You know it’s a slow day when I’m linking to anti-gun blogs, which, I have to say, are few and far between, and as best I can tell, mostly unread.Â Let’s start fisking:
The Virginia Tech shooting – 33 dead, 25 wounded – was another spark for the gun control debate in the United States. The National Rifle Association continues its campaign on the erroneous belief that the 2nd Amendment confers individual gun rights, and gun control advocates fight a rearguard action against some of the more heinous assault weapons (the linked gun can empty its 30-round magazine in 3 seconds).
Well, it does protect an individual right.Â Even the liberal constitutional scholars think so.Â The assault weapon you linked to has been illegal to import into the United States since 1968, as has any other foreign made rifle capable of fully automatic fire.Â Domestically made full-autos have been illegal to manufacture for civilian use since 1986.Â Possession of fully automatic firearms has been tightly regulated since 1934.Â You really don’t have any idea what an “assault weapon” is do you?
- If gun control doesn’t help reduce violence, then why was the Irish Republican Army asked to destroy its weapon caches as part of the peace process in Northern Ireland?
- If gun control doesn’t help reduce violence, then why has the United States insisted that the Iraqi Prime Minister disarm the militias?
The IRA is a terrorist organization.Â Â Terrorist organizations agreeing to lay down arms, we all agree, is a good thing.Â But the IRA agreed to renounce violence and disarm itself.Â If the IRA had wished to keep murdering people and being terrorists, can you explain how they would have been stopped?Â The UK has had very strict gun control laws since the 1950s.Â How did the IRA get their guns in the first place?
Second, in regards to Iraq, we allow families to keep fully automatic weapons in their homes for self-protection. Â Yes, we’re trying to disband the militias who are fighting the elected government of Iraq, but gun control isn’t the primary method we’re using.
Despite the overwhelming evidence that guns are not a social good, lobbying groups like the NRA continue to advocate for “right to carry” or “concealed carry” legislation. While such legislation is unrelated to higher gun ownership rates, it also has no deterrent effect on crime.
What overwhelming evidence?Â Studies show that guns are used in self-defense from anywhere from 800,000 to 2 million times a year?Â And it’s also shown that concealed carry liberalizaion has had no effect in terms of increasing crime either. Â So, living in a free society as we do, the burden is on you to show why the law restricting people’s right to defend themselves is necessary.
The facts show that gun ownership is correlated with gun crime, homicide, suicide, and violent deaths of children.
No, it doesn’t.Â Stating it doesn’t make it so.
OK, so it’s a really slow day.Â Hopefully I can find some better stuff to blog about.
15 thoughts on “Anti-Gun = Don’t know crap about the issue”
I was gonna have a go at him, too, but you’re gooood! :-)
I think another fun thing to think about is where he got the assault weapon link from? Did he google on assault weapon and that was the first rifle that looked scary enough?
Actually, the first link in a google search for “assault weapon” takes you to guncite, which I’m sure this bozo entirely disregarded.
No, what he did was go to the Brady Campaign’s page on the 1994 AWB, randomly chose of the of the specific firearms restricted under the bill, and then googled the name of the weapon.
The page he got and linked to has the weapon of the same name listed as being a full-auto rifle, therefore he concluded that the AWB banned machine guns, and that machine guns are now legal. At least that’s what I’ve gleaned from my debate with him.
And hence the problem. He’s taking soundbytes from the Brady’s and presenting them as facts. Which of course is exactly what they intend to happen to spread the meme.
I tend to shy away from the arguments that gun bans can reduce gun crime, Guav. Great Britain is an excellent example that even that isn’t true. It probably does reduce gun suicide, but to be honest, I don’t really care about suicide. I’ve always thought if someone wants to off themselves, that’s their right.
Actually, from what I have found, gun bans do not reduce suicide rates at all, just firearm suicide rates.
And, let’s not overlook the main flaw in the “More households with guns” statistic.
How do the people conducting the study determine what percentage of households in a state have guns in them?
They call people at home and ask them if they have any guns.
Now, I know more than a few gun owners. OK, I know a LOT of gun owners. And I can say in the highest confidence that NOT ONE of them would give an answer to that question to a total stranger on the phone.
But, hey, if the data points in the direction they want, it can’t be THAT flawed, can it?
Hey, it workedâ€”check out his latest entry.
Short version: “Gun rights advocates are far better informed than I am.”
Yet more fools in over their heads yet totally oblivious to the fact. Sigh. The “facts show” those things to them simply because what they think on the issue is obvious to them, and they think they’re well educated, so in their own minds, there isn’t any need to even actually check the facts.
they can pass all the anti- gun laws they want and not one single criminal will turn in or give up their guns.
they will only be taking guns away from the honest citizens.
why cant they understand this.
Comments are closed.