Anti gun loon

[Atticus]

While you could argue that people will kill anyway, using whatever is to hand, you have to admit that guns are much more effective at killing than most of the other available options.

Ding ding ding...this guy should ne in Marketing....he just convinced me to buy another gun...maybe a .356 hemi- semi -magnum full auto revolver. I'lll have to give Sarah B or Rosie O a call to check the technical info before I buy.

 

[tomhorn]

well here is my 2 cents worth A long long time ago we were under the control of a goverment that didnt care about us just taxs so we whipped there ass and became a real country, then again that little spat that england couldnt handle CALLED WW1 the US stepped in a pulled yalls chestnuts out of the fire , OH and dont forget that little short ugly fellow in germany again we stepped in and saved yall from ruin your goverment doest trust its own people to own guns or it doesnt want its people to be able to fight back .
Of course our fore fathers saw the light and put the 2 amendment in they trusted their people they thought that each person was equal no matter who your parents were . Now when yall get in trouble again please dont call us call the liberals who run your country I am sure they can handle the problems oh when that 200 pound man with the bat or cricket stick breaks down your door and does terrible things to your and or daughter (God forbid) the first thing you will think of is wish I had a gun ....nobody ever raped a 38!!!!!!
I am the law in my house till the Police get there !

A person that is afraid of a gun shouldnt have one because you wouldnt have the stones to use it family be dammed .

 

[Eleven Mike]

Right first off can you lot all stop refering to Britain as England its been britain since then act of union in 1707.
And second to all you lot who keep calling this guy a loon i think what you have to bear in mind is that in Britain we have the right to free speech so let this guy voice his opinion so what if he is anti gun thats his choice no 1 here could probably make him trade his belifes for the pro gun belifes. Also from what of the articall I read it seem like he was trying to give a balanced argument but leaning to the anti side rather than in the middle. Im in no way anti gun im just trying to voice the voice of reason. Irwin

Voice of reason? Learn to write first.

 

[Zen21Tao]

Ok here is my take on this garbage:

This guys arguments are a fine example of antis lack of consistent logic:

Guns are designed to kill people
Pro-gun people hate this idea and amazingly try to deny the obvious truth of this statement by saying "no they´re for hunting or target practice". Well the development of guns has been driven by warfare there is no denying this. Make no mistake many of the guns which are popularly sold in the US were designed specifically to kill people. While there may be a legitimate claim for some farmers to own a rifle or shotgun this is very different to a city dweller owning a .357 Magnum or an Uzi. It doesn´t matter if you don´t use your gun for killing humans that is still what it was designed to do.

Antis love to make the argument that guns are “used” to cause death as the main reason for banning them. However, when it is successfully pointed out that there are many other items also used to kill that aren’t banned, antis reform their argument asserting that the difference between these items and guns is that guns were “designed” to kill. Ok, what this actually does is change the reason from banning guns from how they are used to why they were designed.

This is problematic for them for 2 reasons. First, this new argument nullifies every argument they have regarding the frequency in which guns are used. For example, their argument that “guns make death more likely” is meaningless because their reason for banning guns relies (now) on the reason guns were made, and not how they are used.

The second problem is that they are assuming that killing is always morally wrong. Killing is also a very real means of survival. One could hardly say that a man killing an animal (even it that animal is man) trying to kill him is morally wrong. Are we to argue that the Jews killing Nazis to prevent the holocaust would have been morally wrong?

Guns make accidental death, murder and suicide more likely
This is often taken as a highly inflammatory statement but again it is obviously true. If you don´t have a gun you can´t shoot yourself or someone else with it. In situations where people are getting emotional a gun instantly makes things life and death. While you could argue that people will kill anyway, using whatever is to hand, you have to admit that guns are much more effective at killing than most of the other available options. Even discounting deliberate deaths from guns what about the number of accidental deaths which result from having guns in the house?

I will give the person the benefit of the doubt and agree with him that having a gun does increase likelihood of death. However, having a gun also increases the likelihood of being able to defend ones self against an attacker. It’s funny that the anti only sees probability change in such a way that is negative for the gun owner but doesn’t see the likelihood of a positive effect. With that said, one can properly argue that a gun is not the only thing that has this effect. Rather than contending with this argument antis simply change their argument to be that it is the “effectiveness” of a gun that should serve as reason to ban it. Well, the “effectiveness” can be turned right back around and asserted that that is what it makes it an even better tool for self-defense.

I need a gun to protect myself
Well by owning a gun you are increasing your chances of being killed by a gun.

This completely depends on the situation. In some cases yes, but in other cases having a gun increases you ability to protect yourself against an attacker.

gun owners are just as likely to be attacked and burgled as the rest of us. Owning a gun does not make you safe.

True, but as I just said gun owners are have a better chance of defending themselves against an attacker than an unarmed victim. It is inconsistent to claim that having a gun in the house only has the potential for negative consequences. It is also inconsistent to claim that having a gun only offers positive consequences. Most gun owners acknowledge that there are both positive and negative consequence that can arise from having a gun and that it a great responsibility that has to be treated with safety and respect.

How many of the people who claim they need a gun for their own safety have actually had to use it anyway? If you claim to need a gun but you´ve never used it then why do you need it?

This is perhaps the stupidest thing I have read. So let me get this correct, unless you have needed a gun in the past you don’t need one now? That is, you should only get a gun AFTER you have been in an unforeseen situation where you would have needed one? Ok lets apply to LEOs on their first day of work. They have never encountered a criminal they needed to use a gun to subdue so they shouldn’t be armed. Again, this is utter stupidity. Most criminals don’t announce their intentions in advance, especially long enough ahead of time for you to arm yourself.

If you live in a really rough place perhaps it is normal to own a gun for your own protection and in the absence of government or police action to improve your area this may be your only way to feel safe. This is tough to argue with, because this shouldn´t be the case, it basically means that your government and police are failing to keep you safe, instead of arming yourself you should fight (peacefully) for them to do their job.

I love it when antis go to the “just rely on the government/police” argument. Most LEO work is reactionary in response to calls after the crime was committed. Tell your attacker to come back when the police arrive so you have a better chance at being protected. I’m sure he’ll understand when you tell him it societies job to protect you from him.

I realise this is easier said than done but hey I´m idealistic, I´d like a world without guns or wars, this is often discounted as naive, it´s not naive it´s an honest statement, naivety would be believing that I could make it happen. However if enough people worked together with this aim it could be achieved and if you agree then you should swallow your cynicism and try to do something about it, if you don´t think the world would be a better place without guns and wars then you should seek professional help.

Yes, and if we all hold hand and sing a chorus of “chum by yah” then all criminals will throw down their firearms to make his dream come true. And when a criminal attempts to attack you, here in the real world, just try to fight him off with your honest idealism and see how far that gets you. Me, I’d rather take my chances with my Sig Sauer.

If guns were more strictly controlled it would leave law-abiding citizens at the mercy of criminals who obtain their guns illegally anyway
This argument simply leads to the idea that guns aren´t controlled strictly enough. There are too many in circulation and too many still being produced for the government or police to keep them from falling into the wrong hands.

Wow, only in this guys twisted logic could he really think that criminals’ demonstrations of how they do not obey the law serves as proof that we need more laws for the criminals to break. The fact that criminals obtain guns illegally has nothing to do with the number of them in circulation. Cutting off circulation of guns would NOT stop criminals from obtaining guns because they DO NOT get them through the normal legal channels of circulation. What cutting of the legal circulation of guns would do is decrease the number of guns that are in the hands of law abiding citizens and increases the number of guns that find their way to criminals’ hands.

Well maybe we shouldn´t allow our governments to subsidise the weapons manufacturers with our tax money, maybe the manufacturers should be held to account for profiting from death. It is a failure of government if people have to protect themselves in this way and the corrupt link between the weapons manufacturers and government must be broken.

