What's In A Name? - Marketing Mis-Conceptions by City Mayor Bloomberg
And Many other mayors.
There is a web site out there called Mayorsagainstillegalguns.
Think about that.
Only now have they signed up and started a campaign against illegal guns - what were they before that? Were for illegal guns?
Not really, they have created a name that appeals to the masses - a sound bite name - when the real intention is to ban all guns from everyone.
A Criminal using a gun? It is ALREADY illegal. They are not supposed to have them! You are not supposed to use a gun for criminal purposes.
How do they get them - they buy them from people who don't care that it is illegal to sell guns to them. They NEVER buy them from gun dealers, these people check to ensure that people buying them are able to own them doing online or phone background checks (AND it costs anywhere from $15 to $50 a purchase to do so! And the BUYER has to pay for that.)
The vast majority of people are NOT criminals. Most people quickly realize when young that in order for them to survive they have to be good to others - and others will be good to them and let them survive too. A balance of power of mutual interest to live.
What happens is that some people decide that they are NOT going to let the others live - and they will therefore break the "rules" of society using any means necessary to take from others that they do not want to work to get. That is what a criminal is. Laws are merely FORMAL written methods to communicate this to all what the rules of that society is when it comes to allows everyone to live as best as they can.
Mayor Bloomberg is trying to disarm everyone so that people who decide to break the rules against other people do not have an "advantage." This, however, does not solve the problem of that person wanting to break the rules - it just makes forces them to go back to physical strength, and mechanical means to threaten people. The mechanical means they have to get closer than three feet. But then, most robbers who use guns are within three feet of the people they are robbing. They have to touch the money! (goods). You do not see robbers standing back 100' with a pistol telling someone it is a holdup.
Before gunpowder people used swords, and knifes. Mainly knifes since a sword is easily seen - and almost EVERYONE carried a knife. So it came back to physical strength between robber and victim. A robber has surprise on their side which enables them to rob - the victim cannot get to their knife in time to defend against it.
Then it comes back down to fight or run.
This false campaign against guns is being waged against the methods employed - not the problem as to why people are breaking the law. The people breaking the law are supposed to be rehabilitated ALREADY - so that they do NOT commit crimes and people are supposed to be educated as to why you DO NOT commit crimes. Both of those aspects is missing from all the anti-gun (Brady type) efforts.
To put it in a different perspective as to the fallacy that these types of people are trying to do look at illegal money contributions to candidates - why not outlaw money to stop that?
There is a web site out there called Mayorsagainstillegalguns.
Think about that.
Only now have they signed up and started a campaign against illegal guns - what were they before that? Were for illegal guns?
Not really, they have created a name that appeals to the masses - a sound bite name - when the real intention is to ban all guns from everyone.
A Criminal using a gun? It is ALREADY illegal. They are not supposed to have them! You are not supposed to use a gun for criminal purposes.
How do they get them - they buy them from people who don't care that it is illegal to sell guns to them. They NEVER buy them from gun dealers, these people check to ensure that people buying them are able to own them doing online or phone background checks (AND it costs anywhere from $15 to $50 a purchase to do so! And the BUYER has to pay for that.)
The vast majority of people are NOT criminals. Most people quickly realize when young that in order for them to survive they have to be good to others - and others will be good to them and let them survive too. A balance of power of mutual interest to live.
What happens is that some people decide that they are NOT going to let the others live - and they will therefore break the "rules" of society using any means necessary to take from others that they do not want to work to get. That is what a criminal is. Laws are merely FORMAL written methods to communicate this to all what the rules of that society is when it comes to allows everyone to live as best as they can.
Mayor Bloomberg is trying to disarm everyone so that people who decide to break the rules against other people do not have an "advantage." This, however, does not solve the problem of that person wanting to break the rules - it just makes forces them to go back to physical strength, and mechanical means to threaten people. The mechanical means they have to get closer than three feet. But then, most robbers who use guns are within three feet of the people they are robbing. They have to touch the money! (goods). You do not see robbers standing back 100' with a pistol telling someone it is a holdup.
Before gunpowder people used swords, and knifes. Mainly knifes since a sword is easily seen - and almost EVERYONE carried a knife. So it came back to physical strength between robber and victim. A robber has surprise on their side which enables them to rob - the victim cannot get to their knife in time to defend against it.
Then it comes back down to fight or run.
This false campaign against guns is being waged against the methods employed - not the problem as to why people are breaking the law. The people breaking the law are supposed to be rehabilitated ALREADY - so that they do NOT commit crimes and people are supposed to be educated as to why you DO NOT commit crimes. Both of those aspects is missing from all the anti-gun (Brady type) efforts.
To put it in a different perspective as to the fallacy that these types of people are trying to do look at illegal money contributions to candidates - why not outlaw money to stop that?
posted by Tom Philo at 5:23 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home