.

Cats and Guns

Cats, guns and morality

I wonder, what is the correalation between a cat owner, especially one who allows the cats to roam, and gun ownership?

Cats, by recent studies at 21 different locations, kill 14.7 billion small animals including 2.4 billion birds annually in the United States. This is the single largest cause of small animal mortality. A cat is a killing machine. That is way more than the number of people killed by guns in the US every year which is only in the tens of thousands. There are several comparisons of interest here. And remember, the debate is over personal "freedom" and not public safety.

The cats kill domestic pets, wild birds and small mammals. They don't seem to give a fig for other cats which would be a blessing if they did kill each other. Cats are a vermin laden ceature whose feces carries a worm that will kill small children. That worm burrows its way into the brain and causes a painful death. If you have a cat and an infant, you are a reckless person. At least as reckless as a person who also owns a gun and a child. Such a person, I am sure, would rather give up the child than either the gun or the cat.

Perhaps the cat/gun owner or either one separately is a believer, and I use that word in its most perjorative sense, that the cat/gun will protect them from home invasion. Let's look at the results of the numbers killed. They defy such speculation. Cats' victims are not nasty vermin like Norway rats which inhabit many cat owners' homes. They are innocent small creatures. Gun owners' victims are overwhelmingly people they know or have a connection to. Home invaders are not even on the radar! Even if these people had a "home invasion" in reality it would be a person whom they have bedded or otherwise  tricked. In both cases, a selfish person is defending against an imaginary threat at the expense of a peaceful and fruitful world. 

When I was on the leash law exploratory committee in the 1970's I insisted the proposed law that was a bill of attainder and was illegal. A bill of attainder is a bill that names a specific person or group. So, my argument was that unless all domestic pets are regulated no pet can so be. You can imagine the screeching mews coming from the cat owners. Even at this late date, the Selectmen remain extremely species prejudiced despite the overwhelming evidence of cat nuisance.

This comparative study will help explain the gun issue. They are morally the same. Personal freedom to wage war on man and nature trumps public health and safety every time.

This post is contributed by a community member. The views expressed in this blog are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of Patch Media Corporation. Everyone is welcome to submit a post to Patch. If you'd like to post a blog, go here to get started.

