Gun fanatics self-refute their own arguments (updated X 2)

In the wake of the appalling Northern Illinois University tragedy, it has been depressing to see the right-wing gun fanatics making the same tired and irrational arguments against any sort of gun regulation and, even worse, in favor of unrestricted concealed-carry laws on campuses. You can see all of these arguments brought forth by the extremists in the comments section of this post on Carpetbagger.

What astonishes me more than anything is that the extreme views of the gun fanatics make them living refutations of their own arguments. Reasonable people could convince me that there is a good middle ground on gun control, in which law-abiding citizens can own weapons with some restrictions; the fanatics push my temperament much closer to a full ban. This is a shame, because I have a lot of good friends who are gun owners and whom I have literally trusted with my life – I would hate to see crazies shift the gun discussion to the point where no reasonable solutions to gun violence can be found.

In the spirit of trying to push a reasonable discussion on gun violence – or maybe just to rant – I thought I’d refute, again, some of the common refrains of gun fanatics.

  1. Bans on firearms are doomed to fail, just like Prohibition – people will just get them from other sources. No law is perfect: if we required every prohibition in the law to be 100% successful, we would have no laws against anything. Heck, you know that in spite of our laws against murder, people still get murdered all the time? We may as well not have that law in the first place! Any law created, including laws which restrict ‘freedoms’, must be created in such a way as to maximize societal benefit minimize violations. To paint all legal restrictions with the same broad brush is ridiculously childish.
  2. If there had only students had been allowed to carry guns on campus, the tragedy could have been prevented. This is an idiotic action-movie fantasy which is probably unique to the United States, where the tough-talkers have never actually faced an actual gun. If a shooter walks into a room without warning and opens fire with an automatic handgun, he will likely be able to empty his entire clip before anyone in the line of fire can effectively respond to the attack: A Glock, for instance, can fire 40 rounds per minute. There is also the concern that, for every incident which might be prevented by the presence of additional firearms, a half-dozen other incidents would be created by the presence of those weapons. As a university professor myself, I don’t want guns on campus: there are far too many students who, while not violent, might be tempted to use the presence of a weapon as an ill-advised attempt to intimidate the teacher. Even without weapons, threats against teachers are not uncommon.
  3. We need our guns to keep the government from being tyrannical. The only time in the history of the U.S. when the presence of arms amongst the citizenry helped repel a tyrannical government was the Revolutionary War. One could make the argument that the guns have prevented further abuses, but that doesn’t explain how dozens of developed countries have representative governments which work just fine without armed citizens. Like pretty much all of Europe.
  4. The Second Amendment says we have the right to individually own any guns we want. Let me put this bluntly: I don’t care. I’ve blogged before about the odd Founding-Father worship in the United States, and this worship seems greatest talking about the second amendment. In the end, though, I only consider a right enunciated in the Constitution to be a valid one if it serves, on the whole, as a positive rule for society. The Constitution was never meant to be a static, religious document: the Bill of Rights itself is a collection of Amendments, or additions, to the Constitution. In other words, if a law is demonstrated to be harmful, we change the law. This doesn’t indicate my overall opinion about the validity of the Second Amendment, which I still have mixed feelings about: it simply says that we shouldn’t parse the meaning of what a bunch of old men thought and instead ask if that law is functioning in a positive way in today’s society. Until gun fanatics try and have a real discussion about the role of firearms in society instead of reciting ‘scripture’, there is little sense in paying attention to them.

Update: Addendum to point #2: Another problem with allowing everyone to carry guns on campus is this: how do we know that the people carrying on campus won’t be ‘spree killers’ as well? The NIU and VT cases demonstrate that firearms screening can fail spectacularly: fanatics like to pretend that ‘concealed carry’ laws will somehow magically circumvent this problem and result in only ‘lawful’ people carrying weapons. It seems a pretty unavoidable conclusion that, until society figures out how to really prevent unbalanced people from obtaining guns, putting more guns in public will only make things worse.

Update #2: Here’s another argument I see put forth often:

5.  Crazed killers could just as easily kill a bunch of people with bombs, or poison.  Yes, but they don’t.  Killers of the VT/NIU/Columbine type have used guns as their primary and most lethal weapons.  This tells you one of two things: (a) It isn’t as easy to acquire and deploy bombs or poison as it is to use guns, or (b) Guns have a unique psychological appeal for spree killers.  I’m guessing that the truth is a little bit of both points.  Both points suggest that making guns less available will reduce the number of these killings.

