Actor Kurt Russell decided to show he's still a macho man when he went on an anti-gun control rant in a recent interview with the blog Hollywood Elsewhere. The has-been, I mean, "star," said this:
"If you think gun control is going to change the terrorists' point of view, I think you're, like, out of your mind. I think it's absolutely insane. The problem - the problem that we're having right now to turn it around ... you may think you've got me worried about what you're gonna do? Dude, you're about to find out what I'm gonna do, and that's gonna worry you a lot more. And that's what we need. If I'm a hockey team and I've got some guy bearing down on me as a goaltender, I'm not concerned about what he's gonna do. I'm gonna make him concerned about what I'm gonna do... They can make a bomb pretty easily. So what? They can also get knives and stab you. What are you gonna do about that? They can also get cars and run you over. What are you gonna do about that? What are you gonna do? Outlaw everything? That isn't the answer."
Oh, how I love these anti-gun law rants. If only Socrates, Plato, Shakespeare, and Einstein could hear them... In all seriousness, though, what had Russell been smoking prior to making these comments? A hockey analogy? Seriously? Worse yet, the analogy doesn't make much sense. If he were a goaltender and someone was bearing down on him, that would be a penalty, and the referee would send the guy to the penalty box for a couple of minutes. If he were to follow through with what he insinuates and comes after a player on the ice, the odds are fairly high he'll be penalized as well, and the back-up goalie may get some playing time as a result.
Russell then resorts to false equivalence and slippery slope fallacies to get his "point" across. Laws aren't put in place to be 100% perfect. Laws get broken on a daily basis. They're there to establish some semblance of order and decrease the odds of citizens placing themselves and/or others at risk, which could lead to injuries or death. So no, additional gun laws wouldn't result in a complete halt to gun violence. However, it would likely decrease the odds of such crimes being committed, resulting in fewer victims. Would some criminals or terrorists still go on to break gun laws? Sure. However, is that reason enough to not pass said gun laws in order to decrease the frequency of such unfortunate occurrences? No. If we're going to go by that logic, what's the point of having any laws at all? "Well, some people are going to speed on the highways regardless of the law, so what point is there to having speed limits at all?" Also, would Mr. Russell be in favor of people being provided a driver's license without passing eye, written, and driving tests? To be handed a license with minimal time behind the wheel? Would he feel safe on the roads if this were the case? I highly doubt it. Lastly, Russell seems to have gone the paranoid route with his final comment. Since when is closing background-check loopholes outlawing guns? Since when is requiring a longer wait-period outlawing guns? Kurt Russell can continue to think he's Mr. tough guy and that he can take down ISIS by himself, but to not be at all bothered by domestic terrorists regularly purchasing firearms in this country with more ease than if they were to buy Sudafed, and to speak out against banning these terrorists from making said purchases is, how did Russell phrase it again? Oh, that's right, "absolutely insane."
http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/262873-kurt-russell-gun-control-wont-stop-terrorists
"If you think gun control is going to change the terrorists' point of view, I think you're, like, out of your mind. I think it's absolutely insane. The problem - the problem that we're having right now to turn it around ... you may think you've got me worried about what you're gonna do? Dude, you're about to find out what I'm gonna do, and that's gonna worry you a lot more. And that's what we need. If I'm a hockey team and I've got some guy bearing down on me as a goaltender, I'm not concerned about what he's gonna do. I'm gonna make him concerned about what I'm gonna do... They can make a bomb pretty easily. So what? They can also get knives and stab you. What are you gonna do about that? They can also get cars and run you over. What are you gonna do about that? What are you gonna do? Outlaw everything? That isn't the answer."
Oh, how I love these anti-gun law rants. If only Socrates, Plato, Shakespeare, and Einstein could hear them... In all seriousness, though, what had Russell been smoking prior to making these comments? A hockey analogy? Seriously? Worse yet, the analogy doesn't make much sense. If he were a goaltender and someone was bearing down on him, that would be a penalty, and the referee would send the guy to the penalty box for a couple of minutes. If he were to follow through with what he insinuates and comes after a player on the ice, the odds are fairly high he'll be penalized as well, and the back-up goalie may get some playing time as a result.
Russell then resorts to false equivalence and slippery slope fallacies to get his "point" across. Laws aren't put in place to be 100% perfect. Laws get broken on a daily basis. They're there to establish some semblance of order and decrease the odds of citizens placing themselves and/or others at risk, which could lead to injuries or death. So no, additional gun laws wouldn't result in a complete halt to gun violence. However, it would likely decrease the odds of such crimes being committed, resulting in fewer victims. Would some criminals or terrorists still go on to break gun laws? Sure. However, is that reason enough to not pass said gun laws in order to decrease the frequency of such unfortunate occurrences? No. If we're going to go by that logic, what's the point of having any laws at all? "Well, some people are going to speed on the highways regardless of the law, so what point is there to having speed limits at all?" Also, would Mr. Russell be in favor of people being provided a driver's license without passing eye, written, and driving tests? To be handed a license with minimal time behind the wheel? Would he feel safe on the roads if this were the case? I highly doubt it. Lastly, Russell seems to have gone the paranoid route with his final comment. Since when is closing background-check loopholes outlawing guns? Since when is requiring a longer wait-period outlawing guns? Kurt Russell can continue to think he's Mr. tough guy and that he can take down ISIS by himself, but to not be at all bothered by domestic terrorists regularly purchasing firearms in this country with more ease than if they were to buy Sudafed, and to speak out against banning these terrorists from making said purchases is, how did Russell phrase it again? Oh, that's right, "absolutely insane."
http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/262873-kurt-russell-gun-control-wont-stop-terrorists
Comments
Post a Comment