Michael Barrett February 06, 2013 at 02:10 PM
What the heck are you talking about? You sound like Obama or Biden talking about hunting. The 2nd Amendment has nothing to do with hunting. When it was written, everyone hunted, if you didn't hunt, you didn't eat. Do you know what others needs are? You do not. If you live in Texas or Arizona where there are many kidnappings and murders related to the drug cartels. Do you think you are ok with a 10 round magazine? Or do you want 30 rounds. When the police abandoned areas in New Orleans after hurricane Katrina, do you want 30 round to protect yourself? I nor anyone else needs to justify what I need to protect myself and my family. You have a liberal view that the gov't and others know better than the peasants what they need or should have. They don't and you don't.
Michael Barrett February 06, 2013 at 02:18 PM
"Do you understand that it is lunatic rants like yours that will actually lead to more restrictive gun laws?" Oh yeah, Obama, Andrew Cuomo, Deval Patrick, Diane Feinstein, et al really care what the public believes. Obama has been against the 2nd Amendment and gun rights his entire political career dating back to the mid 1990's, Feinstein was the originator of the AWB and wants to eliminate public gun ownership if possible, etc. Andrew Cuomo was in such a rush a few weeks ago to pass unconstitutional knee jerk gun control that they did not exempt police and federal agents from the bill. They introduced the bill, passed it through the house, senate and the governor signed it in less than 24 hours. No public hearing, heck the lawmakers didn't even read the bill as they received the long bill minutes before voting on it. So 1 year from today with the current NY state law, no one would be allow to have more than 7 bullets in a magazine. The public cannot and no law enforcement, federal, state or local. The MA gun murder rate is a perfect study to show the gun death rate has NOTHING to do with gun laws. There is no correlation between gun laws and gun crime rates.
Michael Barrett February 06, 2013 at 02:29 PM
The number of gun owners who are hunters is only 19%. Like you, I own firearms but do not hunt (I have never been hunting). My firearms are not for hunting, they are for sport/target shooting and defensive. I understand why some people who are not familiar with guns (not paul but others) are for various gun control measures. We all want less violence, gun related or other types of violence. Heck everyone would like world peace too but we know that is a fantasy because there are bad people around the world. Criminals are not going to follow the law, more gun laws to not stop someone who is already breaking existing gun laws and committing other crimes like murder or rape. Going after gun OWNERS who are the only ones these gun proposals go after (Linsky from Natick said that, "we need to restrict gun ownership") are only going after legal law abiding citizens. There are bans on guns in other countries around the world and they still have gun crime. England has a near complete gun ban yet gun crime is very prevalent and crime has gone way up since the gun ban. Gun ownership is basically illegal in Mexico yet it has tens of thousands murdered with guns and is a very violent place. Leave legal gun owners alone and go after the people committing crimes with guns or committing violent crime in general.
Paul Bishop February 06, 2013 at 03:51 PM
Number one, when it comes to home and property defense, by far the most effective weapon is a shotgun. My preference was a Mossberg 500e, chambered for 410. Not only is it a tremendous brush gun for hunting and very cost effective, NOTHING is more intimidating to an intruder than the sound of a pump shotgun action. Loaded with number six shot, even at interior distances, it requires far less accuracy in the heat of the moment (as the bird shot spreads)- and is also far less likely to kill. Second, the fact is that the illegal guns are out there because of supposed "responsible" gun owners who weren't. A properly secured gun doesn't get stolen. Sadly the overwhelming number of handgun owners I personally know are incredibly careless with their weapons. We need to get a better handle on multiple fronts. Fewer on the streets. Better examination of people before we sell them guns. The ability to disarm and/or refuse to arm those under treatment for mental disorders. What we don't need is irrational screaming.
Michael Soares February 06, 2013 at 06:05 PM
The mossberg is a fine home defense weapon. But who are you to tell me what's best for me and my family? To your second point I agree. At one point most of those illegal guns were in the hands of people who legally owned them (unless smuggled in). This is where you and I can have some common ground. What can be done to prevent the transfer from the legal owner to the illegal owner. This state issues licenses. I think once you have a license you've passed the background check and unless its revocked it should be gtg. There are already laws on the books about securing weapons when not in use. What we need is better enforcement of current laws.
Michael Barrett February 06, 2013 at 06:19 PM
