The answer to this problem seems clear: require background checks for all vendors of firearms to lessen the number of illegal sales and prevent potentially deadly consequences.
What the...
Oh, now I see:
Sara Biersteker (biersteker@wisc.edu) is a sophomore majoring in English.
That explains the sophomoric opinion.
6 comments:
Don't forget private sales of autos,swimming pools,knives,ladders, and other deadly instruments, the # of fatalities arising therefrom making gun sales pale in comparison, Sara. Oh, and look into that "death by govt." thing would you, sweetie, and I like my coffee w/cream and sugar. Sorry, been watching Mad Men too much.
Thought I'd give this a try since the Badger Herald probably won't post this:
Dear Sarah -
So, to prevent sworn, certified officers from going "postal" and murdering a bunch of unarmed citizens, you propose that citizens go through more stringent background checks. I guess that would be to make it more difficult for the Wisconsin hoi polloi to obtain guns with which to defend themselves against police officers that are intent on thinning the herd.
Wow. Your essay doesn't do much to promote your alleged level of education.
I suggest that, as an English major, you grab a dictionary or thesaurus and look up the term "non sequitur."
How’s this as a comparison: “A drunken police officer, Officer X, mowed down a group of pedestrians, killing six and critically injuring one. In order to stop this madness, I propose that the government make it more difficult for the average citizen to obtain a driver’s license. Information has not yet been released as to whether Officer X was driving his privately-owned car or if he was driving his police cruiser when he ran over and killed these pedestrians.”
Sounds like an idiotic argument, doesn’t it. Perhaps when you become a junior, you won’t resort to publishing arguments that amount to a complete sophistry.
Until then, I suggest you also look up the word “anthropomorphize.” If you subscribe evil to an object, simply change the subject object, and see if your argument still holds up.
You may also want to obtain some sort of peer review before submitting an article for publication in the future. At this point you just come off as being, well, just silly.
Your logic was matched by the maroon who thinks someone is actually advocating giving Uzis to three-year olds. BTW – if someone is actually giving away Uzis, will someone please post contact information? Thanks.
Nope, she gets it. She just doesn't realize it yet.
"...there is no way of predicting a person’s future mental state..."
Nor are the myriad of weapon styles or accessories a cause of criminal activity, or any indication about the criminality of the owner.
That is why, Ms. Biersteker, all the restrictions on firearms (inanimate objects) have had no discernible effect on "public safety". Since warning indicators are late, subtle, or purposely ignored, the most efficient and effective course of action is to stop attempting to interfere with The People's natural right to life and liberty, and let them defend themselves when it becomes absolutely clear that they are in danger.
Personally, I thought her most absurd display of ignorance was calling for "background checks for all VENDORS of firearms"...
I would agree, if not for the fact that I live in a state where I am automatically guilty of "guntrafficking" if I'm burglarized. In light of this, her thinking is typical among disarmers.
Vendors?? Her elevator doesn't go up past the third floor, and she evidently won't get out and walk-up any either either.
Post a Comment