Results 1 to 15 of 15

Thread: Well written article exposing the gun control crowd's lies

  1. #1
    State Researcher dng's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    , , USA
    Posts
    1,290

    Post imported post

    Gun control won't stop school massacres ...
    By Steve Salerno
    November 7, 2007

    The killing of six young party-goers in Wisconsin comes barely six months after the deadliest school shooting in U.S. history, and is sure to set in motion the familiar cycle: impassioned calls for gun control, met by the usual bumper-sticker rhetoric from those who insist that guns aren't the problem.

    Who, by now, doesn't know the gun-lobby talking points? ''If owning a gun becomes criminal, only criminals will have guns.'' True, though hardly a momentous revelation. That circular logic applies to any prohibited behavior: ''If cocaine possession is criminal, then only criminals will possess cocaine.'' Similarly: ''Guns don't kill people, people kill people.'' Yes, and the same could be said of atomic weapons. Should we all own one?

    Ever since Columbine, gun apologists have scrambled to blame these periodic American tragedies on ''the culture of violence,'' ''the media,'' or anything that muddies the waters. The problem for the NRA and like-minded interests is that when you strip away the verbiage and the smokescreens, the lone constant in all of these tragic episodes was the gun itself. There have always been schoolyard disputes, and one is hard pressed to document that the desire to kill one's classmates is more prevalent today than it once was. (Indeed, the overall rate of violent crime -- which could be said to reflect society's ambient level of aggression -- is as low as it's been in 30 years, says the Bureau of Justice Statistics.) Rather, it's the availability of guns that makes today's skirmishes more lethal, when they do occur. In the schools of my youth, arguments sometimes ended in fist fights; kids walked home with bloody noses. But they walked home.

    What's interesting, though, is that many of those who bemoan the transparency of the gun lobby's alibis are guilty of buying into a supposed remedy -- gun control -- whose premises are just as flawed as anything put forward by gun propagandists. Even assuming the success of the difficult endeavor to separate known criminals from guns (and what about people who use a gun to commit their first crime?), gun control rests on two core notions: that we must (a) remove human error from the equation, and (b) render guns as safe as possible to use.

    The problem with (a) is the gun-control movement's ostensible conception of human error as something rare and easily addressed. In reality, of course, human error is an eternal, everyday constant. Think about the dozens of relatively benign missteps committed by even the most responsible among us: We misplace our keys. We throw the car in reverse a fractional second before glancing in the rear-view mirror. We forget to put the milk away after dinner. And then there are the deeper ''errors'' that hint at mankind's darker side: temper tantrums, machismo, silly misunderstandings, hormonal fluctuations. The intrinsic fallibility of human nature cannot simply be wished away in any risk-benefit assessment of guns. If we're going to tolerate such weapons, we must also accept that humans are going to get careless, drunk or angry when guns are nearby. The results will be what they've always been.

    Secondly, if the gun-control movement misperceives the nature of people, it also misperceives the nature of guns. Consider the stunningly oxymoronic notion of ''gun safety,'' wherein we talk as if we can somehow leach guns of their inherent risk. It astonishes me that the same people who uphold the citizen's right to self-defense tout gun safety as a solution to the hundreds of accidental or impulse shootings each year.

    The fundamental Catch-22 should be obvious: Of what use is a gun for spontaneous self-defense if it must be stored unloaded in a locked cabinet with its safety on and a trigger-guard in place? Rendering a gun ''safe'' to have around the house neutralizes its use for defense. You can't have it both ways: To be useful, a gun must be dangerous.

    The doctrine of nuclear disarmament represents mankind's (grudging) admission that we can't be trusted with nuclear weapons. But where guns are concerned, the political gales seemingly have eroded our resolve to abide by what our instincts tell us: that no halfway ''controls'' will succeed at mitigating gun violence. As long as there are guns in general circulation there will be Columbines and Virginia Techs and Amish school shootings, and more massacres like the one that took place in Wisconsin.

    As reasonable people, we already know the only approach that would be effective in preventing such horrors. The question is whether we have the will to undertake it.

    Steve Salerno lives in Macungie. His latest book is ''SHAM: How the Self-Help Movement Made America Helpless.''

    http://www.mcall.com/news/opinion/an...,6572158.story

  2. #2
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Catasauqua, Pennsylvania, USA
    Posts
    3,047

    Post imported post

    Hey! I was just about to post that article!

    I really am up in the air over what the author is trying to say, though perhaps I just don't have the analytical skills of a certain H*nkT. It smells of anti-gunnery, or at least of a kinder, gentler (i.e. "reasonable") approach to gun control, though I can't place exactly how it does this, or if I'm just adding meaning that isn't there.

  3. #3
    Regular Member j2l3's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Seattle, Washington, USA
    Posts
    871

    Post imported post

    I read it to say that gun control doesn't work, that pro gun arguments don't hold water and without coming out and saying it, the only real solution is to ban guns completely.
    CZ 75B 9mm, Ruger P94 .40 S&W, Bersa Thunder .380, AR-15 Homebuild

  4. #4
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Catasauqua, Pennsylvania, USA
    Posts
    3,047

    Post imported post

    j2l3 wrote:
    I read it to say that gun control doesn't work, that pro gun arguments don't hold water and without coming out and saying it, the only real solution is to ban guns completely.
    That's what I thought it was saying, but I was trying to give it the benefit of the doubt. It sounds as though he's using "gun control" as a moderate position.

