Most of the hard-core gun owners I know are decent, hard-working, solid citizens who would never use a gun illegally. However, when you start talking to them about reasonable restrictions on certain types of weapons or ammunition magazines, they turn into the bastard child of Pee Wee Herman and Professor Irwin Corey. (The latter is certainly a dated reference, but you can look him up on YouTube. It will be worth your time.) These gun guys don’t employ so much talking points as babbling points.
First off, they’ll probably accuse you of hoplophobia, which is a made-up word about a made-up mental disorder, neither of which actually exists.
They seem to argue better when disconnected with reality. They may also say:
It’s wrong to call those things “assault weapons.”
Really?! They’re not for hunting or target shooting, and there’s no way that they’re for personal protection. They have one purpose and that is to kill a whole lot of human beings in a really short period of time. Now, if you think you’re getting the short end of the semantics stick, what would you prefer? The Population Thinner? How about “The Pieces Maker?”
There is no mathematical (or statistical) correlation between the number of guns and gun violence.
Math is like nitroglycerine; both are really dangerous when employed by people who don’t understand them. Obviously, if there were no guns in the United States, there would be no gun violence, so that’s already a correlation.
Multiple studies consolidated by the Harvard Injury Control Research Center show that even when broken down by home, city, state or region of the country, there is a clear correlation between the number of guns and the risk (to both men and women) of homicide. (One encouraging stat: The percentage of American households in which there is at least one gun has decreased significantly over the past 40 years.)
Guns provide us with protection from a tyrannical government.
I’m pretty sure that in 1790, around the time the Bill of Rights was adopted, that statement was true. The average farmer probably had the same weapon as the best-equipped soldier. Heck, it was probably still true in 1890. Today … not true. If that mythical tyrannical government actually existed, it—with its nuclear weapons and Stealth bombers—could wipe out most of America without firing a single bullet. An armed citizenry is no longer the guarantor of freedom; it’s just a bunch of people with a whole lot of guns.
Furthermore, I really resent the implication made by some that gun owners are somehow more American, more patriotic, more willing to defend this country than those who choose not to own guns. I look to what the unarmed people on United Flight 93 did on 9/11. The spirit of America is in all of us equally and is in no way magnified by the presence of a firearm in one’s hand.
Yeah, well, what about cars?
What about cars? I’m assuming that gun owners don’t want to talk about the fact that, in order to operate a motor vehicle, that vehicle must be registered with the government and the owner/operator thereof must undergo extensive training and then pass both a written and a physical test to demonstrate proficiency in the safe and proper use of that vehicle. I’m sure they don’t want gun people to have to go through all that.
(I swear, if the same rules applied to guns and their owners as apply to cars and drivers, I wouldn’t say another word.)
So, they must be making the lame (and nonanalogous) argument that there are a significant number of automobile-related deaths in America every year.
With only the rarest of exceptions, all auto-related deaths are the result of accidents or negligence. Well more than 99.99 percent of all vehicle usage is for positive purposes—going to and from work or school, transporting goods, providing services, and so on. While a certain percentage of gun deaths are accidental, the vast majority are the result of the prescribed operation of the item. Auto-related deaths are the result of the misuse of the product; gun deaths result from the intended use of the product. Seems like a big difference to me.
Two final things that may come up: First, there is the Gun Nut’s Wet Dream, in which he uses his arsenal to prevent his wife/girlfriend/daughter from being raped. This is an enduring fantasy, but the chances of it actually happening are somewhere between absolute zero and very nearly zero. Statistically speaking, wife/girlfriend/daughter is far more likely to get shot by that gun than saved by it.
Finally, there is that about which you will be hearing a lot over the next few weeks, from Chief Nut Wayne LaPierre down to the (almost-) average guy. There is a valid reason for having a 30-round magazine for a handgun.
You walk out to the mall parking lot and are set upon by a marauding band of two dozen or so carjackers who knock you in the head and steal your car. If only you had had a gun with 30 bullets in it! (Actually, if they’re all going to steal your car, they’d have to be wearing clown suits.)
There’s no way that 30 bullets in a gun is for defense. It’s strictly offensive … like many of their arguments.
This article appears in Jan 10-16, 2013.
It’s us gunowners who are going to stop our out-of-control gummint, and it’s us gunowners who are going to stop those nuts from overthrowing our gummint. Oh. Uhhh. Never mind.
The fact is we will never know what would have happened at that school, in that movie theater, at that shopping center parking lot if there had been more guns there. But it is very clear what would have happened in those locations if there had been fewer guns there.
Really Tom?
This article is right on target (pardon the intended pun) Mr. Danehy! Sometimes I think you’re a little self righteous, but this piece here is pure logic & genius. Keep up the good work with more writing like this.
the mother was an irresponsable gun owner for not haveing them locked up in a safe, espeshilly with a son with mental problems!
The Right to Keep and Bear Arms has never been for Deer, Rabbits and Targets. The intent was to prevent Tyrrany and oppression. In the exact same way America has Nuclear Weapons. They are not there just as something fun to have, they as guns are there for DETERENT. Not needing to use either is a successful day!
I agree with Tom 100%, and I vote. The problem isn’t guns versus no guns, the problem is easy access to guns and ammo. We have a real chance to do something about that despite Gov. Brewer’s promise to fight any new gun legislation. Fasten your seat belts people, it’s going to be a bumpy ride. Thanks for the article, Tom.
Take the analogy of car/gun registration one step further. I believe most, if not all states require automobile owners to purchase liability insurance at the very least. Gun owners should do so as well. If an accident or violent activity occurs with a gun, that owner’s insurance should cover the physical, mental health care of the victim and their family, pay for funerals, and other damages. Sadly this won’t bring back the dead, or allow a severely injured and disabled victim to ever again be 100%, but it might begin to assign responsibility which many gun owners seem to designate toward uncontrollable, or unpoliceable causes, such as mental illness, or the sorry fact that one woman did not lock up her guns well enough. Too bad…she’s not talking. Guns are relatively inexpensive. Insurance IS expensive, maybe gun zealots would think twice if it affected their bank accounts. Perhaps the NRA would like to kick in a few bucks for a funeral….they seem to have enough money to own every representative, senator, president and presidential candidate in this country.
Who will be confiscating these weapons of mass destruction, Tommy Boy? You? The other teevee indoctrinated fascists of your ilk? Hardly, you would smugly sit by while armed goons from your beloved government used fully automatic assault weapons with 30 round magazines, sniper rifles, and armored vehicles to do the dirty work for you. Just can’t get that irony there do you? You would enjoy the watching the government utilize violence to fulfill your twisted ideology. That’s cool. You have history setting a precedent for you. Gun confiscation worked in the Soviet Union, Germany, China, Cambodia, Cuba and Mexico. I mean it really, really worked. 260 million souls snuffed out by their own governments in the 20th century.
“The intent was to prevent Tyrrany and oppression.” Really?! Well, as I watch the 2nd Amendment get loosened up to prevent any sensible ownership regulations, I watch the 4th Amendment get viserated in the name of crime fighting. Why don’t you gun owners do something about that? The only time there was ever an armed rebellion in the U.S. it was to protect the institution of slavery. We are forced to live with the highest gun violence rate in the world to protect us against some fanciful dystopia but we do nothing about the real dystopia!
I’d like someone to explain what good came from guns in the past year that balances the lives of the 30,000 who died from gun violence. Or were most of those 30,000 bad guys?
As a conservative Republican and former NRA member, though never a gun owner, I agree with much of what Tom says here, including the possibility of insurance and registration as with cars, as long as there is a concern for potential abuse of those controls. My main disagreement with the anti-gun people like Tom is their language. It is not necessary to use his ad hominem arguments (for the non-latin speakers, I refer to: ‘Chief Nut La Pierre’; ‘bastard child …’; ‘Gun Nut’ … ) to make his case. In fact, his argument is weakened by his language, which I would like to term ‘tirade’.
Makes sense, banish guns but legalize marijuana. Tom, please stop using biased studies like the havard one and look at the FBI crime stats and you will find a relationship between gun ownership and crime rate. Higher ownership = lower crime. If there is a national registration similar to autos, then make the transportablilty of concealed carry go hand in hand. Then I can take my legal concealed carry weapon from AZ to NY to DC to IL without fear of long term jail time. But it seems that you are drinking the far left kool-aid once again.
I’ve got a lot of dislikes for praise that I gave to an article which is extremely valid. More of the gun nuts must be accessing this blog than the reasonable level-headed types.
Nice work Tom. Being a gun owner myself for well over 40 years these ridiculous arguments that are made by gun owners and the NRA are franky embarassing. It’s discouraging that every time there is an effort to engage in some rational, civil discourse, that so many people from the pro-gun crowd instantly flip out and go ‘ballistic’ (pun intended). Why the simple and sane idea of stricter gun controls and reducing magazine sizes inflames otherwise level-headed people has always been a mystery. No one is saying or suggesting that no one be allowed to own a gun. But clearly with tens of thousands of innocent Americans that are killed every year by gun violence we need to look at how to make real changes and real improvements. And now, predictably, the hate mail toward me will begin. Sigh.
Exactly where is the Bill of Rights and our individual liberty mentioned in your article? Oh, it isn’t? And you are the sole arbiter as to what is right on this subject? If it was only that simple Tom. Sorry, I’ll decide for myself and not let you decide.
Again once you desend to name calling and quoting studies that fail to pass the standard of peer review, your argument is self disproving. As far as cars vs. firearms nowhere are cars mentioned in the constitution. That’s why driving is a privilege and bearing arms a right. As inconvenient as it may be for gun control advocates arms are mentioned in both the state and federal constitutions. If you want to change that then change the constitutions, but sinking to name calling and disparaging comments will impress only those that already agree with you.
