researchers.  Syphilis is CURABLE with penicillin yet these men were not told they had syphilis nor were they given treatment for it.

Now, at this point you may say, “sure, but the 2nd Amendment is a Constitutionally guarenteed right, the government can’t lie their way to violate that.”  Not so.  The 5th and 14th Amendments BOTH have protections of due process yet in 1942 over 80,000 US CITIZENS were rounded up and locked up in internment camps just because they had Japanese ancestors.  The lie there is that Due Process and any other right enumerated in the Constitution is sacrosanct. and cannot be violated on the governments whim.  It’s just not true.

These civil rights violations aren’t relegated to the history books either.  One need look no further than the past year in order to choke on all the lies that the government has been forcing down our throats with the NSA spying on every American.  At first it didn’t happen, then it was only non-US citizen terrorists, then only US citizens with terrorist ties.  Now, with the lies falling apart the truth emerges and we are all being spied upon.  So much for the 4th Amendment.

Of course these are only a few of the lies, ones that highlight the lies that have deprived us of money, liberty and life.  The lies that have gotten us into wars, that have kept officials in office, and the ones we do not even know about are more prevalent than I have time or want to list.

So no, I do not accept the lies coming from the Administration when they say the UN Arms Treaty will not infringe upon the 2nd Amendment.  The US government has a long list of lies and this is just another on to add to the pile.  The UN Arms Treaty has the groundwork to undermine the 2nd Amendment utterly.  Here’s how:

The most recent draft treaty includes export/import controls that would require officials in an importing country to collect information on the ‘end user’ of a firearm, keep the information for 20 years, and provide the information to the country from which the gun was exported. In other words, if you bought a Beretta shotgun, you would be an ‘end user’ and the U.S. government would have to keep a record of you and notify the Italian government about your purchase. That is gun registration. If the U.S. refuses to implement this data collection on law-abiding American gun owners, other nations might be required to ban the export of firearms to the U.S.

We’ve been paying for a flood for 77 years…who knows how long we would have to pay if this international influence is allowed to take root.

Between the taxes, civil rights violations, inhumane experiments why would anyone take the government at their word?

Gun Control working to facilitate hate crimes in New York City

Gun Control working to facilitate hate crimes in New York City

As hate crime mob beatings in New York City continue to escalate in ferocity as well as in frequency, gun control appears to be working as it was intended.  In that, the people most prone to be attacked aren’t having to sink to the level of shooting their attackers and can take the moral highroad of being beaten, sometimes to death.

Of course I am being facetious with the previous sentence in response to this online meme the Brady Campaign came out with a while back


But even though the Brady Campaign tries to backpedal from the above ad that was featured on their facebook page, and other gun control groups distance themselves from the sentiment the fact is that gun control’s end result is exploiting the weak and the few to the whims of the strong and the many.

Just like a 100lb woman will find it difficult to fight off three 200+lb rapists so too will a 31 yr old Columbia University Professor have difficulty fighting off 20 hooligans on bikes.

That story happened earlier this week as Prof. Prabjot Singh, a sikh, was singled out and attacked because the gang of hoodlums took him for a muslim (as if that somehow made it right).  Singh, who was unarmed like everyone except the rich and connected in New York City, was left to try and fight off his attackers.  The attackers who outnumbered him TWENTY to ONE.

Fortunately for Singh, eventually passerby’s intervened and stopped the attack but not until Singh had gotten most of his teeth knocked out and received a fractured jaw.  Chalk another victim up to gun control.

Then you have the hate crime onslaught against homosexuals in New York City.  Anti-gay hate crimes are set to DOUBLE this year.  Just last month a couple was hospitalized by the beating they received by a groups of attackers as they were walking hand in hand in Chelsea.

Then you have the story of 32-year-old Mark Carson, a gay man who was walking on W. Eighth Street near Sixth Avenue with his boyfriend.  He was shot in the face and killed at point-blank range.

But…i mean…gun control is supposed to stop people from having guns.  Well, only the law abiding I guess.  And to all the anti-gun people who want to point out that having a gun wouldn’t have saved Mr. Carson’s life, before firing his .38 revolver, 33-year-old Elliot Morales taunted the man, calling him a “queer” and a “faggot”.

If he had enough time to taunt the person he murdered, then Mr. Carson (or his partner) would have had enough time to at least draw their weapon and fight.

But that’s the rub.  Gun Controllers don’t want you to fight back.  They just want you to sit there and die.  Because to them, guns can never be the answer and just because they have no success stopping criminals from having guns doesn’t mean they will cease stopping the law abiding from defending themselves.

To gun controllers, guns are not the answer because guns can never be the answer or else their entire argument implodes on itself.

The 2nd Amendment protects against tyranny.  Not only the tyranny of a government, but the tyranny of the mob.  The tyranny brought on by rapists, racists, gay-bashers, haters and bullies of the world.

These tyrants are only stopped when they are STOPPED.  Either at the end of a barrel or with some customized ventilation.

How the Kenyan Mall Massacre Can Easily Happen in the US…Thanks Gun Control

How the Kenyan Mall Massacre Can Easily Happen in the US…Thanks Gun Control

Last week Islamic Terrorists stormed the Westgate shopping mall in Nairobi, Kenya killing at least 68 people.  Four days later, the armed men have continued to hold off police attempts to retake the mall.

These terrorists executed anyone who wasn’t a muslim or couldn’t answer questions about Islam such as what Muhammed’s mother’s name was or couldn’t recite passages from the Koran.

The first thing I could think of is how easily that could happen here.  The second was how did it happened in Kenya in the first place?

The answer is the fallacy of gun control.

A quick run down of gun control measures in Kenya:

  • The Washington DC National Commission on the Causes and Prevention of Violence categorizes the regulation of guns in Kenya as restrictive.
  • The right to private gun ownership is not guaranteed by law
  • Civilians are not allowed to possess semi-automatic self-loading military assault rifles of 7.62mm or 5.56mm calibre, or of any other calibre from time to time specified by the Minister, or firearms fitted with sound suppressors
  • Private possession of fully automatic weapons is prohibited
  • Carrying a handgun either openly or concealed while in a public place is prohibited.

With all these gun control laws, how is it that the terrorists were able to enter the “Gun Free Zone” that is Westgate Mall and execute the non-believers?

Because the ones executed were the only ones who were following the law.

The terrorist didn’t care about gun bans or not carrying in public or pretty much any of the nonsense that gun control fosters.

Could a group of armed citizens have stopped the attack completely and saved everyone’s life?  Doubtful, but they could have saved some lives by at least making it difficult for the terrorists or at the very least have died on their feet rather than on their knees.

Could this happen in America?  Absolutely. And rather easily too.

A great number of shopping malls fall under the fallacy of “Gun Free Zones” so the terrorists can target high trafficked areas with little resistance.  This incident also showed how effective a nationwide “assault” weapons ban is, so even if they couldn’t buy their AK-47’s legally here, they could always just swing by Mexico and pick up some that the Obama administration smuggled down.

Speaking of Mexico, the country where money talks and blind eyes are turned, it would be a simple matter for terrorists to arm up with all the automatic weapons they want and simply sneak across the border unchallenged.

Once slipping through our unsecured southern border they would simply stroll over to California (the nearest gun control utopia) and rain bloody murder down upon the disarmed innocent people going about their shopping.

Malls are also great places to hole up in too.  An abundance of food and supplies to wait out a siege, take hostages, defend against assault etc.

Of course, if 20 or 30 terrorists storm a mall in Texas or Arizona they may quickly find themselves outnumbered.  And the great thing about malls that appeal to the terrorists would benefit the US citizens.  Places to hide for an ambush, to bide their time, avenues for escape etc.

When you have to go store to store looking for someone the effectiveness of your rifle is mitigated and the law abiding citizen with the pistol has the advantage at close range.

That is, of course, if he is ALLOWED to have his weapon in the mall.

After all, Colorado used to be a pretty pro gun spot, yet the Aurora movie theater was a “Gun Free” zone and that only stopped the people who didn’t want to murder everyone from carrying a gun.

As gun control is want to do, it is the mass shooters and terrorists best friend.  Either here or abroad the song remains the same.

Gun Control and Gun Free Zones should be as vilified as those they empower to commit these heinous crimes.

9/11/13 : Twelve years of letting the terrorists win

9/11/13 : Twelve years of letting the terrorists win

I’m going to sidestep the normal gun heavy discussion I tend to have and focus on my Libertarian roots.

I cannot help but look at the past twelve years and see all that we lost.  Starting with the 2700+ killed in New York, the 343 fire fighters who died in the line of duty, those in the pentagon and those in the plane that struck it.