Wow, this is paternalism at its best. Why not sue car manufacturers when a dui results in serious injury or death? How about suing knife makers and bat makers when their products are used to kill or maim? How about we sue computer makers when someone calls us names and hurts our feelings in an internet forum? It is simply ridiculous to hold a manufacturer responsible for people misuse his product.


Canada has proportionally more guns than the US and yet a much lower gun murder rate
This is true but you have to look at the differences in the types of gun, why they have been bought and where the owners live. All this really shows is that guns are even more dangerous in violent cultures than they are elsewhere, the gun is worshipped in the US, a nasty hangover from the war of independence. The National Rifle Association spends a fortune promoting guns and deflecting publicity from gun murders because there is lots of money to be made selling them. The media spews a parade of violence and terror and the US army is actively engaged in a number of countries. The attitude to guns in the US is consequently very different from Canada. There are gun deaths in Canada too though, how many is too many?


Guns don´t cause the problem people do
This is a good argument; you can´t blame an inanimate object for the actions of mad people. The thing is it would be much harder for these people to kill anyone if they didn´t have a gun. The Columbine massacre wasn´t caused by guns but they certainly made things worse. The real causes of this atrocity should be addressed, it was a failure of society but you have to question a situation where two teenage kids can get their hands on this amount of weaponry. If you are going to have guns then at least treat them responsibly, keep them locked away and educate people about the dangers.

My gun protects me from corrupt government
This would be a good reason to allow gun ownership, if people actually took action but they don´t. If the government raid someone´s house and they resist with a gun then they generally get shot dead by police marksmen. In a democracy we are supposed to oppose government by voting them out, granted this system has failed because not everyone is represented but I don't think it would make much difference if people opposing the government were armed or not unless they organised themselves into a military force and to be honest I am opposed to violence so that doesn´t strike me as a great idea.

Ok so this guy is saying that the inability to guarantee success is a reason for making it illegal to try in the first place. That is absurd. The Jews most likely couldn’t have stopped that holocaust if they had held an armed revolt, so there fore they should be deprived of the opportunity of al least trying?

Any erosion of the first amendment would be a slippery slope
This is another good argument, along the lines that the right to defend yourself is a basic human right. I think it is a basic human right to defend yourself if you are attacked but guns are used in all kinds of situations and too many gun owners don´t limit their gun use to firing ranges and self defence. I can see how any erosion of the first ammendment would be a serious cause for concern and could pave the way for other changes which would undermine basic human rights and if that was the cost of banning guns then it wouldn´t be worth doing.

Enter mister hypocrisy. He can see that value of the First Amendment and finds ANY erosion of it a threat to freedom and if banning guns meant erosion of this Amendment it wouldn’t be worth doing. However, he has made it clear that he supports eroding the 2nd Amendment if it doesn’t erode the 1st Amendment. This is hypocrisy. I hardly think one can honesty say it is ok to erode one Amendment and not another. Not to mention that it is the 2nd Amendment that was meant to protect all other Amendments.

 

[ArfinGreebly]

America, Land Of Liberty

Some several months ago, in another place and time, I wrote what amounted to an article in rebuttal to a similar argument having to do with "why do ____ like guns."

For those who care: http://noisyroom.net/blog/?p=7862

He made points about how it's better to live in a "safe" society where no one is armed, and other points I'm sure you've all heard before.

I rambled on a bit, about self-defense, no cop when you need one, bad guys prefer unarmed victims, rifle behind every blade of grass, resistance to tyranny. I noted further that gun ownership and free speech were "baked into" the nation, but security wasn't.

Toward the end of this article/rebuttal, I scrawled this sentiment:

"Look at it this way. If America frightens you, feel free to live somewhere else. There are plenty of other countries that don’t suffer from excessive liberty.

America is where the Liberty is. Liberty is not certified safe."​

So, you see, that's how I got that line in my sig.