Saturday, June 28, 2008

Deconstructing the Leftist's Arguments

Those on the Left honestly believe that they alone have compassion for those that are poor and downtrodden, I wholeheartedly disagree. It seems that Leftists continue to make arguments that on the surface appear to address the problems that they are attempting to tackle, but oddly enough, they never seem to provide the solutions to anything that they address. Wonder why?

Obviously, because Leftists do not understand much of anything. Point in case, the Heller decision from the Supreme Court. Washington DC basically outlawed handguns back in the 1970's, and surprise! crime exploded. Leftists have no idea why because they do not recognize that there are people that live to commit crimes and they tend to migrate to areas where the people are unable or unwilling to defend themselves.

That is the case with every single issue that the Left addresses. Name one, we'll take it down.

The Left says that abortion should be legal because men should not be allowed to tell women what they can and cannot do with their bodies. Uh, a man is necessary for a woman to get pregnant, so already the argument is falling apart before we even start. Abortion arguments really do not interest me because everyone knows that abortion is wrong. "Safe, but rare!"

They also state that if abortion is made illegal, women will still get them and have unsafe back alley abortions as if that is not happening right this minute. Has the deathrate for abortion recipients gone up or down since Roe v. Wade in 1973?

Deaths from abortion in the 1950's averaged around 300, deaths in the 1960's averaged around 170, deaths in the 1970's averaged around 80 (Roe occurred in 1973, the deathrate should have plummeted but didn't until the 1980's), deaths in the 1980's averaged around 10, deaths in the 1990's averaged around 8, do you see a trend? The more medical advancements we make, the lower the average deaths are. It has NOT ONE DAMN THING TO DO WITH ROE!

The Left believes that the wealthy people do not pay their fair share of taxes and wish to raise them. The poor workers of this country depend on businesses to offer them jobs. When taxes are raised on the business owners or minimum wage is increased, unemployment ALWAYS rises. Poor people get screwed DIRECTLY because of taxes on the wealthy.

The Left believes that the "Bush Tax Cuts" only helped the rich folks. The question here is, "If those cuts HELPED the wealthy, why did their tax burden INCREASE and revenues rise by 4%?" No answer from those Leftists because they do not understand what they are debating.

And finally what I really want to talk about, Gun Control.
With the Supremes finding DC's gun control laws unconstitutional, the Left has become unhinged and has repeatedly bleated that crime is going to explode and that it is going to bring about a return to the lawlessness of the Old West. What they fail to recognize is that DC is already there simply because criminals know that no one is armed.

From a comment on THIS blog post, I shall deconstruct the typical uneducated debate style of a moron. Please note the HUGE Barry Obama campaign endorsement at the site.

Susan from Texas writes in BOLD:
Separating out facts from myth makes clear that women are endangered rather protected by the proliferation of handguns.

Especially when women do not have a handgun. The statement above makes absolutely no sense. I will bet you seven dollars to a day old donut that we can place 1000 guns on a table in a room with ten women and NONE of the women will get hurt. Well, unless THEY pick up a gun and start shooting. How can a gun be dangerous without someone using it? Oh, let's just forget that guns cannot operate themselves, huh?

Myth: Guns protect women from gun violence.
Fact: Rates of female homicide, suicide and unintentional firearm death are disproportionately higher in states where guns are more prevalent.

What Susan's simple statement above fails to assume, even if the data is correct, is whether or not guns are LEGAL in those areas. If I could find any data that told us how many guns were ILLEGALLY owned in DC, we could blow that asinine statement from the water. Oddly enough, stats confirm overwhelmingly that LEGAL firearms kill a minuscule fraction of the folks that ILLEGAL firearms kill. Wonder why?

Myth: Handgun ownership increases women’s ability to defend themselves.
Fact: In 1998, women were 101 times more likely to be murdered with a handgun than to use a handgun to kill in self-defense. Women were 302 times more likely to be murdered with a handgun than to use a handgun to kill a stranger in self-defense. Women were 83 times more likely to be murdered by an intimate acquaintance with a handgun than to kill an intimate acquaintance in self-defense. In the rare cases in which women do use guns in self-defense, it is most commonly against an attacker known to them.

Do you see the HUGE, GLARING problem with the above argument? It is basically one of "hamster" = "bucket truck." The comparison is NOT whether someone who legally owns a firearm is killed more often or kills more often, it is one that states simply the differences between a woman is (a) killed by a firearm, whether she is holding one is unknown or (b) a woman kills someone with a handgun. Those statistics do not even equate in a silly world controlled by Tom Cruise riding a Patriot missile.

And what in the Hell difference does it make whether or not a woman knew her attacker other than to state that women should be afraid of MOSTLY people that they know? That is in itself sandpoundingly ignorant. Geez......Mom was LYING to us, ONLY hang out with strangers!

Myth: Guns protect women from rape.
Fact: Guns are rarely used by rapists - less than 2 percent of rapes are committed with guns, while almost 70 percent are committed with personal weapons (physical violence). Women would be safer knowing self-defense to fight off an attacker than using a gun which can easily be turned against them.

Uh, most rapes are committed by men's penises, dumbshit. And does the statement even address whether or not the WOMAN has a gun? Okay, let's make the assumption that a woman's attacker doesn't have a gun, but the woman does. What are the statistics on whether or not the woman gets raped in that circumstance? Doesn't your lunacy actually make the case for women to go straight to the damn gunstore, right NOW?

Please do not cry, Ms. Women and Men are Equal, but men are generally a bunch stronger than women. You know, that whole anatomy thing? Men are usually bigger than women, too, but dammit, are you saying that instead of a handgun, women should just go take karate? That is patently stupid. I have seen that demonstrated by a friend of mine with no martial arts training beating the ever-loving shit out of a MAN that taught Taekwondo for a damn living. I laughed my ass off! But, hey, let the women get some martial arts training instead of just taking shooting lessons, that makes sense!

Myth: Women need guns to protect against stranger rape.
Fact: Stranger rape is not the greatest danger for women as most women (75 percent) are raped by offenders known to the victim. 60 percent of rapes are committed against victims under the age of 18 who are forbidden by law to own a gun.

How in the name of Hell does the above "statistic" even make sense? In Tom Cruise Land, crazy people can even see that this statement doesn't have anything to do with guns. The real questions are "Why in the Hell are parents letting their teenage daughters go places that offer even the minute chance of her getting raped? Where in the Hell is daughter's buddy?"

She closes her stupidity thusly:
Guns aren't a fashion accessory.

I guess that means that women are not even remotely concerned about their safety, they just want to look good while getting assaulted or raped. That in itself seems to me to be very insulting to women in general. Yeah, the Left really cares about problem solving.

What my post attempts to point out here is that no matter how sane, sober, and rational a Leftist's argument appears at the onset, they are not using intelligence to construct their debate. Even when trying to use "facts," they fail miserably at understanding cause and effect. In essence, they are not morons because they are Leftists, they are Leftists because they are morons.

Please take the time to comment.