Then I think of Flight 93 and the heroes on board.  The first and the last victory the people of this country had against the war on terror.

Because everything afterward has been a continued and steady victory for terrorism.

See, when terrorists commit to something, dying is pretty much a moot point.  Therefore killing them doesn’t actually change the scoreboard.  Don’t get me wrong, I’m all for killing terrorists, but that is just a show to cover the continuing defeats that we have faced over the past 12 years here at home.

“What defeats” you say?  “We haven’t had anymore buildings get blown up or planes get knocked down” you exclaim.

No.  We’ve taken the fight to the terrorist and we haven’t had buildings blown up, planes taken down by shoe bombers or underwear bombers or chemical/nuclear/biological attacks.  Those attacks are on broad scales and easily defined.

We, as Americans have been losing by small degrees.

Those degrees have culminated in the loss of our way of life.

“We’re told to go on living our lives as usual, because to do otherwise is to let the terrorists win”

“If Americans begin to yield their own freedoms at home, the terrorists have won.”

“Our response to terrorism should be carefully measured. If our First Amendment rights suffer as a result of a terrorist attack the terrorists have indeed, won.”

Any of these sound familiar?

Unfortunately, it was then that President Bush made his biggest blunder.  The Patriot Act.  And most of the county, like willing supplicants begging for alms to quiet their fears lapped it up.

I’ve no doubt Mr. Bush had good intentions with the Patriot Act, the TSA, Homeland Security and all the rest.  But as they say, the road to hell is paved with good intentions.

So now we find ourselves in a country, led by President Obama who has expanded on Bush’s mistake and we find ourselves with no privacy, no free travel, no 4th Amendment rights, at the whims of federal and local authorities to shred the constitution on a whim all for the dog and pony show of combating terror and to keep us (the sheep) safe.

Ben Franklin, founding father and all around genius once put his thoughts on the matter so eloquently that they cannot be improved upon by saying:

Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.

To anyone who was molested by a TSA agent, thrown in cuffs “just cuz” in NYC, or had the IRS try and ruin their lives because of what they wrote on the internet; I’m sure you have a very personal take on what this blanket of safety really feels like.

We have been losing the war on terror for the past 12 years because we have been losing our way of life.  Bush started it but Obama has made it so much worse.

Unfortunately, it seems only Libertarians are willing to acknowledge the fact that both major parties have had their hand to play in this, so R’s and D’s just keep fiddling with each other while the Constitution burns.

If remembrance of 9/11 makes you sad it’s all right, it was a tragedy and pain should be tinged with the memory.  For me, looking at what my country has become over the last 12 years holds the same.

Lost rights…lost freedoms…lost liberty…

I just hope that it is not too late and the war is not lost.  I hope that the sleeping giant that is America (and not its government) rouses from its slumber and smashes the chains of its own imprisonment before they are shackled too tightly.

9/11 is a day of sadness…but also a day of hope.

Come on America…let’s roll.

Bulletproof objects are only a half-measure at best

Bulletproof objects are only a half-measure at best

If someone was coming at you with a sword would it be better for you to have a sword or a shield?

The answer is the sword.  Why?  Because the sword can be used for both offense and defense to a greater degree than a shield can be.

The same goes with the choice between a sword and hiding behind something.  While hiding may avoid the man with the sword it will ultimately be useless if you are found.

Of course, in this modern era the need to defend yourself from sword wielding ninjas and brigands is dramatically less than in times gone by, yet the rationale behind the need for an offensive weapon for defensive actions is still as true today as it was in the way back when.

Though in some places, like the University of Maryland, the thought is that giving the faculty bulletproof white boards is all that would be necessary to stop an on campus shooting.

These whiteboards are 18 by 20 inches.  At best it will cover 1/3 of a small adult woman.  And crouching down behind it doesn’t seem all that practical if you aren’t a contortionist.  Plus, unlike in the movies, that apparently is the sole basis that people unfamiliar with guns draw from, a person cannot go blocking bullets like it was some game at a family picnic.

Getting shot while wearing a bullet proof vest holds similar force to being hit with a sledgehammer. Blunt force trauma and broken ribs is often a result of being shot while wearing a vest.  How exactly is someone suppose to hold onto a whiteboard?

So here’s a scenario; an active shooting comes into the classroom, the faculty holds up the whiteboard to protect his or her vital organs (apparently the students are on their own) and what can the shooter see?  The teachers legs of course, probably even the lower stomach.  So even if the shooter doesn’t just shoot the whiteboard out of her hand, after a round or two in the gut or leg that whiteboard is dropping to the ground.