Home defense a shotgun would most likely be the best option. For property? Depends on the property. A ranch in texas or Arizona, or a business during the riots in south central LA after the Rodney King trial? A shotgun would not be the best option an AR or AK would probably be best. But the reason why people need options is because situations are different. Do many around here have a need for a 50 caliber handgun? Probably few. But in Montana, Alaska and other areas it is something that is fairly common. You want to legislate morality. You sound like a liberal who thinks they can pass a law and get people to live morally because of some law. That's foolish. And gun safes and gun locks are not perfect. It doesn't stop all theft. There are laws against straw buyers, they are rarely enforced. On the state level in MA there are all kinds of laws but gun crime and violence is much higher than when it was passed in 1998. The mental disorders aspect depends on the details. It needs to be narrow to restrict people who are a clear danger and not just used as a way to disarm people who were depressed 5 years ago after a divorce, death in the family, etc. What we don't need are laws aimed at legal gun owners. Fewer on the street? Illegal guns yes, restricting lawful ownership? NO! Any laws need to be directed at the criminals, that is the only issue that will make a difference.
PREDATOR February 06, 2013 at 06:55 PM
As a responsible gun owner I recommend leaving the scatter gun in the safe, I prefer to have control over all projectiles leaving the muzzle, therefore I keep my 1911 .45acp handy loaded with 185gr JHP.
Michael Barrett February 06, 2013 at 08:38 PM
PREDATOR - What you see fits you best is fine by me. Whether you want a 1911, shotgun, AR, etc. is up to you. You are a law abiding person and you know your needs and what is necessary better than I or anyone else. Gun owners should have the freedom to buy what they want and criminals and people who use guns illegally should be prosecuted and in jail.
Michael Barrett February 06, 2013 at 08:45 PM
Michael Soares - "What we need is better enforcement of current laws." Exactly. Diane Feinstein, Obama and local politicians here are quick to want new gun laws while they do nothing to enforce the existing. That evil little POS in CT tried to buy a rifle at a Dick's Sporting Goods in CT 3 days before the shooting but when told about the background check he would need, he left. Why didn't the CT police or ATF, etc. make some contact with Lanza at that point? There are people every day who try to buy at a dealer, are rejected but there is no follow up or prosecution for lying on the form, etc. Enforce the existing laws.
PREDATOR February 06, 2013 at 08:48 PM
I agree...I just thought it odd that the guy , Paul Bishop, who wants my freedoms limited was ok with spraying lead all over his own house....I prefer to choose my targets and not hit anything else.
Paul Bishop February 07, 2013 at 04:53 PM
Amazing the words you are trying to put in my mouth. Sorry, but your foolish rants make it clear that though I don't want to limit the rights of legal, responsible gun owners, I think it is in the public interest to make sure that YOU don't have anything more dangerous than a pillow.
PREDATOR February 07, 2013 at 05:55 PM
(1) I said nothing....rather you did: "Resident, what has to be admitted and addressed is that a person who is intent on owning a military rifle or a weapon that is made to look like one is a person whose intended use is to show off and/or kill people. If the person is buying the weapon to show off and intimidate, that is not safe or reasonable gun ownership." (2) As for rants....please refer to the length of your posts....again....your posts.
PREDATOR February 07, 2013 at 05:57 PM
Sorry....(3)" Loaded with number six shot, even at interior distances, it requires far less accuracy in the heat of the moment "
Michael Barrett February 07, 2013 at 06:16 PM
PREDATOR addressed your quote. There are over 3 million AR 15's alone, nevermind AK's, SKS's, etc. They are used in 0.6% of gun deaths. They are a non issue other than people who want to ban all guns like feinstein, obama, etc are obsessed with them and the media because of the way they look. They are semi auto rifles that function like most others.
Michael Barrett February 07, 2013 at 06:18 PM
Paul, why is everything a "rant". We are just going back and forth calmly. You are the one who is getting excited, not us.
PREDATOR February 07, 2013 at 07:58 PM
Were I to spray and pray, my choice would be a Mossberg 590 12ga. Any responsible gun owner knows that you never shoot to wound. The 590 takes care of that.
MCREMvonStauffenfritzpellmell February 08, 2013 at 12:40 AM
As long as you pay, after you spray...
Fresh February 12, 2013 at 07:35 PM
Well, Buckle up. News outlets are reporting Obama is going to use Executive Order to pass some controversial things that HE feels are good for the country. 1. Gun laws 2. Immigration reform and 3. Gay rights. Now It doesn't matter how I feel on any of those issues but the fact Obama is going to circumvent Congress to pass what HE things is right fo the country makes me nervous. Feels alot like a dictatorship. He decides what is good for us? I thought in the U.S. the FREE people got to vote on things. Didn't he pass Obamacare this way? by going around congress. The good thing is a court just ruled some of Obamas past sneaky deals were unlawful so we shall see.
Tree Hugger February 12, 2013 at 09:13 PM
As far as gay rights, he may try to give health care to gay spouses of military now. The SCOTUS is due to rule on the whole thing in June anyway, so unless they reject it flat out, I don't see Obama making any changes until after that.
Fresh February 12, 2013 at 09:55 PM
Tree Hugger, I have no problem with anyone getting healthcare or being able to wed IF it is voted on by the people. You say gay spouses? Were they legally married? If gay marriage isn't legal where they are then they are not legal spouces but partners like a boyfriend or girlfriend. Once they are legal they should get all the benefits that anyone else gets but that needs to be voted on by the people. I think everyone should be able to marry but I want all this voted on so the laws represent what the people want not just what one side wants. Personally I find the debate about gay marriage going on today disgusting. Did we not learn anything from the civil rights movement? People are people and sexuality (like color or religion) shouldn't matter at all. They should be able to marry and be afforded the same benefits as anyone else. BUT Obama shouldn't be able to tell the people what is right because he thinks it is. The people should vote and they will do the right thing!
Jim O'Connor February 13, 2013 at 12:42 AM
Neighbor, what did you learn from the civil rights movement? If we had waited for civil riights to be voted on by the people we would still be waiting.
Michael Barrett February 13, 2013 at 01:37 AM
Yeah, it took a while because the Democrats filibustered civil rights legislation. All the southern racists were Democrats, many were also in the Klu Klux Klan too.
aycaramba February 13, 2013 at 03:56 AM
Are you serious? You think the majority gets to decide on whether a self-avowed minority is protected by the Constitution? How nice that YOU believe gays should be allowed to marry, but the President should not insist on their rights if a majority don't agree.
aycaramba February 13, 2013 at 03:57 AM
Are you serious? You think the majority gets to decide on whether a self-avowed minority is protected by the Constitution? How nice that YOU believe gays should be allowed to marry, but the President should not insist on their rights if a majority don't agree.
aycaramba February 13, 2013 at 04:02 AM
Oh, were "all the southern racists Democrats", Michael Barrett? Most of them were CONSERVATIVES. And I suppose Robert Kennedy was a Republican in your view. And yet, Robert Kennedy, the DEMOCRAT brother of one of the great DEMOCRAT presidents of the US did more for the Civil Rights movement than most other government officials. Racism isn't party-specific. Stop pretending that you can use any stick to beat anybody you want. Play fair for a change. OPEN your mind, instead of showing us all how little it contains.
aycaramba February 13, 2013 at 04:04 AM
Excellent and thought-provoking post, Carl!!!
aycaramba February 13, 2013 at 04:11 AM
Until (that classic moment) when they are no longer the law-abiding public!!!!
Michael Barrett February 13, 2013 at 04:15 AM
aycaramba - Marriage is not a right and not protected by the Constitution.
Michael Barrett February 13, 2013 at 04:40 PM
aycaramba - The fact is all the racists down south were Democrats. Bull Connor turning the dogs and fire hoses on blacks? He was a democrat. George Wallace the racist Alabama Governor? A Democrat. All the klansmen were democrats. Hugo Black the democrat FDR put on the supreme court was a klansman. Woodrow Wilson the Democrat President was a vile racist. And the Dem's loved Klansman Senator Robert Byrd till the day he died a few years ago. They said such glowing things about the racist democrat. He was the klans grand kleage and exalted cyclops. In the obit, the NY times called Robert KKK Byrd "the pillar of the senate". Here's what the Democrat wrote his a Democrat Senator when he was younger. http://dailycaller.com/2010/06/28/sen-robert-byrd-not-only-was-a-kkk-member-but-led-his-local-klan-chapter/ I wonder why the Dem's loved him all those years?
Borden Wicks February 14, 2013 at 04:26 PM
The fact is most of the hate groups now are conservative based. Tell us where the KKK alliances now stand Michael? What happened to the Grand Ole Party of racial tolerance you believe existed. "All racists down south were democrats." That's as ridiculous a statement as, all racists down south are now Republicans. Although the second statement is proving to be more accurate!

Boards

More »
Got a question? Something on your mind? Talk to your community, directly.
Note Article
Just a short thought to get the word out quickly about anything in your neighborhood.
Share something with your neighbors.What's on your mind?What's on your mind?Make an announcement, speak your mind, or sell somethingPost something
See more »