Thanks for the inspiration and aggravation, Scott. Really.

I was truly saddened yesterday morning to hear Scott Adams say that he will be dying soon.

Over the years, well before he started commenting on politics, his blog posts, and then his livestreams, made me think. And, of course there was Dilbert, which was something my first wife and I shared an appreciation for.

I've had many disagreements with his views over the years. I even have a blog post label specifically to address how and why he's wrong in his thinking about guns. As I have said in the past, when he's right, he's right. When he's wrong, it's because he's a government supremacist. That doesn't mean I ever hated him.

He influenced me to be a better version of myself by challenging me (without his knowledge) to put into words why I disagree with him when I do. It's not enough to say about someone, "He's wrong". If you can't explain why he's wrong, do you even know he's wrong?

I've written many blog posts where I specifically referenced something he said on his livestream. Even more where something he said made me start thinking along a specific path that resulted in a blog post. Or two. Like this one.

I believe I have benefited greatly, in various ways, because of his influence. And even the aggravation. I expected to be challenged, angered, and inspired by his opinions for years to come. I feel a little cheated.

I'm almost positive he muted me ages ago. Such is life. I'm sincerely sorry this is happening to him, and I wish him the best in the time he has left. 

UPDATE: He made it longer than he thought he would- dying on January 13, 2026. RIP, Scott.

-

Thank you for reading.

Show your support.

Who is better off and who isn't?

Often, when Scott Adams discusses guns and his "support" [sic] of the Second Amendment, he'll comment that pro-gun people need to realize that "Some people are better off with guns and some are better off without them". This is why he seems to think it's OK to "compromise" away the right if enough people decide they are better off without guns.

As if this makes any difference to human rights!

You could argue, using this same logic, that some people are better off with (other forms of) slavery and others are better off without it. 

I'm sure anyone who feels they can't thrive without slaves doing their labor for them would say they are better off with slavery and anyone who has been enslaved would point out they are better off without it.

Where human rights are concerned it makes no difference if some people are "better off" if they are allowed to violate your fundamental human rights. Even if it means they die.

-

My surgery fund.
Thank you!

Leave if you can

Found at Bryan Hyde's site

Over the years I've been hard on Scott Adams. Especially his bad takes on guns.

As I've pointed out several times, he's usually right about things, and when he's wrong, it's invariably because he has taken the government supremacist position. That's just always going to be automatically wrong, even if it's popular.

His latest mess wasn't due to government supremacism, and not coincidentally, he isn't wrong. 

If you discover that a lot of people among some identifiable group don't like you-- don't even respect your right to exist-- why would you linger in their presence if you are able to leave?

Hating, and canceling, him for saying this is ridiculous. Probably evil.

And, as he pointed out, the advice would be the same no matter who you are or who it is that doesn't like you. Get away if possible. Shunning is always the ethical move.

I've noticed that most of those who have a problem with it didn't hear what he actually said, but are going by what someone incorrectly claimed he said. In other words, fake news. Maybe even a hoax, depending on whether it's intentional.

Found on Twitter

-

I'm doing this for you.

Consider subscribing or donating. 

Choose your adventure

If we are living in a simulation, I would like to be able to choose to live in a sub-simulation where there are no restrictions on guns. None. Zero.

I'd be perfectly happy to let others choose some other option as long as they had no influence over, or effect on, my life. 

I don't care who would be less safe or who would be safer because safety is an illusion and a lie told by tyrants. I value liberty over life, anyway.

-

If I've earned your support by saying things that are socially unpopular,
consider subscribing or donating.

Fact checking a "fact check" on a fact check

Joe Biden said you can buy any gun you want at a gun show without a background check.

Fact checkers say Biden's wrong because dealers are still required to do unconstitutional (illegal) FBI background checks on all the guns they sell at a gun show.

Scott Adams "fact checks" the fact checkers by making the claim that Biden was right-- you can buy any gun you want at a gun show just by finding a private individual who is selling the exact gun you want. No background check.

Here's why Adams is-- yet again-- wrong on guns.

Do you know what kind of guns you can't generally get in a private sale at a gun show (or anywhere)? The newest gun model, in brand new unfired condition. 

You can get almost anything as long as you don't mind a used gun. You might even luck out and find an older gun in like-new, unfired condition, or a brand new model that someone bought but decided to not keep after firing a box or two of ammunition through it. But the chance of finding a brand new, unfired example of the newest thing is going to be as likely as finding a unicorn.

Do you know what other guns you can't get in a "background-checkless" private sale at a gun show? Anything illegally rationed by the 1934 NFA.

So, no, you can't buy any gun you want, at a gun show, without a background check. Joe Biden and Scott Adams were both utterly and completely wrong. Again. As anti-gun bigots and government-supremacists almost always are.

-

Thank you for helping support KentForLiberty.com

Get a Time's Up flag or two

"Cool-looking" stuff encourages crime?

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

Get a Time's Up flag or two

"The slippery slope" mischaracterized

One example of the mischaracterization that I talked about yesterday is Scott Adams* and his automatic mischaracterization of "the slippery slope".

He says there is no such thing as the slippery slope because "nothing continues forever". Things only continue until they meet enough resistance to stop them. Fair enough.

However, no one claims that the slippery slope has to continue forever; only that it has to continue far enough to hit certain intolerable levels. To become worse than the current situation. That something stops at that level because it has become intolerable isn't a solution. Not when it shouldn't have begun at all. Anti-gun legislation being a perfect example. No amount of "gun control" is ethical or OK. I am not worried that it will continue forever until guns are nonexistent and can't be re-invented, I'm angry that it went too far the first time some perverted power-mad anti-gun bigot imposed the first anti-weapons policy.

The slippery slope is real, even though it can't continue forever. It doesn't need to continue forever to be a real problem. It's vital to prevent the slippage from ever beginning.

--

*It's always interesting to me to see how an intelligent person mischaracterizes things they don't like to try to make them seem wrong and to make it seem smart to be on the other side.
It's discouraging to notice how often it works.

-

Writing to promote liberty is my job.
YOU get to decide if I get paid.
I hope I add something you find valuable enough to support.

What is a "slippery slope"?

If you listen to Scott Adams, the next time you hear him railing against "the slippery slope", saying it's "magical thinking" to believe in such a thing, and you want to understand (or explain to him) why he's wrong, this is for you.

Basically, it's a definition problem. He is defining the term differently than most people would, apparently in order to reach a particular conclusion in which government actions are excused.

He portrays the idea of "the slippery slope" as a magical belief in a law of physics that says once something starts going in one direction, it will continue to do so forever, unstoppable. He says nothing is unstoppable; it only continues until something stops it. Like inertia? But of course, inertia doesn't apply to human behavior, only to physical objects.

What does apply to behavior in a manner very much like inertia is that once you've been able to get away with acting in a certain way, you are more likely to do it again. And go a little further next time, always testing your boundaries. How much can you get away with?

Because the first legislator who proposed the first anti-gun legislation wasn't half-hanged, then drawn and quartered immediately after he proposed that abomination, as he should have been, others were emboldened to follow in his footsteps, until your natural human right to own and to carry any weapon you wish, openly or concealed, everywhere you go is now routinely violated.

He claims that those who point out that something is a slippery slope ignore that it can be stopped. That's not a true claim. No one actually believes something on a slippery slope can't be stopped or reversed. If it couldn't be stopped, why even point out that it's a slippery slope? The warning is an attempt to stop it. It's just that once it starts down that slippery slope you've got more ground to recover before you're back to square one. It's better to not take that first step into tyranny than to have to scale it back after it has been allowed to grow.

You can call it a slippery slope, "precedent", or a natural expression of human nature, but the result is the same. It's not magic, it is a universal feature of human nature.

To discount this very real effect is to deny reality in favor of some fantasy world where laws of human behavior don't apply. Where effect is totally unrelated to cause. It's loserthink.

-

Writing to promote liberty is my job.
YOU get to decide if I get paid.
I hope I add something you find valuable enough to support.

Dr. State-nstein wants to experiment on your rights

I'm a fan of experimentation. To a point.

Not all experimentation is ethical-- especially when you're talking about human experimentation. You can't ethically "just try something" to see if it works if it would violate natural human rights. No matter how good an idea you imagine it to be.

Scott Adams is guilty of this form of loserthink whenever he promotes some anti-gun scheme, saying to let states try different types of "gun control" [sic] to see what "works". He says not supporting such an idea means you aren't "part of the conversation". Ha.

Yes, the states were supposed to be something like laboratories of liberty (of LIBERTY, not of tyranny); to see what sort of things might work better than others. But, there was never supposed to be any flirting with tyranny. That means no anti-gun legislation at all, ever. And no government-controlled medicine, prohibitions, curfews, etc.

If your experiment to see what "works" violates the natural rights of anyone you have no right to perform it, and if you do anyway, you are a monster.

-

Writing to promote liberty is my job.
YOU get to decide if I get paid.
I hope I add something you find valuable enough to support.

Scott can't weasel out of it

Scott Adams just can't stop saying positive things about anti-gun schemes, even as he says he's not advocating them. I've pointed this out before. It's like some sort of blind spot he suffers from... or maybe it's something else.

I've heard him do this repeatedly, even when it's just a casual mention unrelated to his topic. It's clear he thinks anti-gun "laws" are a good thing because of his approving attitude when he brings up the topic.

It's as if I kept getting excited and speaking as though I approve when I heard people talk about committing genocide, acting as though discussing it in a positive light is progress while pretending I don't actually advocate genocide. You shouldn't buy it in that case and you shouldn't buy it now.

Speaking as though something is desirable IS promoting or advocating that thing. No matter how you try to weasel* out of it.

*Apologies to all the non-human weasels out there.

-

Writing to promote liberty is my job.
I hope I add something you find valuable enough to support. If so...
YOU get to decide if I get paid.

Banning 3D-printed guns

Image credit

Scott Adams says 3D-printed guns will be effectively stopped (or severely limited) with "friction" by government "laws" or 3D printer company policies/apps. (You did save the files before the anti-liberty bigots of the U.S. feral government threatened everyone into taking them offline, didn't you?)

He believes 3D printers will end up being manufactured by just a few big companies, as usually happens with products like that, and you'll have to download their approved apps from their app stores to print items. And that they'll simply forbid gun-printing apps. He's probably right.

Yes, he admits hackers might get around this, and some people will build their own printers without this limitation, but this is where his "friction" fetish comes in play. For the average person, this added difficulty will be enough to prevent them from printing guns.

But will it, though?

If guns required gun-specific parts which couldn't be used for other things, he might be right. But they don't. That's why you can build a gun from plumbing.

And, if 3D-printed guns were banned by government or the printer manufacturers, don't you think more effort would go into designing guns which are built from parts no one could possibly recognize as gun parts? Or parts which have other, actual uses.

Print this lamp part, this repair piece for your coffee pot, this game piece, etc., put them all together in this way, and you've got a gun. No gun or gun part was printed. Yet a gun was printed after all. By someone who didn't have to be a hacker or build their own 3D printer, but who just wanted a gun enough to print one. Kind of like the way it happens now.

Does he really imagine the app stores would be able to tell all the parts which can be used to make a gun from the parts which can't?

Yes, it still might reduce the number of guns being printed, and if you start with a flawed assumption you might see this as a win. But that's an admission that you aren't thinking rationally.

-

Writing is my job.
I hope I add something you find valuable enough to support. If so...
YOU get to decide if I get paid.

"Slippery slope" or just wrong?

Scott Adams likes to ridicule the idea of "the slippery slope".

I kind of agree because he points out things always continue going in the direction they are going until something-- some outside pressure-- makes them stop. It's just inertia.

However, he skips over the real problem.

I don't need to be concerned that a slap in an innocent person's face will lead to a punch in their nose, which will lead to a severe beating which will lead to a murder which will lead to a mass murder which will lead to genocide. No. The single slap was wrong on its own. It doesn't have to lead to further horrors in order to deserve condemnation.

Each and every anti-gun "law" is wrong on its own. It doesn't matter whether or not it leads to more of the same in a "slippery slope" kind of situation. Each one is wrong regardless of where it leads. I oppose them all on that basis, not on the basis that one could lead to more on a slippery slope to tyranny.

