“Gun Death” The Price of Life

As the anti-gun people like to say, “Don’t use a gun, because nothing you have is worth killing for”. Of course I would argue that while some of my stuff is easily replaceable, there are many things in my life worth killing for if somebody attempts to take them by force. But what of the other side of that argument?

A man pleaded guilty on Tuesday to killing his mother- and father-in-law with a bomb disguised as a lamp to get out of repaying the couple a $40,000 debt.

Evidently 40 Grand was enough to kill TWO people however you want to divide up that dollar amount. There are people killed every day for even less. Still you won’t hear about this story from the antis, because this monster made a bomb to kill, and did not use a gun.

You see, only “Gun Death” counts because THOSE deaths are useful!

H/T Whipped Cream Difficulties

This entry was posted in Gun Death?. Bookmark the permalink.

6 Responses to “Gun Death” The Price of Life

  1. C. S. P. Schofield says:

    “Nothing I own is worth killing for”?
    And just who the hell do these people think they are, to make THAT judgement?

    I have bad news for you, sweethearts. I am not a Christian. I do not hold “all life” as “sacred”. You really do not want to know how trivial a possession I would consider worth killing for.

    I have a counter-aphorism; “Think of it as evolution in action”.

  2. The_Jack says:

    If nothing is worth killing for…. then why do they tell us to “Just give the robber what he wants?” How come the agressor gets let off the hook?

    From that it sounds like they’re okay with threatening lethal force in order to *take* stuff, but *not* okay with lethal force to defend stuff *or* life.

    (And I’ll admit that, yeah, lethal force in defense of property is not normally reasonable, but when someone says “your money or your life” they’re *not* threatening your stuff now are they? Unless they’re saying we should trust the intentions and honesty of someone willing to kill a person for their wallet. Oh wait…)

  3. guy says:

    “…nothing you have is worth killing for”

    Everything I have was paid for with the only resource you can never get more of – Time.

    If you’re a parasite I can see why you’d have trouble with the concept. Those of us who have worked for everything we own have traded an irreplaceable resource for our stuff.

    Why the hell would I give it up without a fight?

  4. Jack/OH says:

    I’ve never really understood how anti-gun folks, many of them standard-issue liberals, can go on about human dignity and civil rights and oppression. Then, when a citizen is confronted by an assailant who wants to criminally strip him of dignity and rights, the same liberal advises: “Just give it up.”

    guy—FWIW, the late newspaperman Jim Bishop wrote that victims of property crimes were often as upset as those who’d suffered violent attacks. I can’t recall if Bishop offered a reason, but I think you nailed it.

  5. AZRon says:

    “Nothing I own is worth killing for”

    Bullsh!t! EVERYTHING I have is worth killing for. Thieves (and liars) are among the most damnable cretins on Earth. They’re not stealing my phone or my T.V., they’re stealing my humanity. They’re stealing the decades that I got up at 3:00 AM everyday to work 8-12 hour shifts providing for my family. That’s worth far more than the money I might lose to a dirtbag.

    If someone can rob me to take it, I can use force to keep it…it’s MINE!

    • Weerd Beard says:

      You’re on the right track. I would argue much of my stuff is NOT worth killing for. Still how are they TAKING my stuff? If somebody takes $50 from my wallet, that SUCKS, but I’m not going to MURDER somebody over $50. Hell there are people out there who STILL owe me a LOT more than that, and I know have no intentions of repaying me (plus many of these loans and exchanges are probably past the statute of limitations, so technically they probably don’t owe me shit anymore) their lives are safe from me.

      Still if somebody ASKS me for the contents of my wallet, I’m going to say “No”, and I think that response is near universal for a stranger-to-stranger transaction. Yet such exchanges happen HUNDREDS of times every day.

      What’s the missing factor? Muggers are not only asking for money, but doing so threatening bodily harm. People are successfully mugged because they believe the exchange is contingent on their well being.

      Of course I’ve talked a lot about the threat of deadly force and how the bargain between the mugger and the victim has no legal or social binding, and there is NOTHING stopping a mugger from causing you harm AFTER the exchange takes place.

      THAT is worth fighting and if need be killing for, and all face-to-face criminal acts come with the threat of violence. Hell, Penn Jillett talks about on his podcast how he and Teller witnessed a confidence scam while they were drinking coffee and talking about future tricks for their show. The conman recognized them and realized they had been made, so they quickly moved the mark to another location. Penn mentioned wanting to pursue the mark to warn them, but he knew that when the rubber hits the road any good conman WILL resort to violence. Penn had also been assaulted by 3-card Monte artists in New York because he had done work to expose the scam.

      So yeah, whenever somebody is stealing from you, weather it’s a hard gun or knife in your face mugging, or a home invasion where they think the home is empty or the occupants are sleeping, or somebody running a confidence scheme on a mark, the threat of grave bodily harm is ALWAYS there.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *