Show this to an anti-gun rights activist

Originally posted by 3vilscript


Okay, I'll bite. Your right that driving exams are for the most part useless. But does that say something about the driving exams or does it say something about the people. Maybe some people should not be allowed to drive? Maybe with a more comprehensive exam you could find out who those drivers are. And if it can save the life of 1 innocent person is it not worth it? Because, as you say, the simplest approach is not working. The same with guns. The simplest approach, not hanging out with people who carry guns, calling the cops, etc., Is not working. So what then should we do?

I don't remember driving as being listed in the Bill of Rights. Some people shouldn't be allowed to drive, but these days driving is considered a right and not a privilege. Gun ownership is a recognized right by our Founding Fathers.

That said, the simplest approach is still the correct approach. If you know someone that is an idiot and owns a gun, don't hang out with him. Same as if you know someone who is an idiot and drives like an idiot...do you ride with him? It's the reasonable man theory, and assuming you are a reasonable man, you don't hang out with the idiot with the gun nor do you ride with the idiot driver.

You know what though? There are other idiots that will hang out with the guy with the gun or the wannabe Nascar driver in the Pinto. That's where natural selection takes over and these guys win a Darwin Award. Is that harsh? Maybe, but if someone is stupid enough to be stupid with a gun, car, lawnmower, or toothbrush and end up killing themselves, that's their problem. I shouldn't have to go through a archaic system of tests, etc, to buy a firearm just because some people are idiots.

Now I'm not against guns as I stated before. But I don't see why a responsible American would not want to go through a more difficult process of buying one. If indeed your plans are not to use it for criminal purposes then why not. Criminals are able to buy guns very easy, and that is just unacceptable.

I read that and to me it's like you just contradicted yourself. Why should a reasonable, law-abiding citizen have to go through this difficult and/or long process to buy a weapon.....just because criminals don't go through them? Criminals don't follow the rules anyways so how and why would forcing the people who do follow the rules and laws into a system where they have to suffer more?

And by the way, what's the need? There's already the national instant background check conducted for every firearm purchase. Also, if someone wants to carry a concealed firearm, they have to go through even more background checks and classes/training. Why do we need even more controls????

Guess it's time to post the map again ...

map

the map that shows that basically EVERY mass shooting incident that has taken place in the U.S. has occurred in a so-called "gun free zone".

Criminals just call it a target rich environment.

reply to post by centurion1211


I wanted to say thanks for that link. I hadn't seen that before and this is a very interesting piece!

Originally posted by centurion1211
Guess it's time to post the map again ...

map

the map that shows that basically EVERY mass shooting incident that has taken place in the U.S. has occurred in a so-called "gun free zone".

Criminals just call it a target rich environment.

Great map! I grew up in illinois, the "no one will carry so much as a butter knife" state, and to help the 3vilscrpt who said, "even with the citizens owning guns, it may not have stopped the extermination" on page 1. The criminal survey showed thug fear of resistance, and a daddybare used the "tiger or rabbit" analogy, which was perfect. Illinois AND Wisconsin, forbid citizens from self protection, but POLITICIANS ARE EXEMPT....imagine the entire nation like the RED states.

Remember the bailouts and HCR, then remove a basic right to defend yourself and viola! The U.S. being possibly added to daddybares historical stats 50yrs from now.

[edit on 20-4-2010 by ahmonrarh]

[edit on 20-4-2010 by ahmonrarh]

To all those who are pro-right to bear:
Should the right to bear be restricted to small firearms for personal protection against thieves, robbers and criminals of such unorganized and small scale assault?
Or is the right to bear synonymous with automatic/assault weaponry?

Sorry, Im not American and so I do not know the innards of the right to bear et al.

The 2nd amendment has nothing to do with hunting or protection from burglars.

It has everything to do with being able to STAND UP TO TYRANNY IN GOVERNMENT should it arise! Period! That is what it's all about, don't ever let anyone take our guns away, they will be our last resort to preserve our freedom!!!

reply to post by 3vilscript


I agree with you that the scenarios are too simple. It is also true that the true change a tyranical government wants is the change of mindset regardless of whether or not the populace is armed. With the correct change of mindset the subject or armament becomes moot. Sure you could just carpet bomb the resistance, but the collateral damage would polarize the situation too much, and to maintain control you must keep everything marginalized. Teach their kids at school to rat them out about anti-establishment talk, or actions. Reward their neighbors for bringing such anti social activities to light. Demonize the opposition, and their own grandmother will rat them out for "the greater good." That's how you win without firing a shot. Hitler was great at it. Our politician's must have been taking notes.
That is what makes the gun control crowd dangerous. The legislation they favor lays the ground work for removal, not "control". Do I want criminals to have guns? NO. Do I want my neighbor who has a wife, and kids to have one? You bet. I also don't want criminals to have body punches to make little holes in car doors without you noticing so they can get your home address from your GPS, and come rob your house, or crowbars, and screwdrivers etc... I don't see anyone asking for legislation making it harder for criminals to get all the other tools necessary to invade homes. It would be pointless. So is gun control. If you make it harder for the law abiding to get guns that is all whom you are affecting. The criminal will still get his gun the same way he always did. From your sock drawer when you are away. I can't support "tougher" gun control laws because they are off target(pun intended) They do not affect the right demographic. they only make it harder for the law abiding to protect themselves, and increase the chance that the criminal will be able to ply their trade sans resistance. I agree with the driver's license analogy. If licensing, and registry really worked well we wouldn't have so many automobile accidents. Just because you passed the test one day years ago doesn't mean you can still drive worth a damn today. Just because I can get through a bunch of expensive time consuming red tape one day years ago doesn't mean I'm not going to eventually shoot someone someday(justified or not) The bottom line is this: You cannot legislate morality. You can only punish those who break the law. Pre-emptive law never works. Make the consequences harsh as a deterent, don't try to deter the consequences. Criminals usually aren't forward thinkers anyway.
If I ruled the world the gun rule would be: anyone can have whatever gun you want/like, and as many as you like. If you destroy another's property with it whether intentional or not you will wholly pay for it's replacement. If you kill another not in defense of life, or impending harm, you get to join them in the great beyond. If you continually display a lack of restraint with firearms, and other's safety, and property you will be blacklisted, and not allowed to own any firearms. If caught with one you get to spend a lot of time in the pokey. Other than that buy em', shoot em', wear em', enjoy em', and be responsible with them because irresponsibility will cost you a lot. That law singles out no one, covers everyone, and affects the criminal as much as the responsible owner. After all it isn't the tool it is the operator. You can easily kill with a hammer, but Home Depot has hundreds of them. Punish the evil doer, don't split hairs about the tool he used.

You should show them this too.



Secondary moral of the story: Don't bring a knife to a gun fight!

Originally posted by DaMod
You should show them this too.

Secondary moral of the story: Don't bring a knife to a gun fight!

LMAO!!! and you want to know whats even funnier...Its a person from one of the most repressed (gun wise) countries that's doing the voice over. LOL Heh, i cant say much..I'm one of them Brits and I carry a .40 and a .38 as a BUG!! God Bless the 2A!!!

reply to post by Moonsouljah


Yes, both parties choose to ignore certain information to benefit their personal argument. The fact of the matter is, the right to bear arms will help decrease violence because people will be able to defend themselves, making criminals think twice about robbing a house or committing other crimes.

reply to post by demonseed

Would all the people that want to ban guns be willing to ban motor vehicles?

USA 2007 STATISTICS

Motor Vehicle Fatalities = 43.1k ~source~

Gun Fatalities = 29.6k ~source~

OK, looks like the gun crowd won this one. This is disguised as a second line but actually echoes the first line and could possibly be interpreted as a BUMP.

edit to say - is it really lives you want to save? Or is it CONTROL that you crave?

[edit on 15-6-2010 by FearNoEvil]

without guns we would have nothing, fact, countries strive on who has the biggest guns