This entry was posted in Politics. Bookmark the permalink.

19 Responses to Gun fanatics self-refute their own arguments (updated X 2)

  1. Personal Demon says:

    Comment on the “Bans on firearms are doomed to fail, just like Prohibition – people will just get them from other sources.” argument:

    In addition to your refutation, I would like to point out that, unlike bootleg hooch, semi-automatic hand guns cannot be produced by just any hick with access to corn, sugar, yeast, and a bathtub.

  2. PD: Yep, I completely agree. Every ‘prohibition’ will have a different level of effectiveness, depending on, among other things, how easy it is to ‘unlawfully’ produce the banned substance. Drugs and alcohol can be produced by pretty much anybody, making it much harder to restrict. Even criminals, however, are using guns which were produced commercially (even if they weren’t purchased lawfully).

    Another factor is the willingness of the general population to accept and enforce the ban. Prohibitions on murder are reasonably effective because most people can agree that murder is bad, and are willing to report violations. Prohibitions on alcohol and pot, on the other hand, don’t work so well because most people either don’t care or are actively against such a ban.

    Again, I should emphasize that I’m not advocating a complete firearms ban: I’m just pointing out that it’s damn silly to lump all legal prohibitions together in the same category.

  3. Gun Fanatic says:

    Per comment by Personal Demon… Actually, 1 in 3 guns in D.C. used in crime were home made. A hick cannot make one with a bathtub, corn sugar and yeast, but they can with access to some plumbing parts and springs.

    Per the article, While there might be a “concern” that half a dozen problems caused for every one averted it hasn’t shown to be true among the general public where guns have been allowed. In CCW states lots of crimes are averted regularly and accidents did not soar after allowing CCW. A university would be no different.

    Gun laws only stop people who follow laws. Isn’t it unfair that those who choose to follow the law are penalized by not being able to defend themselves?

    It matters not that some unlawful people will carry guns. Unlawful people already carry guns all the time, including at universities. Permit holders are statistically 5.5 times less likely to commit violent crimes though, according to John Lott.

    Per 5. Somemes they do… Timothy McVeigh, Japanese knife rampages, for example.

    Per 4. IF you don’t like the second amendment get it repealed. That is the proper process. If you think its okay to violate constitutional rights why not just throw out the constitution. You wouldn’t be okay with people throwing out the fourth amendment for the sake of the betterment of society (increased safety) would you?

  4. Gun Fanatic: This is a pretty old thread, so I won’t be commenting on it much more. I don’t have much reason to believe your facts, though, without any supporting data. A few comments:

    Per Personal Demon: Even if 1 in 3 crimes in DC is from a homemade gun, which I find doubtful, I would much rather have to face a homemade gun than a high caliber semiautomatic or automatic weapon. And why refer just to DC? I’m guessing that the statistic, even if true, doesn’t hold up anywhere else.

    Per your comment: “Gun laws only stop people who follow laws.” How do you know? In the ‘civilized’ world, the U.S. tops gun violence statistics. Other western countries have far more draconian rules than the U.S., and all of them have less violence.

    Per 5: “Sometimes they do.” Sure. But there’s very little bomb violence, compared to the amount of gun violence. That’s the point of the argument: it apparently isn’t quite as easy, or appealing, to bomb someone as it is to shoot someone. We’re never going to eliminate violence, but we can try and find out how to minimize it.

    Per 4: “IF you don’t like the second amendment get it repealed. ” Um, you completely missed the point and proved it simultaneously. The amendments are laws, not holy writ. Like all laws, they should be constantly reevaluated, and/or reinterpreted — that’s what the supreme court does all the time. I completely reject your premises that (a) the 2nd amendment allows for unlimited gun possession and (b) it is somehow a right of comparable importance to the fourth amendment. You’re trying to protect the 2nd by hiding behind the 4th. Your appeal to ‘violating constitutional rights’ is simply a rhetorical device to try and avoid discussing the meaning and validity of the amendment.

    As I said, I’m not for banning guns or repealing amendments. I find it ridiculous, however, to claim that increased gun possession has no effect on society as a whole. And I sure don’t want more guns in my classroom.

    You haven’t really said anything which I feel I didn’t answer in my original post. I’m done here.

  5. Middle ground says:

    1st thing, MAJOR bump, I was mulling around the internet and saw this, and needed to point out one fact, and don’t complain that I could have emailed you, which I didn’t feel like doing.

    first, and only, order of business… and I quote “Even if 1 in 3 crimes in DC is from a homemade gun, which I find doubtful, I would much rather have to face a homemade gun than a high caliber semiautomatic or automatic weapon.”

    It’s funny because the simplest firearm to make, besides a single shot pen gun, is a fully automatic 9mm submachine gun, which can be produced using only a drill, a hacksaw, files of various sizes, and various metal parts that are easily accessible to anybody.

    If you don’t believe me, and for some reason feel the need to check what I just told you, an Englishman by the surname of Luty wrote a book “Expedient Homemade Firearms: the 9mm SubMachine gun” you can take a gander at the detailed material list, and schematics that only an incompetent fool couldn’t follow. After reading it, you realize how simple it would be for somebody to do this, although it would take a few days work I presume. *I DO NOT RECOMMEND BUILDING THAT GUN, unless you like being in prison and paying $250,000 in fines*

    also YES I know automatic firearms are illegal, and this book just goes to show people like you how easily people could have fully automatic machine guns, so now would you prefer someone having a homemade firearm pointed at your face? Personally I would never want to be in such a situation, but it really does raise your awareness, now doesnt it?

  6. Bender226 says:

    Well this article has absolutely no credibility whatsoever. Point number 5 could not be more off thus is a terrible argument that puts your entire point in the trash. First of all, you mention that bombs and such do not kill people, such as with VT/NIU/Columbine, but you fail to mention that Columbine was in fact, a bombing that failed. They did put bombs in the school, and had they gone off it would killed more along the lines of 500 people who were in the cafeteria with the bombs when they were supposed to go off, when the awful terrible evil guns killed 13 people instead of 500 or so. It was only by luck that the bomb builders were incompetent that it did not kill more, and were also incompetent with firearms which if they hadn’t been many more would have died. Perhaps you have forgotten what happens when someone attempts a bombing and succeeds, like the Oklahoma city bombing. When was the last time a gunman killed 168 people and injured 680+ at once. By your logic we should ban fertilizer and racing fuel, that’s all Timothy Mcveigh used. Or theres the world trade center bombing which killed 6 but injured 1042 people. Shall I bring up 911, no guns, just some box cutters to hijack and plane and crash it into some buildings and killed 2973 and injured over 6000. Your argument absolutely falls flat on its face and you have done exactly what you accuse the gun fanatics of doing: self refutation. All you have proven is that murderers exist in many forms and use many methods to do evil, going back to one of the most used and fundamental arguments, guns don’t kill people, people do.

    Your other arguments are just if not more worthless than 5, 5 was just easy to pick apart due to not knowing your facts. If you are going to make discussion about firearms or any other subject, you should use the correct terminology so you sound like you at least have an idea as to what you are talking about. Guns do not use “clips”, they use magazines, this is rudimentary gun knowledge unless one of the gunman you speak of used an M1 Garand which I don’t recall ever happening. And yes, for no. 2 it is just an action movie fantasy… because nobody who goes to college is a military veteran or police officer who knows how to use a firearm and has experience in combat killing people and they have a better chance unarmed against a criminal shooter with typically no more experience than a ccw holder. All you have to do is look up the Appalachian Law school shooting to debunk your failed argument here.

    I’m done debunking this crap article, typical of a college professor though, armchair thinking at its best with no real world experience whatsoever, and clearly knows nothing about firearms, and I’m somewhat surprised you didn’t call the Glock the plastic pistol while you were at it. Nothing against academics or professors, they have their place in education and scientific research, but for political arguments you might as well go to any given commie forum. Next time you argue for the violation of the bill of rights, you should come up with some better arguments, the constitution was meant to be changed, but not easily and not without good reason, and you sir are very much without good reason.

    • Wow… irrelevant insults, cherry-picked examples which prove nothing at all, indication of complete misunderstanding of the original post, bizarre anger at a college professor — it must be a right-wing moron!

      Just to rebut the only thing resembling substance in your rant:

      Number of gun homicides in the U.S. in 2005: 10,000 (this doesn’t include injuries or suicides, either)

      This is much, much more than 9/11 or Oklahoma City.

      Number of bombing homicides in the U.S. in 2005: 0

      Don’t bother coming back, moron.

  7. unknown1730 says:

    1. A flamethrower could be made in a matter of hours with a weed killer sprayer and bbq lighter. Petrol can be bought in from your nearest petrol station (or gas station for you yanks out there). Petrol mixed with Styrofoam can be used as a substitute for napalm. (As a matter of fact, a man in Germany suffering from schizophrenia went on a rampage in the 60s with a weed killer flamethrower and killed 10 people before poisoning himself to death).

    2. The media puts a lot of sensationalism on firearms mass shootings that copycat attacks follow. You may have noticed that a lot of mass shootings happen not long after a previous one (e.g. after Hoddle street, there was Hungerford and Queen street. After Cumbria, the Northumbria incident. After Dunblane, Port Arthur occurred). In China there were 3 bombing attacks many years ago which occurred between 1998 – 2000.
    (here is a link to an article for proof )

    3. A man in the UK (Where firearms are regulated the most besides Japan and China) in 1998 made a book showing how he made a 9mm submachine gun without any specialized skills, materials or machinery. It is compromised of various steel tubing, steel shaft collars and other bits and pieces.
    There is another book called “Do it yourself submachine gun” which shows how to make a mini uzi style (Very concealable under a jacket) submachine gun on a lathe. The design of the gun was made to meet up to the following specifications (as quoted from the book)..
    “1. It must be built by people or groups with limited equipment. It should be feasible for an individual to produce the enture weapon in a small workshop.
    2. Decentralization of large-scale production of various parts is possible.
    3. Most parts should appear innocuous, looking like pieces of ordinary civilian machines or tools.
    4. Taken down, the gun should be able to be concealed easily; for example in a car, if a couple of components are found, it should not be obvious without a complete search of the vehicle that they are submachine gun parts.
    5. The size of the weapon facilitates its use from a car.
    6. Users should meet, on equal terms, opponents armed with such submachine guns as the Uzi, Beretta Model 12, Heckler & Koch MP5, or similar weapons found in most parts of the world.
    7. The gun has an attractive appearance. ”

    I will admit you won’t be able to make a semi auto pistol overnight, but you will be surprised with what could be made under clandestine conditions with minimal tools.

    4. Czech republic has similar gun laws with the US (Though I will admit they do have licensing requirements), yet have had no massacres, no school shooting and very few incidents with legally owned firearms. Perhaps it’s all due to culture, reasonable gun laws and lack of bullshit media outlets.

    5. I am no right-winged idiot, I am quite progressive 🙂

    I will admit, there needs to be reasonable gun control (e.g. licensing, regular psychological examination). But no bullshit laws such as “assault weapon” bans.

  8. George Szaszvari says:

    The article is full of misinformation. The author claims bombs and poison (gas) are
    not used. How about the Unabomber? Or the IRA bombings throughout Britain and
    British targets abroad? The USS Cole? Or the Moscow bombings, the Kenyan embassy
    or Beirut bombings, etc? Also the 2005 London subway bombings, and similar in
    Madrid, and poison gas was used in the 1995 Tokyo subway mass killings…. okay,
    so the author really meant more ad hoc killings, so look at Iraq and Afghanistan today… and so and so on. The Columbine, Hungerford and Dunblane style style killings all had red flags waving furiously in the faces of all the authorities before the acts were
    predictably perpetrated. Despite warnings being screamed at them those bureaucrats
    sat on their butts and allowed what happened to happen, then after the event pointed
    at laxity in legislation to save their pensions. How typical!

    • I didn’t say they’re not used — I said that they’re a negligible part of violence in the U.S.! See, the article is about gun violence, and the sad reality, no matter how you try and spin it, is that guns in the U.S. kill way, way more people than terrorist bombings, or poison gas. Notice how all your examples are *outside* the U.S.? Why is it that the wingnuts who read this 2 1/2 year-old post never actually seem to understand what is being said in it? Every comment bolsters the thesis of the title even more.

      • George Szaszvari says:

        Selective arguments in these kind of forums don’t prove any
        thesis, either way. Guns don’t kill people, the people who
        negligently handle or criminally use them kill and injure, but
        way more people are killed by medical mistakes and driver
        negligence than by firearms, anyway, Don’t forget that shooting
        fatality figures also include justifiable homicides in self defense.
        There is also an avalanche of data on how armed citizens
        prevent crime. When someone takes a stance on these issues
        ego usually becomes the motivating factor in the adversarial
        positions, typified by personal pet “theses” and how it is
        justified, etc. I used to be anti-gun once, too, but after a certain
        amount of reading, research and life experience I changed my

      • George Szaszvari says:

        Your article is full of emotive expressions like astonishing,
        depressing, extremists, fanatics, etc, pejoratives to
        denigrate any pro-gun stance, yet the other side of your
        mouth talks about seeking “reasonable” people to find
        “rational” middle ground on gun restrictions. How come
        I don’t trust you as an open minded listener to other points
        of view? Please prove me wrong. We have all the restrictions
        needed, when they are intelligently enforced. The previous
        comment about worthless bureaucrats was supposed to make
        that point. We need EDUCATION and TRAINING, not more
        simplistic and, ultimately, elitest restrictions. The true question
        I believe you are seeking is how come there is so much misuse
        of firearms in the USA when other countries with citizens that
        have guns don’t seem to have such a high number. Temper
        this with the fact that some countries have much worse gun
        violence than the USA, with or without restrictive gun laws.
        Any offers? I have my own ideas, but would like to some others
        to kick off an intelligent debate with their own input first.

      • George Szaszvari says:

        All outside the US? Not really. The Unabomber? Columbine?
        Let’s continue with Oklahoma City, first and last World Trade
        Center attacks, Olympic Games pipe bomber, the anthrax
        letters after 9/11, and so on. The point being made was that
        we don’t need guns, inside or outside the US, to effect mass
        “spree” killings. Guns are a very inefficient for that purpose
        when countered by armed defenders. Obviously there are, so
        far, annually, more homicides in the US with guns than with
        explosives. Poisons I’m not so sure about, when considering the
        production of materials and chemicals used in all walks of life
        that have been found to be detrimental to human health and
        well-being since the advent of the industrial revolution. No,
        I’m not a Luddite or Anarchist: it is just a fact that needs to
        be seriously considered. I’ve come to see most hysterical
        arguments against guns as mostly concerned with:
        1) people who passively see themselves as victims (google
        “no guns for jews”) and,
        2) galvanizing power for the elite such arguers consider
        themselves part of. The Founding Fathers deliberately
        legislated the 2nd Amendment (…the right of THE PEOPLE
        to bears arms shall not be infringed) to counter such elitism
        (read tyranny).

      • George Szaszvari says:

        “The only time in the history of the U.S. when the presence of arms amongst the citizenry helped repel a tyrannical government was the Revolutionary War. One could make the argument that the guns have prevented further abuses, but that doesn’t explain how dozens of developed countries have representative governments which work just fine without armed citizens. Like pretty much all of Europe.”
        The only time? It can easily be argued that the whole expansion
        west of the USA and successful conflicts against Britain, Mexico
        and Spain, the secession of the Confederacy, even the success
        of US troops in both world wars, all had a lot to do with firearm
        familiarity, availability and civilian marksmanship.
        All of Europe? Switzerland and Finland have widespread gun
        ownership just for the purpose of providing a standing reserve
        army in case of invasion. Czech gun laws are even more liberal
        than many US states. Virtually all continental European nations
        have active hunting traditions that are alive and well today,
        with varying degrees of bureaucracy in firearm registration.
        Britain has more restrictions than most, but also has just about
        the highest crime rate in terms of assault, theft, burglary, and
        robbery, in the western industrialized world. Even if the homicide rates are negligible when compared to many countries
        in the Americas, Africa and Asia, there is a great deal of stats
        massaging and smokescreening to hide the truth about the
        degenerating quality of life in many parts of Britain. Vigilantism
        is a growing issue there.

  9. George Szaszvari says:

    “Why is it that the wingnuts who read this 2 1/2 year-old post never actually seem to understand what is being said in it?” If the the post is 2½ years old, then what does
    “Updated x 2” mean?

  10. Just Saying says:

    I found this through a google search on a general topic. A few comments:

    1. Kudos to the site operator for allowing this kind of dialogue.

    2. I get the sense the site operator is pretty steadfast in his position. Just like the “gun fanatics”. That’s OK. This is America.getting their training

    3. I agree that if guns were completely outlawed we would see less gun related crimes.

    I feel that regulating firearms is a sensible practice, but believe the scope of gun policy needs to be very limited and focused. I do not think that the qualifying ​​​​​​​​​​​​criteria for purchase, carry or concealment needs to be any more stringent beyond current ​​​​​​​​federal guidelines.

    I would eliminate any “may issue” criteria and would make all states “shall issue”​.​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​

    What will help however are two key efforts – requiring constant​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​ proficiency and monitoring the sale & transfer of firearms.

    No one can obtain a driver’s license without going through a state licensing process. I would like to see the same for firearms. If you want a gun you should be able to demonstrate the required proficiency.

    The licensing guideline for states should include a tiered system based on extent of training & qualification, e.g. basic training for limited caliber and capacity, higher training for higher caliber and capacity. If you want to obtain a 20 gauge bird gun, you don’t need the same training that you need to be concealed carrying a loaded 9MM handgun on your person on a daily basis. I’d allow going to the top tier without time restriction​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​. If you feel you need a .357 SIG and want to tear through the training in 3 weeks and can qualify, that’s acceptable.

    This is not just about being a good marksman, but know how to deploy the weapon and retain the weapon. Many cops have their weapons taken from them during a struggle. How is an untrained civilian going to fare better, especially those who are older, are injured/impaired, etc…? Criminals don’t “try less” in these situations.

    I would require continuing education and re-certification on a regular basis, every 3 years until say age 55 then annually thereafter (as we all decline with age) . All of this would be really expensive, so I’d tap into the firearms industry to help finance it. Glock, Sig, Ruger, H&K, etc. can run the courses which have a federally-defined training spec yet allow the vendors to get some great marketing. For example they could give a discount for those who buy their firearms at the end of the class, etc. Money otherwise spent by the industry lobbying congress could be diverted for training. And the gun community can continue to help as well i.e. clubs/non-profits can connect novices with well-vetted experts so they have a source of information & advice.

    I would also require anyone who goes to a gun range or gun training class to undergo the federal background check. This would prevent gang-bangers and like criminals from renting guns or walking in with illegal guns and training to become better criminals (which does in fact occur).

    Within 5 years I would build a capability to collect, analyze and act upon a continuous feed of information across​​ the licencing facilities, gun dealers, crime & mental health databases, and police agencies. When exceptions occur, i.e. a licensed owner becomes no longer eligible given guidelines due to mental health issues, convicted of a felony, etc. the police would actively engage the party, ensure the weapons are seized, the license is forfitted, etc. Also I would use this system to quickly monitor “straw purchases” of firearms that are going from one individual to another for crime, and actually would shift the burden onto the owner to account for weapons when they are no longer in their hands. This gets rid of the guns going into Mexico. This would be expensive to build & maintain so again I’d ask the industry to chip in, and I would also levy a small license fee from the gun owner to offset the costs. People who use a gun in a crime could also have their money & property seized to fund​​​ the system as well, e.g. minimum $10,000 fine.

    All of the above said – which is a lot for some to come to terms with – I think that the right to own a firearm as currently prescribed by the second amendment should be preserved until enough time passes to execute the above changes & monitor for stability/​​​​​​​​​​improvement​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​. If at the end of the time a set of key measurements, e.g. % of gun-related crimes, etc. show that this is failing miserably​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​, then we can have a national referendum to amend the constitution and change the federal laws regarding firearms ownership.

    This plan is great because it’s a middle of the road plan. It disarms the ​extreme right & left positions, yet creates an accountability to deliver improvements that will without question work. Can it be executed is the big question.

