Scott Adams suggests that getting rid of "cool-looking" guns would make it less likely that evil losers-- the only kind of people who commit mass murder-- would commit mass murder.
These evil losers might enjoy imagining themselves-- according to him-- carrying out their massacre holding a weapon that they think looks cool. Maybe even dying with it in their hands. If they didn't have cool-looking weapons to wield, they would be less likely (he guesses maybe 5% or so less likely) to go through with their attack. Why bother if they can't look cool doing it?
Can you see the errors in his thinking?
The coolest-looking gun I own is my original Winchester 1894... at least in my opinion. Or, maybe it's my Hawken rifle. I guess it depends on my mood. The point is, "cool-looking" is always subjective-- it can't be otherwise.
And why only guns?
Would it be a good idea to get rid of cool-looking cars to reduce speeding and traffic fatalities? Again, what is cool-looking?
My coolest-looking car was my 1975 Citicar-- not exactly a speed machine. And, most people didn't think it looked the slightest bit cool. But I did. (Evidence that I was never cool.)
Maybe get rid of the kind of houses that successful politicians/criminals like and that unsuccessful ones aspire to, to reduce the motivation to commit crime.
Criminalize clothing that is frequently preferred by people who choose a life of archation-- black hoodies and business suits, for example.
Where does this silly line of "reasoning" end? It ends as it begins-- with violating people's right to private property based on what others believe they don't "need".
Decent people aren't going to intentionally violate others. Evil losers might. How cool a person believes a particular tool looks isn't the issue, and can't really be controlled by fiat.
If you eliminated all the "cool-looking" guns currently available, some other commonly available gun would become the new "cool" one-- as would some other tool if you were magically able to eliminate all guns. You'd be trapped forever chasing the next cool thing in a futile attempt to make evil losers stop being losers who commit evil.
Should we give up everything we like the looks of in a doomed attempt to discourage bad guys from violating the innocent?
Or, you know, would it be more effective to make it OK again to defend yourself and others from all evildoers, no matter what tool they prefer?
You know my position.
Thank you for helping support KentforLiberty.com.
Check out my TeeSpring shop
I hope I add something you find valuable enough to support. If so... Donations and subscriptions are always appreciated!
I think you're cool. And funny. Cool and funny. And right.
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
Looks like Scott has gone off the rails a bit again.
And, although he says he does hypnotherapy, he is really missing a lot on what the unhinged of society thinks.
Sure, the mass-murder to be will think to themselves, should i take the Winchester 1894 or the Hawken, and probably "cool looking" comes into play, but that isn't really a big concern.
But arguing against the sort of thing Scott is espousing is like trying to argue with someone about "assault rifles". When i tell them, why didn't they take a 308 and stand over on the other side of the parking lot? And they say, because the assault rifle is more powerful. Then i tell them that the AR-15 is an over-sized 22. Its a pop-gun in comparison.
... and then they talk about the "assault rifle" was taken because it looks cool.
♬ ...idiots to the left of me, jokers to the right... ♬
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit