One of the most frustrating things about having a discussion (or, more likely, an argument) about firearms with an anti-gunner is their tendency to make illogical comparisons to further their “arguments.”
A perfect example of this is a recent post by a “mommy blogger” in which she says that life insurance is a better way “to protect your family” than a gun. A writer going by the name of “J. KB” gives us the details,
Anti-gun arguments can be endless rationalizations of why you don’t need a gun and your rights should be restricted by the government. One common theme of anti-gun arguments are: you can protect yourself more effectively with something other than a gun.
Every once in a while, an anti-gunner will make an argument so ridiculous that you wonder what type of reality they live in.
Gabrielle Blair is a mommy blogger. She runs a website and wrote a book about how to be a mom and live in a house that looks like its being featured in Better Homes & Gardens or Martha Stewart Living. We used to call these “catalog homes,” as in every room looked like a still frame from a housewares catalog.
She and her family live in the San Francisco bay area.
Clearly firearms use, culture, and politics is an area of her expertise.
She decided to chide gun owners about how they don’t need a gun to protect themselves […].
J. KB then notes that Blair tweeted, “THERE ARE FAR BETTER WAYS TO PROTECT YOUR FAMILY THAN A GUN. GET A LIFE INSURANCE POLICY.” J. KB then proceeds to tear apart Blair’s tweet:
Does this woman understand how life insurance works?
You have to die for it to pay.
While my wife receiving five times my annual salary in a single lump sum will make it possible for her to pay off the mortgage and all of our debts, will a big fat check help her bathe the kids and put them to bed at night? Will it make my children daddy’s special French toast on Saturday mornings? Will it help them with their homework?
Blair’s tweets continued by suggesting that using seatbelts and fire alarms were better safety measures than a gun, but as J. KB notes, these ideas aren’t mutually exclusive.
In fact, I would add (as did J. KB), it would be smart of you to have life insurance, seatbelts, smoke detectors, and a gun. Why? Because they all help your family in different situations.
It’s a faulty logic to equate guns and life insurance. They aren’t for the same purpose, and it’s nonsensical to say that one excludes the other.
But this is the kind of nonsense which is common from anti-gunners: bad logic and emotional, knee-jerk arguments without any fact or substance.