…then who does?



As a fun illustration of how embedded and involved things are in spheres of ethics, relations, philosophies, mythologies, and spiritualities, I did some googling on the slogan that was used by several of this week’s authors:  Guns don’t kill people – people with guns kill people! (NRA)


Here is what came up:


Guns Don’t Kill People, Gun Control Kills People

Uganda terrorizes its own citizens under the auspices of UN gun control mandate.


Statistically, doctors are approximately 9,000 times more dangerous than gun owners.

Remember, “Guns don’t kill people, doctors do.”




Snide Remarks #37

“Guns Don’t Kill People … Oh, Wait, Yes They Do”

by Eric D. Snider


“Guns don’t kill people, people kill people, and monkeys do too (if they have a gun).”  Comedian Eddie Izzard



And now I am just going to start listing:


Guns don’t kill people……


Liberals do…

rappers do…

frying pans do…

bullets do…

Chuck Norris does…

technology does…

talk radio does…

governments do…

Alabamans and Germans do… 

guys with mustaches do…

I do…


Obviously there is much discussion on what things people think are harmful and that have the potential to take our agency away (and cause our death).  To think about how many more things there are that contribute to, complicate, incorporate, modify, infiltrate, and elaborate our lives, it becomes hard not to see Ihde and Latour’s perspectives in tandem:  that much is overlooked when we look at the both the personal relations and wider realm of unintentionality that we share with things.  And that the way our lives are lived and our ethics are never free from these impassive things.  We are extended as far and wide as the things themselves are.  And it is time that the range of possibilities is fully acknowledged.




2 Responses to “…then who does?”

  1. ginajae Says:

    here i am reminded of a the oft-repeated statistic on suicide: while women attempt suicide more than men, men have a higher rate of completed suicides due to the greater efficacy of the modality that is chosen (e.g., guns). a pertinent question when we speak of ethics in our human-nonhuman relations is where to ascribe intentionality. does using a gun versus a bottle of sleeping pills speak only of the intentionality of the individual? also, does suicide “count” only when it is completed? there is the obvious answer, that more men’s lives, in the end, are lost. but where to go when considering where to allocate limited resources for intervention: to women, where arguably that the greater burden of suffering is taking place? to men, and the possible reasons they might be more likely to consider and complete a transaction that would lead to acquiring a gun? or on the other hand, to limit a population’s access to the object/perpetrators — control of guns, or prescription drugs?

  2. Greg the Gun Nut Says:

    Guns don’t kill people but…the pertinent efficacy of oft-repeated modalities and intentionalities might.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: