Titan6
member
I found this an interesting read.
We don't get to see this very often around here because.... well it is self explanatory is it not?
It was here with this article:
http://www.timesdispatch.com/rtd/news/local/crime/article/MART191_20090718-234801/280934/
Why do you even bother arguing with the gun nuts?
If the store owner is shot, they argue for more guns.
If the store owner shoots back, they argue that more guns are good.
If a gun is involved in a crime, they argue that they need more guns to protect themselves against the criminals.
If crime rates increase, they argue that more guns are needed.
If crime rates decrease, they argue that more guns in homes and carried as concealed weapons are a deterrent, and even more guns are needed to push crime rates down further.
If asked what they would do in a self-defense situation, they claim to be well-trained and sure that they would handle the situation effectively.
If it is pointed out that gun ownership in the home is correlated with increased rates of murder among family members, and increased risk of suicide, they argue that risk exists only for other families, and not for themselves. Or they argue that they are best able to take on that risk, not realizing they are actually creating the risk for everyone in their household,
The gun nuts don’t even acknowledge that the risk of murder and suicide within their family is higher than the likelihood of deterring a crime within their home.
If confronted with the cross-cultural data that show high rates of gun ownership in the USA is correlated with high rates of homicide and suicide, they wave the “liberal socialist” card.
The gun nuts don’t acknowledge that almost every gun used in the commission of a crime starts as a legally purchased weapon, sold though a large, licensed dealer, which is then stolen or sold through channels with weak or no regulations.
Wouldn’t it be refreshing if one of these die-hard 2nd amendment advocates actually said, “yes, I agree that the gun ownership increases murder and suicide rates and makes it easy for criminals to get guns, but now that we are where we are with high rates of illicit gun ownership, I just feel safer and I will stand on that principle” ?
Rather than waiving the “liberal socalist” card and demeaning others who make different choices?
You cannot win an argument with a gun nut because a gun nut is always right in his or her own mind. No data can contradict the gun nut’s belief that guns are good, that more guns are needed, and only criminals mis-use guns.
So stop arguing with the gun nuts.
Educate yourself on the risk of guns in the household. Educate yourself on the 2nd amendment case law and why 2nd amendment cases almost never make it to the Supreme Court. Educate yourself on why a position on gun rights should not be a litmus test for politicians of any party.
But please, stop rising to the bait of the gun nuts. They are not worth your time.
DISCLAIMER:
I learned firearm safety at age 11, when it was time to learn marksmanship at Boy Scout camp. I learned hunting safety at age 13. I cleaned my grandfather’s collection of firearms for years. I inherited some of those firearms. I was also a member of the NRA until I realized their leadership were gun nuts with no willingness to seek middle ground.
We don't get to see this very often around here because.... well it is self explanatory is it not?
It was here with this article:
http://www.timesdispatch.com/rtd/news/local/crime/article/MART191_20090718-234801/280934/