    Lastly, the biggest ill of society that causes gun-related violence is the breakdown of so​cial values, the lack of a family unit which produces troubled lives in ​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​children & adults​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​, and the lack of individual accountability by society​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​ for one’s actions. America leads the pack in this societal regression among first-world nations, and it’s propagated by the media and it’s glamorization of bull$hit. It hits the minorities, under priviliged and under-educated​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​ the hardest. Right where we see the most gun related crime​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​.​

    • George Szaszvari says:

      “I agree that if guns were completely outlawed we would see less gun related

      Then why hasn’t that happened in the UK and Australia where gun crime
      rates have exploded since implementing their gun bans?

      “No one can obtain a driver’s license without going through a state licensing
      process. I would like to see the same for firearms. If you want a gun you should
      be able to demonstrate the required proficiency.”

      Sounds like a good idea, doesn’t it? But then you spoiled it all by rambling on
      at great length, while applauding yourself, with unrealistic details of how to
      hugely increase complicated official procedures and make gun owners servile
      to bureaucracy beyond anything that exists anywhere else in the world. The
      effect would be a de facto gun ban, contrary to everything the 2nd Amendment
      was originally put on the books for. Any gun owner permit would make sense
      in one area only, viz: safe gun handling. The most important single factor in
      gun safety is to keep the muzzle pointed in a safe direction whether loaded or
      unloaded. A two hour class, going over the various safety considerations,
      and moral and legal issues, in cleaning, handling, aiming and shooting a gun,
      would suffice. Anything beyond that concerning the specifics of operating
      a particular type of gun, training wise, must be the responsibility of the gun
      owner. With a permit issued after going thru a safety course, the gun user can
      then be held legally accountable, and, instead of blowing off carelessness as an
      “accident”, can be charged with criminal negligence.

      BTW most firearms going to the cartels in Mexico are full auto weapons
      from ex-mil stockpiles in China and the former eastern bloc. More relevant
      than trafficking is the question: “How do we stop criminals and crazies in the
      USA from perpetrating their crimes?” A gun is simply a tool, which can,
      like any tool, be used for positively constructive purposes, or negatively
      destructive ones. The choice is with the user, not the tool! Unstable people
      who present a danger to public safety need to be barred access to any kind
      of destructive tool, not just a gun. The weapon could be a motor vehicle,
      or an IED, or a gasoline bomb, or something else, so instead of trying to ban
      every potential weapon the emphasis must be on securing the person who
      would use the tool for negative purposes. We should all realize that there
      can never be a 100% guarantee of safety, even with the most draconian
      enforcement of repressive laws (that’s why we need the self-defense option,)
      but it is clear that improved information sharing and coordination between
      law enforcement agencies at both Federal and grass roots levels is the best
      way to deal with the problem of crazies obtaining weapons for nefarious
      purposes. Massacres by crazies in the last two or three decades were all
      preceded by so many red flags and reports predicting the public danger that
      each of the perps should have been crowded by the authorities early enough
      to have prevented the crime, yet the authorities in the jurisdictions of these
      massacres always claim they couldn’t legally act in time with the individuals
      in question to prevent the crimes. That needs to change more than anything.

  11. George Szaszvari says:

    The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government.
    Thomas Jefferson

  12. Wsm191 says:

    Why are we so consumed with gun debates? If the driving force of anti gunners is increased safety for citizens, then lets ban the automobile. It kills roughly 40k people a year in the US, and just like a gun it doesn’t drive itself. Even worse, the car kills via accidents at an alarming rate. So even when the car isn’t premeditating an accident resulting in death, it still happens, and is alot more common than an idiot with a gun. A positive consequence would be the eradication of oil dependency and safer travel to all!

    It is our countries way to avoid the root causes of issues and congruent with our health care system, provide a diagnosis that doesn’t treat the ailment it only hides it. Take firearms away from all the correlating factors which drive violent crimes and you still have the same problem, screwed up people who need help. Well at least the screwed up people will have job security in the future as all the legal gun owners will have to buy firearms off them on the black market if laws change to punish the legal gun owners and leave the status quo on those who the law never applied to in the first place.

    Freedom comes with responsibly. It should be the right of each of us to excercise responsibly to keep our freedoms, not increasingly lose them every time a group assembles and cries to the media, “oh poor me!”

Leave a Reply

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

You are commenting using your 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

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.