40 reasons for gun control

[unclviny]

40 Reasons For Gun Control
let the flaming begin

unclviny

[Shodan]

I liked number 10 particularly.

Nice post.

Regards,
Shodan

[jjimm]

Big Corollary: “these sarcastic points apply largely to the United States”.

[unclviny]

wow, i was all tensed up for a “slam unclviny fest” and it has not started yet, this is from www.berettaforum.net (of which i am a regular reader) and i thought that there were some nice points made, and yes this apply’s mostly in the united states, as far as the “sarcastic” part, most are just twists on what the gun control people say so yes, i guess it is sarcastic.

unclviny

[ivylass]

Well, from the title I was all set to light up my flamethrower, but nice job pointing out the inconsistencies of gun control advocates. Since you’re new, you should have provided a link to your OP so people wouldn’t think you authored it yourself. The mods are very touchy about anything even approaching plagarism.

[Soul_Brother_Number_Two]

[insert obligatory reference to pastry here]

[Joe_Cool]

Very nice points. For a second, like everybody else, I thought you were going to be my opponent.

Valid points, all of them.

[Stoid]

Well, I think it’s stupid, but I don’t do flames.

[Ringo]

Heh.

[minty_green]

Hey, thanks ever so much for reposting somebodyelse’s glurge. Be sure and let us know next time someone sends you a letter about a little kid with cancer who wants to collect coke tabs so he can pay for the dialysis his little sister needs to stay alive, okay?

[Angel_of_the_Lord]

Meh. I don’t agree with a fair number of the points, but they’re all cleverly made, and a good number of them are valid. Plus, hey, it was amusing (even for someone who doesn’t share your viewpoints completely).

I really don’t think you’re supposed to post such things without a cite, though. Just for the record. Consider it the message board version of spam to do so. At least, that’s what I do.

As a side note, I find it interesting how, even without people specifically posting their views here, it’s pretty easy to tell who’s anti-gun control and who’s pro-gun control.

[Una_Persson]

Although they do oversimplify some points, and even I might take issue with the way a few are phrased, some of them are very concisely well-stated, whoever the original author is.

[unclviny]

minty green,
what are you mad about?, are you mad because i did not author the post myself?, i posted (late) where it came from, exactly what problems do you have? and exactly what is a glurge? (sorry, i’m not much on “netspeak”), i thought the list brought up some interesting points about how skewed the anti gun peoples “facts” are, silly me i thought a forum like this one would be a fine place to have a discussion on this admittedly “hot” topic.

unclviny

[Liberal]

Glurge is something that makes you mad.

[Tripler]

Christ, I can’t be away for a single week without things (such as stupidity) going straight to hell. . .

*Apparently it’s not really originally posted by unclviny *
**40 Reasons For Gun Control **

Which I intend to pick apart logically. . .

**

1. Banning guns works, which is why New York, DC, & Chicago cops need guns.

**

Cite? This is an empty statement. I can (pardon the pun) shoot holes in this one.

**3. Statistics showing high murder rates justify gun control but statistics showing increasing murder rates after gun control are “just statistics.”

**

Again, cite? There are many many other factors involved with murder rates: social conditions, personal income, etc. You can’t lump emotional acts (i.e. murder) under simply one category.

**4. The Brady Bill and the Assault Weapons Ban, both of which went into effect in 1994 are responsible for the decrease in violent crime rates, which have been declining since 1991.

**

One more time, cite? How is a waiting period or background check going to directly and logically going to stop someone from holding up a liquor store?

**5. We must get rid of guns because a deranged lunatic may go on a shooting spree at any time and anyone who would own a gun out of fear of such a lunatic is paranoid.

**

Fuck you. I don’t think it’s unreasonable to prepare yourself for any given situation. While I may not go into any area with “such lunatics” on a regular basis, I do carry when I can for reasons that I may feel are necessary. For you to call me “paranoid” for exercising my personal judgement is irresponsible.

**6. The more helpless you are the safer you are from criminals.

**

Logically unsound. Let me lower the walls of my castle, and I’ll be safer from sieges? Sure, if you say so. . .

**7. An intruder will be incapacitated by tear gas or oven spray, but if shot with a .357 Magnum will get angry and kill you.

**

Well of course I’d be angry - I’ve got a big bleeding hole in my chest! But then again, I’d be knocked flat on my ass. Tear gas and other household sprays may incapacitate an intruder, but I’d rather the freedom of choice when I’m backed into a corner in my bedroom, dialing 911, at my last line of defense. . .

**8. A woman raped and strangled is morally superior to a woman with a smoking gun and a dead rapist at her feet.

**

This is a “victimization” statement. I’m a guy and I can’t answer this personally, and will defer this one. However, if I were overrun, I’d rather take my chances with God in self-defense than having to carry emotional scarring for the rest of my life.

**9. When confronted by violent criminals, you should “put up no defense – give them what they want, or run” (Handgun Control Inc. Chairman Pete Shields, Guns Don’t Die - People Do, 1981, p.125).

**

What if they’re armed? What if they want to kill me anyway? This is another open statement. You can’t cure every disease with aspirin, and you can’t predict every situation with black and white statements.

**10. The New England Journal of Medicine is filled with expert advice about guns; just like Guns & Ammo has some excellent treatises on heart surgery.

**

I’ve never seen a heart surgery article in Guns & Ammo.

**11. One should consult an automotive engineer for safer seatbelts, a civil engineer for a better bridge, a surgeon for internal medicine, a computer programmer for hard drive problems, and Sarah Brady for firearms expertise.

**

A politician? If you say so. I’d rather let the citizens speak for themselves (however the outcome) through an indirect democracy.

**12. The 2nd Amendment, ratified in 1787, refers to the National Guard, which was created 130 years later, in 1917.

**

Again, cite? There’s plenty of commentary either way.

**13. The National Guard, federally funded, with bases on federal land, using federally-owned weapons, vehicles, buildings and uniforms, punishing trespassers under federal law, is a “state” militia.

**

So? If it’s a “state” militia, how come it’s Federally funded? IANAL, but 99% of the time a NG unit is funded by the state. Sure, they may get non-monetary assistance from the Feds, but they are regularly maintained by the state.

**14. These phrases: “right of the people peaceably to assemble,” “right of the people to be secure in their homes,” “enumerations herein of certain rights shall not be construed to disparage others retained by the people,” and “The powers not delegated herein are reserved to the states respectively, and to the people” all refer to individuals, but “the right of the people to keep and bear arm” refers to the state.

**

See my previous comment regarding point 12.

**15. “The Constitution is strong and will never change.” But we should ban and seize all guns thereby violating the 2nd, 4th, and 5th Amendments to that Constitution.

**

This is as naieve as it is pathetic. We’ve changed the Constitution at least twenty six times. Don’t be an idiot.

**16. Rifles and handguns aren’t necessary to national defense! Of course, the army has hundreds of thousands of them.

**

I’m sure this echoed through the ears of some in WWII. 'Specially some French and Russians.

**19. The NRA’s attempt to run a “don’t touch” campaign about kids handling guns is propaganda, but the anti-gun lobby’s attempt to run a “don’t touch” campaign is responsible social activity.

**

If it’s a “don’t touch” policy, should it really matter who the hell it comes from? Maybe we should stop all the “don’t drink Drano!” campaigns from the various poison centers and consumer safety groups. . .

**20. Guns are so complex that special training is necessary to use them properly, and so simple to use that they make murder easy.

**

Yet, according to your spam-post, it’s rediculously easy to kill with any weapon. At least that’s what the general reader is led to believe. Yes, that same general reader without any “special training”.

**21. A handgun, with up to 4 controls, is far too complex for the typical adult to learn to use, as opposed to an automobile that only has 20.

**

But I thought they were so simple, that they make murder easy?

**23. Ordinary people in the presence of guns turn into slaughtering butchers but revert to normal when the weapon is removed.

**

I had a big barbecue last month. 25 people turned into “slaughtering butchers” when 15 lbs. of beef hit the grill to cook hamburgers. And strangely, that weekend I went to the range with 3 of those friends - none of us shot each other. Go figure. . .

**24. Guns cause violence, which is why there are so many mass killings at gun shows.

**

I have yet to see anyone pull a “Meet me at high noon in the center aisle!!” stunt at a gun show. This statement is apparently from someone whose never been to one.

**25. A majority of the population supports gun control, just like a majority of the population supported owning slaves.

**

You’re comparing slavery to owning guns? On the contrary, the 2nd Amendment is to prevent slavery - slavery of citizens from an oppressive government. This simple Amendment empowers the oppressed.

**26. Any self-loading small arm can legitimately be considered to be a “weapon of mass destruction” or an “assault weapon.”

**

To break away from logic for a moment, an “assault” weapon is defined by the public perception of the piece. If it looks military or can fire with a high rate, it may be considered an ‘assault weapon’. This classification is completely based on who uses what sort of firearm, and how - totally fed by public interpretation. Hell, with the way I use a credit card, it could be considered an assault weapon. . .

**27. Most people can’t be trusted, so we should have laws against guns, which most people will abide by because they can be trusted.

**

Aaah, the sound of a paranoid lunatic (see your point 5).

**28. The right of Internet pornographers to exist cannot be questioned because it is constitutionally protected by the Bill of Rights, but the use of handguns for self defense is not really protected by the Bill of Rights.

**

Bullshit. I dare you to cite me an example where a handgun, longarm, etc. was not used in self-defense and thereby protected.

**31. Charlton Heston, a movie actor as president of the NRA is a cheap lunatic who should be ignored, but Michael Douglas, a movie actor as a representative of Handgun Control, Inc. is an ambassador for peace who is entitled to an audience at the UN arms control summit.

**

A matter of perception.

**33. We should ban “Saturday Night Specials” and other inexpensive guns because it’s not fair that poor people have access to guns too.

**

So, you want to keep arms solely to the wealthy and upper middle class? Aren’t “poor” people entitled to the same protection and rights of self defense as everyone else? You Communist . . .

**34. Police officers have some special Jedi-like mastery over hand guns that private citizens can never hope to obtain.

**

:rolleyes:

**35. Private citizens don’t need a gun for self-protection because the police are there to protect them even though the Supreme Court says the police are not responsible for their protection.

**

So if the police aren’t responsible for my own protection, who is? Even if I’m 15 miles from the nearest law enforcement agency in northwestern North Dakota?

**36. Citizens don’t need to carry a gun for personal protection but police chiefs, who are desk-bound administrators who work in a building filled with cops, need a gun.

**

Sure. How else are you going to ‘kill time’?

**39. Trigger locks do not interfere with the ability to use a gun for defensive purposes, which is why you see police officers with one on their duty weapon.

**

I have yet to see a street cop go: “Stop, or I’ll unlock my gun and shoot you!”. (Not that I’ve been on the wrong end . . .)

**40. Handgun Control, Inc. says they want to “keep guns out of the wrong hands.” Guess what? You have the wrong hands.

**

And who is “Handgun Control” to judge? Fuck 'em. I’ll take my chances . . .
I’m sorry. Guns don’t kill people, the intent behind the trigger does. A firearm won’t operate on it’s lonesome. It’s a simple machine - it’s a tool for expressing the intent of the user.

**let the flaming begin

**

I’m not sure if you posted this tongue-in-cheek or not, but I swear to God, this kind of ‘peacenik’ thinking pisses me off. My end thoughts: DO NOT FEED THE TROLLS.

Tripler
With this post, I have just violated my last thought. :mad:

[minty_green]

Oh. My. God.

[Tripler]

*Originally posted by minty green *
**Oh. My. God. **

What? What’d I do?
Oh I know. . . I fed the trolls again. Sorry . . .

Tripler
Bad Tripler, bad!

[minty_green]

No, Tripler. That list is . . . wait for it . . . pro-gun.

[minty_green]

But on the other hand, you certainly beat the shit out of that strawman, so I guess your post wasn’t totally in vain.

[Tripler]

Yes.

Yes, I admit it. . .

Hi, my name is Tripler and I am responsibly pro-gun.

Tripler
So sue me.