Also, if you defeat or ignore each and every new anti-gun "law" just maybe the anti-gun bigots will realize they are wasting their time and your non-compliance will be the force-- the outside pressure-- which arises to stop them. If not, they may continue until stopping them requires bullets. Their choice.

Either way, shove it, BobO.

ADDED: On FB someone pointed out to me that the slippery slope is called "precedent" by government judge-types.

-

Writing is my job.
I hope I add something you find valuable enough to support. If so...
YOU get to decide if I get paid.

The "guns are bad" assumption

Assuming guns are bad handicaps you. It keeps you from being able to talk about them sensibly.

It would be similar to what would happen if you thought dogs are bad. You'd have trouble discussing them in a reasonable way. Your faulty assumption would creep into everything you think and color everything you say. You might talk about how to register them (or the people who keep them), talk about mandatory dog-owner insurance, or discuss what kinds of dogs people should be allowed to keep. You might claim that government gives people the right to keep dogs, so it can take away that right. I mean, dogs aren't specifically mentioned in the Ninth Amendment as something you have a right to keep, so government dog-owner control is clearly Constitutional. And obviously the founders never envisioned pitbulls, so only whatever kind of dogs they kept are covered by the Constitution. Right?

Of course, it makes no sense. Not realistically, historically, or rationally.

But that's the kind of argument you get over and over from people who live by the faulty assumption that guns are bad.

(There's a good chance my internet will be shut off for a few days until it gets paid up, so if it takes me a while to respond or to approve comments on older posts, please be patient. Thanks.)

-

Writing is my job.
I hope I add something you find valuable enough to support. If so...
YOU get to decide if I get paid.

Who is "pro-Second Amendment"?

I find it odd that so many people who are anti-gun like to call themselves "pro-Second Amendment". It's obviously not true. Of course, they usually have a big "but".

How can you be for something you willfully misunderstand?

They may believe the Second Amendment "gives people the right" to have guns while misunderstanding that it doesn't. And the Second Amendment doesn't have a "but". Plus, the right exists regardless.

What the Second Amendment does is place guns off-limits to government. "Gun control" [sic] is a serious crime. The Second Amendment doesn't leave room for licenses, permits, limits, registration, "red flag laws", background checks, waiting periods, "taxes" on guns/gun accessories or ammo, or any gun "laws" of any sort. If you don't understand this, to say you are "pro-Second Amendment" is to lie.

And yes, charging a "tax" on anything associated with guns (or the exercise of any natural human right) is an unacceptable violation of that right. This point is important. You can't have a right to "tax"/steal, and doing so to make a right more expensive to exercise-- do discourage the exercise thereof-- is doubly evil.

I am pro-gun rights; pro-human rights. I don't really care if the generally ignored Second Amendment exists or not. And I'm opposed to government employees (and other archators) owning or carrying guns, even though I wouldn't prohibit them from doing so. I'm opposed to them breathing, too, but preventing that isn't my responsibility in most cases, either.

I would be generally "pro-Second Amendment" if it actually did what it was supposed to do. But it doesn't. And it is used by anti-gun bigots as a way to justify their rights violations. They choose to misdefine "militia" (all the people capable of bearing arms in defense of the society) and "well-regulated" (practiced to the point of effectiveness) to suit their purposes. And they love to ignore "shall not be infringed".

The meaning of "pro-gun" is even less clear.

Cops can be "pro-gun"... as long as you obey the unconstitutional and unethical "laws" controlling gun owners. They probably like having their guns, but are often skeptical of you having any gun you want, on you everywhere you go, without getting government permission first. Many "elite" gun owners and fudds are the same way.

Just because someone is "pro-gun" doesn't mean they support your right to own and to carry them. And this is how they justify their sneak attacks on your natural human rights that they really don't like much, while semi-honestly calling themselves "pro-gun".

A "pro-gun" individual could still be against you having a gun on you because they might not be pro-gun-owner; a real "pro-Second Amendment"/gun-owner rights supporter can't be. Not if they are honest. And someone who really respects the natural human right to own and to carry weapons doesn't rely on the existence of the Second Amendment to support the right and doesn't look for ways to violate or limit your rights.

Now, is that person who claims to be "pro-Second Amendment" telling the truth or are they not?

-

Writing is my job.
I hope I add something you find valuable enough to support. If so...
YOU get to decide if I get paid.

Anti-gun bits and pieces

(I don't intend to turn this blog into Kent's "Hooligan Gun-Rights" Blog. Even if it seems like it at the moment. I tend to focus on what I see as the biggest dangers to liberty right now... the winds will probably change soon. But until then...)

_______

If you don't assume something is bad, you don't look for ways to reduce it.
To seek ways to reduce the number of guns is to assume they are bad.
If you are discussing ways guns might be restricted or "controlled" you are advocating reducing the number of guns.

___

Chicago has strict anti-gun "laws", and they've been getting more strict for a century or so. Some claim this is a reaction to crime, not a cause. So I guess that must mean crime has gone down in Chicago in step with the stricter "laws" being imposed. How much more "gun control" will it take to make Chicago a peaceful paradise? Or, are the "laws" having no effect or making it worse?

___

Yes, you can change the Constitution if you don't like what's in it. However, if you meddle with the Bill of Rights the whole deal is off. Without the completely intact Bill of Rights, no Constitution (it was a package deal, without which the Constitution wouldn't have been ratified). No Constitution, no U.S. feral government. That's fine by me! How do you feel about that?

___

Gun rights don't violate human rights. Gun rights are human rights. My right to own and carry a gun has nothing to do with your right to not be shot. I have no right to shoot you if you aren't violating anyone, but I have no obligation to not shoot you if you are. You can't have the right to archate, so neither can you have the right to archate in safety.

___

If you are advocating (or proposing) a gun "buyback" you are lying. Gun manufacturers can buy back the guns they produced and sold. Gun stores can buy back the guns they sold. Your neighbor could buy back the gun he sold you. However, unless you bought your gun from the federal government, that government can't "buy it back". It can offer a bounty for the gun-- financed by stolen or counterfeited money. But your gun never belonged to the government and it can't go "back" to some mental construct which never owned it.

___

Anti-gun positions are always based on lies or ignorance. Always.

-

Writing is my job.
I hope I add something you find valuable enough to support. If so...
YOU get to decide if I get paid.

Scott Adams' gun owner insurance "thought" experiment

Screenshot from Periscope

Scott Adams almost had a F-bomb meltdown over guns this time. It's funny how his notion "bad arguments" always seem to be those which point out holes in his arguments.

Sometimes those other people don't make a good case for their objections and sometimes they don't have a good foundation on which to build, but his dismissive attitude shows he isn't as confident of his position as he makes out. He has no real argument in his favor, so he dismisses the objections out of hand, using magic.

He has admitted he lacks an understanding of the issue (and believes guns are an issue) and has said doesn't believe in rights. He seems to not believe in ethics, but only in "what works" as a system. You can't expect someone to make sense with those handicaps.

He says the reason he proposed gun owner insurance was to "shake the box" and make us think about the problem differently because he wants to break the deadlock and get some movement on "the gun issue".

No.

I don't want any more anti-gun movement; the pendulum is already much too far in that direction. I feel no obligation to compromise with slavers. And that's always the direction this "pro-Second Amendment, pro-gun" speaker is pushing.

I'm willing to move away from a stalemate on the "gun issue" by repealing (or ignoring) all the illegal and unconstitutional "laws". But you know that's not what he means because he only proposes (while denying he's proposing) more restrictions; never fewer. Sometimes he does balance proposed restrictions in some areas with slightly fewer restrictions in a different small area; still a net loss of gun liberty.

Here are some of the problems (not all of them, by any means) with his gun owner insurance idea.

Background: He proposed mandatory insurance on gun owners to "pay for the societal costs of gun misuse". Nice assumption, Scott.

OK... so do I get a discount on the price of a new gun-- a monetary reward-- for the societal benefits of defensive gun use and the benefits inherent in a society with more guns in good people's hands? If not, why not. I'm not likely to shoot innocent people. With my gun I'm not a cost, I'm a benefit. Everyone should be paying me.

Again he only considers half of the issue-- the downside-- while pretending the benefits don't exist. If one is a reasonable justification for a financial penalty, the other should justify a financial reward. Unless you assume "guns... bad".

Some commenters complained that this wasn't fair to some people or segments of the population. He agreed and said it's OK in this case because "we" already penalize some groups, like young male drivers. Suddenly he thinks "fairness" is a legitimate concept? He has a history of saying "fairness is a concept invented so that dumb people could feel like they are participating in a conversation". Has he changed his mind? Or was he playing his listeners?

He never likes Constitutional arguments any more than he likes natural human rights. He says the Constitution is not clear and the "founders" knew this so they created the Supreme Court to interpret the Constitution to clear things up. That's historical ignorance. The "founders" never intended for the Supreme Court to be the final say of what the Constitution means. The Supreme Courtjesters stole that power for themselves with Marbury v. Madison in 1803.

He really doesn't like the "shall not be infringed" part of the Second Amendment and pretends only the Supreme Court, being lawyers, are qualified to decide what that means. Anyone familiar with history knows that's not true. The Constitution was written for the common person to understand, because, again, the Supreme Court was never supposed to be interpreting it for the people. Scott hungers for more infringements. He wants to infringe you. He says that since gun rights are already infringed by "laws" it's OK to infringe them more. The Supreme Court has thus decided! He's wrong yet again.

He also ignores the fact that with or without the Second Amendment, the natural human right to own and to carry weapons would still exist unchanged. The Second Amendment just makes "gun control" a serious crime.

And then comes the part where he had the meltdown:

"Why do I have to subsidize the (F-redacted-ing) guns of other people?"

You don't. Again, he's pretending the benefits don't exist. It's only the downsides he considers. Yes, people are responsible for their actions. They owe for any harm they cause-- no one else does. He pretends the rest of us who have guns should be responsible for the acts of the bad guys so that he isn't forced to bear any financial burden. It's a particularly pathetic argument-- worse than most. Who is sending him this imaginary bill? It's like he's seriously losing it since he can't seem to persuade the pro-gun listeners to his way of thinking through pacing and leading-- he's getting desperate.

Then he changed gears to claim he doesn't really want to force gun owners to be insured-- he just wanted to make people think differently to get away from "bumper sticker thinking" about guns with the thought experiment.

But what is the main reason he says he's not in favor of gun owner insurance? He says this gives too much power to insurance companies. He doesn't want insurance companies making policies on guns-- he wants to leave that to Congress, which is even worse.

Restrictions on using guns (or anything else) to harm the innocent are legitimate. Restrictions on mere objects, divorced from actions, are not. Not even if you ignorantly assume guns are a problem.

-- Check out the "Scott Adams on guns" tag for more.

-

Writing is my job.
I hope I add something you find valuable enough to support. If so...
YOU get to decide if I get paid.

"If only they'd pass some gun laws!"

Scott Adams is mistaken about anti-gun "laws".

One tactic he uses when discussing (and pretending he isn't advocating for) more anti-gun "laws" is to say it's reasonable to enforce anti-gun "laws" by pointing out that we already have "laws" concerning other dangerous things. He says, for example, that cars are regulated, and that seat belt use is mandatory, and he's OK with that. He doesn't feel oppressed at all by losing that bit of freedom when he puts on a seat belt.

But by making this argument he's implying that guns remain unregulated, and they aren't. Not even close!

If there were zero anti-gun "laws" being enforced he might have a point in comparing them to cars-- he would be wrong for a lot of reasons, but you could admit that some other dangerous things besides guns are subjected to "laws", so why not guns, too?

But there are anti-gun "laws". Thousands of them.  It is dishonest to pretend there are no anti-gun "laws" so this is an idea that needs to be "tried". It's been tried. These "laws" keep failing and making things worse everywhere they are tried. It's time to stop doing what doesn't work and to try something different.

It is dishonest to pretend that there need to be "laws" regulating guns "for safety" when those kind of "laws" are already suffocating us.

Check out all his other superstitious beliefs about guns at the tag Scott Adams on guns.

-

Writing is my job.
I hope I add something you find valuable enough to support. If so...
YOU get to decide if I get paid.

Added "friction" does greater harm to good people

In my continuing "Scott Adams (is wrong) on guns" series (that's a new tag), I have looked at many of his "halfpinions" (his word) concerning guns.

Here's the next installment. Yes, this is something I've brought up before, but it bears repeating since he's still misrepresenting the issue.

When people object to his anti-gun ideas by reasonably pointing out that bad people will still get guns and suicidal people will still kill themselves he likes to say that of course they will, but any new "law" will add "friction" to the process, and "add friction; get less of that behavior (crime/suicide)".

Again he's acting on the faulty premise-- the assumption-- that guns are bad; that they are the problem; that cutting back on their availability even a little is generally a good thing. They aren't, and it isn't. Starting from a flawed premise, he arrives at a dumb "halfpinion" of his own.

Yes, you might "add friction" to a bad guy getting a gun with which to violate innocent people but those aren't the only people to whom you are adding friction. You also add friction to the good, innocent people looking to get a gun for defense at the same time you add friction to the bad guys looking to violate the innocent. You are adding friction to the girl whose crazy ex is promising to kill her. I lost a friend to this added friction about 26 years ago as she waited for governmental permission to buy and carry a gun for self-defense. Guess who didn't bother following the friction-causing "laws".

Who is more accustomed to dealing with added friction on a daily basis?
Who has the connections to do an end-run around your added friction? It's not usually the good people.

It's always going to affect those who want a gun for self-defense more than it will affect the bad guys who want a gun for offense. Add friction, you get less self-defense.

You might "add friction" to a suicidal person's attempt to get a gun with which to end his own life. This might save a few lives-- the lives of those who don't have some other method immediately available and who will soon change their mind about committing suicide-- but how many innocent lives are you sacrificing in the process? Do you really believe it's worth the cost to trade one person who wants to die for one person who wants to live-- even if those wants are temporary whims?

He pretends he's already considering net "gun deaths", but he can't be. There is no way to record how many lives are saved with guns, so how can you credibly consider them? Very few of those cases ever get reported-- to government or the media. Most cases of self-defense don't result in the gun being fired. And even in the small number which do, unless a shot is fired and you're in a town where the gunshot will attract unwanted attention, who's dumb enough to call the cops on themselves? Even if you are in town, I'd bet in most cases the sound of a gunshot isn't currently pinpointed if no one reports being shot. No one can know even a reasonable estimate of how many lives are saved with a gun, so there is no possible way to calculate the net "gun deaths".

He's only looking at half of the picture and ignoring the inconvenient part-- just as he does in all his "gun control" [sic] ideas. This is his definition of a "halfpinion" which he claims everyone else is exhibiting while he's the only one who isn't...while he does it right in front of the world. And it's because he starts with the predetermined assumption that guns must be bad, that guns are a problem, even as he paces gun owners by claiming to be "pro-gun; pro-Second Amendment".

If you start with a faulty premise you'll come to dumb conclusions because you're thinking of the topic incorrectly.

I've tried to get his attention, but he ignored my attempts. He probably blocked me if he saw my tweets since I wasn't kind or gentle with my criticism, and yes, I did make it personal because he's personally advocating this toxic mindset. I didn't expect to change his mind, anyway, but I want to give you the mental tools to refute the claims of anti-gun bigots whenever they crop up. They are wrong, even if they are popular and believe they are smarter than you and me.

-

Writing is my job.
I hope I add something you find valuable enough to support. If so...
YOU get to decide if I get paid.

Announcing a new tag on the topic of guns

Since Dilbert's Scott Adams keeps talking about guns and advocating for more anti-gun "laws" (while pretending that's not what he's doing) I've added a new tag: Scott Adams on guns.

Each time I respond to one of his anti-gun claims or one of his anti-gun ideas, I'll tag that post with this new tag. I've gone back and added the tag to the previous posts, including a few where I didn't mention him by name even though he was the person I was talking about. Feel free to browse through them.

Let me explain something here-- the only reason I'm harping on this topic is because he's harping on it. If he'd stop preaching on this subject, where he has zero credibility or understanding, I would drop it immediately. But because he keeps talking about it as though he's an expert, spreading this toxic disinformation far and wide, it is vitally important for me to show why (and how) he's wrong on guns.

I don't know how much of an audience he actually has or how influential his ideas are, but he dwarfs me on both metrics, so I don't expect to have much of an impact, but I've got to try.

If he's had an idea or believes something which isn't true I'm going to assume other anti-gun people have had the same idea or believe the same falsehood. So I'm speaking to them, too. I hope you'll steal my arguments and use them wherever you think they'll help.

Stay tuned. There's more to come.

-

Writing is my job.
I hope I add something you find valuable enough to support. If so...
YOU get to decide if I get paid.

The downside of guns

I am a fervent supporter of gun rights-- of all human rights. This doesn't mean I don't know there's a downside to guns. It's just that I know the drawbacks are vastly outweighed by the benefits.

Recently Scott Adams was caught pretending he is the only person with an actual opinion about guns because he pretended no one else ever considers both the benefits and the downsides, and because no one else will say how many "gun deaths" they are willing to accept in order to preserve the right to have guns.

He's wrong about guns... again.

He stated a willingness to accept 20,000 "gun deaths" per year to "keep" the right to own guns. He says this means he's the only person with a real opinion because unless you're willing to put a number on it you're only experiencing half of an opinion. He's being misleading. Intentionally?

Putting a number on it as he did pretends that guns only kill innocent people, and ignores all the innocent people saved by guns-- most of whom never make the news. Many innocent lives are saved, and many more gross violations which wouldn't necessarily result in death are also prevented. His is a sneaky, dishonest tactic that I've seen used many times in the past; he's not the first. Unless you can say with certainty how many lives (and bodies) are saved by guns, saying how many deaths you'll accept is lying, because your numbers are meaningless. It's less than half of the picture.

But back to the bigger topic. There have been many times I have talked about the costs and benefits of guns, and other people have been doing so since before I was born and it continues to this day. That someone like Scott has managed to avoid this information for 60+ years doesn't mean it's not out there. I can't relate to the arrogance required to imagine no one else has thought of this before.

Everything has costs and benefits. Nothing is immune to this natural law.

But, for the record, here's another list (and analysis) of the downsides to guns.

• Bad guys use guns to intimidate and murder. Bad guys include muggers, cops, rapists, IRS agents, inner-city gangs, the military, bank robbers, kidnappers, evil loser mass-shooters, and other archators.

This drawback is negated by the fact that good guys can use (and often require) guns for a real chance at stopping the bad guys without being hurt in the process. To save lives. Wouldn't you rather have even the hope of a chance to fight back and win than no option better than cowering and waiting to die?

• Suicidal people use guns to kill themselves.

This is negated by the fact that suicidal people can-- and do-- use other methods to kill themselves. Look at Japan if you doubt this. If someone wants to kill themselves there's probably nothing you can really do to stop them. Yes, they might be slowed down if there's not a gun available-- and some of those might then change their minds about killing themselves. But how many? And will that number exceed the number of lives saved with a gun?
Plus, suicide is a human right, even if you don't like it being exercised.

• Guns scare people.

This is negated by the fact that someone, somewhere is scared of any object you can think of. I knew a kid who screamed in terror every time she saw a balloon, and working in pet stores I was astounded at how many people are deathly afraid of birds.

Plus, the fact that guns scare people is part of their utility. That way you don't usually have to shoot the bad guys; just let them be scared by the sight of a gun so they'll run away or surrender.

• People have accidents with guns-- which results in tragic injury and death.

People have accidents. No further words are necessary. Education and familiarity are the best way to reduce the rate of accidents with guns and other tools-- as has been happening for decades now, even as the number of guns goes up. Education and familiarity are even more important where kids are concerned. It's a bad idea to regulate or ban something just because a certain number of people will always manage to have accidents. Everything would be banned if that were a legitimate criterion.

There may be others I'm not thinking of right now, but if so I'd be willing to bet I've considered them in the past, and probably even discussed them. Maybe even on this blog.

-

Writing is my job.
I hope I add something you find valuable enough to support. If so...
YOU get to decide if I get paid.