  5. #5
    State Researcher dng's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    , , USA
    Posts
    1,290

    Post imported post

    Yeah, he exposed the antis arguments, but some of his conclusions seem to be a little off.

  6. #6
    Regular Member j2l3's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Seattle, Washington, USA
    Posts
    871

    Post imported post

    I agree, he's trying to walk the fence but is leaning to a veiled agenda.
    CZ 75B 9mm, Ruger P94 .40 S&W, Bersa Thunder .380, AR-15 Homebuild

  7. #7
    State Researcher dng's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    , , USA
    Posts
    1,290

    Post imported post

    It certainly is an interesting new way to attack 2nd amendment rights; Call out the antis, argue against them, but still slide in the agenda of completely removing guns from the population. Very sneaky...huh? Wolves in sheep's clothing!

  8. #8
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Catasauqua, Pennsylvania, USA
    Posts
    3,047

    Post imported post

    What he forgets, though, is that it would be necessary to move a gun ban along slowly as ever more restrictive "gun control" so that the American people don't get a chance to rebel against it.

  9. #9
    Accomplished Advocate color of law's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Cincinnati, Ohio, USA
    Posts
    3,726

    Post imported post

    The last paragraph says it all.

    "As reasonable people, we already know the only approach that would be effective in preventing such horrors. The question is whether we have the will to undertake it."

    Only "reasonable people" know that the Second Amendment is unreasonable.

  10. #10
    Regular Member XD40coyote's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    woman stuck in Maryland, ,
    Posts
    709

    Post imported post

    Hmm, these folks just never get it, it sure seems MENTAL ILLNESS is the key here. Wether its simple sociopathy, aggressive clinical depression symptoms ( rage over rejection, the rejection feeling being amplified by the chemical imbalance), all the way to someone being totally gone mentally( such as severe paranoid scitzophrenia).

    From studying alot of these shootings, I am finding the rage depression resulting from prolonged rejection cycles, with a dash of something else added in, to be a common thread among the perpetrators.I'd love to discuss my own first hand experiences, but I am afraid the rabid gun grabbers will take my guns from me if they find out about my odd past. But my experience surely puts me in a position few have ever been in (and lived to tell about it), to understanding the whats and whys of some of these shooters. I am a survivor, yet if I talk too much about it, I may get vilified. Am I proud of it? Not really. But I am sure as heck fascinated by it.

  11. #11
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Shenandoah Valley, Virginia
    Posts
    3,806

    Post imported post

    imperialism2024 wrote:
    j2l3 wrote:
    I read it to say that gun control doesn't work, that pro gun arguments don't hold water and without coming out and saying it, the only real solution is to ban guns completely.
    That's what I thought it was saying, but I was trying to give it the benefit of the doubt. It sounds as though he's using "gun control" as a moderate position.
    I'll second these.
    Why open carry? Because 1911 > 911.

  12. #12
    Opt-Out Members
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    59

    Post imported post

    He completely ignored the issue of deliberate misuse of guns.

    That is when criminals, whether public or private use guns to deliberately kill people.

    The whole crux of the anti gun argument is that if we take guns away from everyone to prevent their misuse then people will be safer. This is just the excuse used to disarm citizens and render them powerless.

    The problem is that, "everyone" doesn't include public or private criminals. So, citizens are left in a dangerous position.



  13. #13
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Shenandoah Valley, Virginia
    Posts
    3,806

    Post imported post

    I don't think that gun-control nuts (heh) want to disarm people to disarm people, I just think they are naive enough to believe that a law against owning a gun will prevent someone from breaking a law against killing someone.

    Then again, "Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained through stupidity."

    If it WAS malice, you wouldn't see cases where people realize they need to protect themselves after they get robbed/mugged/whatever.
    Why open carry? Because 1911 > 911.

  14. #14
    Opt-Out Members
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    59

    Post imported post

    The leaders of the gun control movement act out of malice. The followers act out of stupidity.

  15. #15
    Campaign Veteran deepdiver's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Southeast, Missouri, USA
    Posts
    5,974

    Post imported post

    It's a naive argument. Look at England. First they outlawed guns. Then they had to outlaw swords. Then knives. Now last I read there is support to outlaw the purchase of any knife, including regular kitchen knives, by anyone 16 or younger. Next it will be bats and rocks they use to assault people. In the meantime, home invasions, assaults and rapes are through the roof and much, much higher than prior to the gun ban.

    Violent criminals are going to be violent criminals. It is impossible to put controls on every item that might possibly at some point be used as a weapon. Being that SCOTUS has ruled several times that the police have no obligation to protect individual citizens, it is the duty of each individual citizen to protect himself and his neighbor. This has worked throughout history and there is no reason to believe it will not work in the modern age.
    Bob Owens @ Bearing Arms (paraphrased): "These people aren't against violence; they're very much in favor of violence. They're against armed resistance."

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •