The Gross National Debt

Friday, December 11, 2015

Saying yes to more gun control

Not kidding.

I say yes to more gun control, if we get to restrict OTHER things in the same direct proportions. This is what I call daffodils.

Anyone willing to accept this proposal?

If you say yes, will you put that in writing, signed, sealed, notarized and duly sworn so severely that if you violate the agreement you are subject to the maximum penalty allowed by law? I'm so serious about this that I will so agree.

But you may not completely understand what I'm talking about. I'll give you an example.

Say guns kill 10,000 people a year. Could be higher, could be lower. The number has to be measurable. We look at historical figures and get the number.

Then, you say guns need to be restricted. All right.

But, anything else that kills 10,000 people a year must be subject to the same amount, kind, type of restrictions. We're after parity, equitable treatment, fairness, etc. We're after daffodils, which is the ultimate bulldozer for leveling a playing field.

With this in mind, anything that kills 100,000 people a year must have 10 times the amount of restriction put on guns and anything else that kills 10K people a year. Anything that kills 1,000 people a year has to have 10 times FEWER restrictions.

And so forth.

I'm not capable of doing any more complex math. No worries. We can get a math wiz to crunch numbers.

In this proposal, it does not matter what does the killing. Apply daffodils. Everything is on the table, including tables (and chairs and ottomans, etc). Everything HAS to be on the table.

If you can accept that, then I will absolutely accept any form of gun control you propose, up to and including a ban.

No comments:

Post a Comment

Hi. I welcome lively debate. Attack the argument. Go after a person in the thread, your comments will not be posted.