The inventor of the whiteboard has the notion that the whiteboards buy faculty “time”.  To me it seems it might buy the amount of time from the first trigger pull to the second.

The University of Maryland would have been better served if they allowed their faculty to carry a firearm so that an active shooter on campus can be stopped rather than peddling this false safety blanket of bulletproof whiteboards.

And seriously, one 18 by 20 inch whiteboard for the professor and the students are left high and dry?  Even if the thing worked you basically have offered up your students to the slaughter.

If anything, give the students the whiteboards and the teacher a firearm.  If an active shooter comes into the classroom the students can hide behind their shields while the professor tries to neutralize the threat and the kids will be offered some protection in case of wild shots.

If the professor fails in stopping the threat the students at least can go all 300 phalanx on the shooter and bumrush him.   Might have a chance then.


Enough about silly squares that peddle the false feeling of safety.

There’s another product that I read about that actually holds some purpose.  The bulletproof couch.  A combination of sword and shield if you will.

Now HERE is something that, while not necessarily practical is at least effective.  The couch costs a hefty $8000 with each bulletproof cushion running $500 a piece.

But on top of being bulletproof, beneath the cushions the couch also doubles as a gun vault.


Scenario; armed intruders enter your house looking to murder/rape/plunder.  If you are like many gun owners who don’t carry while around your house you might find yourself away from your means of defense.

If you are near your couch you AND your family (again U of M, shame) can hide behind it while the bad guys are shooting up the place.

<break> see…at this point if it was only a bulletproof couch the bad guys would simply walk around it and then do the evil that is in their hearts, i mean it’s a couch not a tank <end break>

While the bad guys are making their way toward you, you’ve opened up your safe and now have the firepower to repel the intruders and protect your spouse and children.

Like I said, the couch might not be the most practical thing given the cost but at least it will work because it couples both defense and offense into the equation.

Besides, how cool is it that a couch cushion fort can actually be effective.

The lesson to the University of Maryland and other gun averse institutions and people…half measures are a good way to feel safe until they are put to the test and you die losing that feeling.

But…I thought you CONTROLLED the guns in NYC, Mayor Bloomberg

But…I thought you  CONTROLLED the guns in NYC, Mayor Bloomberg

Mayor Bloomberg does say he’s after ILLEGAL guns right?

Hmmm…interesting, because all the laws on the books that strip New Yorkers of their god given right to keep and bear arms didn’t stop 14 year old Shaaliver Douse from walking up to a group at 3am and open fire.

From surveillance videos of Sunday evening, Douse, wearing a white T-shirt and jeans, fires at a group of men standing outside a bodega and then chases after one of them. Douse fired four shots in all.

Douse’s shooting spree ended rather abruptly when Police showed up  and shot him in the face.

Fortunately, no innocent bystanders were hurt in gunfire.

Now, Bloomberg will probably blame some other state for lax gun laws, but that doesn’t really hold water here.  No state in the union allows for a 14 year old boy to buy a handgun legally.  Plus, how is this 14 year old kid getting to Pennsylvania or VIrginia to take advantage of, what Bloomberg calls, “lax” gun laws?

No, someone in New York City illegally sold or gave this gun to Douse and he used it to open fire on a crowd.   No gun control law could stop that because their is no legal way for Douse to own the firearm to begin with.

The ironic thing is that this wasn’t even Douse’s first attempted murder.  He was charged in May with attempted murder after a 15-year-old boy was shot in the Bronx neighborhood where Douse lived. That shooting took place two miles from where Douse was later shot to death.

Douse was also charged with assault, criminal possession of a weapon and menacing in connection to the incident.  The Bronx DA chose not to prosecute citing lack of evidence.

I’m sorry…lack of evidence?  Criminal possession of a weapon in New York City is having the weapon on you that is illegal to have.  It basically is the equivalent of being caught red handed.

But Bloomberg doesn’t really care about illegal guns.  While a moral reprobate,  he’s smart enough to realize that criminals will always be able to get their hands on guns.  Yet he hates the notion of guns and the liberty they protect so much that he goes after the only group that gun control laws will actually affect, ie the law abiding.

In the end you get a law abiding population disarmed and gun toting 14 year olds running loose like it’s Lord of the Flies.