“Really?! They’re not for hunting or target shooting, and there’s no way that they’re for personal protection. ”
WRONG…large capacity magazines ARE used for target shooting MILLIONS of more times than to cause harm.
What about cars? I’m assuming that gun owners don’t want to talk about the fact that, in order to operate a motor vehicle, that vehicle must be registered with the government and the owner/operator thereof must undergo extensive training and then pass both a written and a physical test to demonstrate proficiency in the safe and proper use of that vehicle. I’m sure they don’t want gun people to have to go through all that.
WRONG again, we owned and operated cars at the age of Twelve, without licenses, training, registration, even drove them on the roads some. If we had been caught on the roads we would have faced the consequences, but on private property, no problem. It’s a STUPID argument.
“There’s no way that 30 bullets in a gun is for defense. It’s strictly offensive … like many of their arguments.”
WRONG again Mr gun hater (your own description) and one who is Ignorant of the machines themselves. Riding out in the desert between I-19 and Arivaca, the Border Patrol and ICE Agents tell us to not be out there “Alone or Unarmed”, and when the bad guys have Full-Auto AK-47’s, an AR-15 with a 30 round mag is the least one should have. We preferred a BAR with (12) 20 rounders and an M-16 with (12) 30 rounders. And the Agents LIKED our selection of DEFENSIVE Weapons.
My thanks, as well, for the excellent piece. When there are more restrictions on toy guns than real guns, there is absolutely a big problem. The Assault Weapons Ban bill is going to be introduced soon in Congress. It was successful for 10 yrs. before expiring during the Bush era…and not renewed. I’ll be writing my members of Congress to pass this, even though I’m pretty sure my 2 GOP Sen’s will oppose it due to lobby money by the NRA, which is bought-and-paid-for by gun manufacturers—not hunters. Join us at DemandAPlan.org.
This guy is against American values. Guess he wants a world govt…. Not for me and my country!!!!
Tom, evey time the gun question comes up, new info/questions come
out. For instant one of the commentors brings up the “30,000
died from guns this past year”…where did this info come from?
Am a pro 2nd amendment supported. Tom, you and all of us have a
right/duty to protect ourselves. We can not put 100% burden of
protection on our police officers…for we have given them the tools to respond to the site of shootings in 4 to 20 minites or
more. In the “dead time” before the officer arrive people will be
at the whim/wit of the shooter. When you and I can cut the “dead
time” down to zero seconds then cool conversations can be had.
Thanks and Good Luck.
Tom, I really appreciate the Professor Corey reference (My late Dad first alerted me to his work.) and generally agree with what you wrote.
To those who are busily gnashing their teeth over what Tom wrote, I would ask that you merely consider what kinds of laws could prevent another Newtown?/Aurora/ fill in the blank tragedy. Seriously- gun owners should be able to provide some input on possible ways to keep us all safer. I mean, keeping guns out of the hands of the insane would be OK, no?
I don’t want to take away everyone’s guns. America has a long tradition of individual gun ownership and I don’t believe that it would be either the right thing to do or even possible to do. My wife and I are planning to move from a state with very strict gun control to one that has, basically, none. When we get there, we’re going to guy a gun for each of us and learn how to use it safely and how to hit what we aim at. If I can’t master the aiming part, I’ll sell the gun. I only mention this so that you can see that I am NOT anti-gun.
But we need to remember that armed insurrection against the U.S. Government is specifically NOT provided for in the Constitution. In fact it is considered treasonous and can get you executed. Besides, all of the anti-government arms fanciers would stand less than zero chance against the U.S. Armed Forces. So, I guess that eliminates the need for high capacity magazines. I mean if you’re hunting or even if you’re defending your family, it seems that ten shots should prove to be more than enough. If you can’t do the job with ten shots, perhaps your eyesight or hand/eye coordination might indicate that it would be safer for us all if you did not own or use a gun.
I remember that after the Aurora theatre massacre, some congressional nit-brain (A Republican from Texas, of course.) actually suggested that, had the audience members been armed, the assailant could have been stopped by the gun owners in attendance. To which I say- Yeah, sure. In a dark, smoke-filled theatre auditorium full of panicky people, we’re going to have several would-be heroes save the day by shooting in the general direction of where they THINK the bad guy is. Think it through. Would YOU want to be in an auditorium, in the dark, with an unknown number of people firing weapons at a target that, even if hit, is protected by full body armor. I gotta admit, this, even by Congressional standards, is the single stupidest thing I’ve heard in years. And, what happens when the cops arrive? How do they know who shot whom? You want to walk into that? Not me.
I understand that people want to protect their homes, lives and property and that some (Including me.) want to use guns to do so. I also understand that the shooting sports have a large number of adherents and I have no issue with that. But I do NOT want the whack-job down the street (Yes, we really have one.) to own a bazooka. Or an AK47 or even a slingshot.
Basically what I’m asking is for everybody, gun-people and non-gun-people to just try to come up with reasonable (Not armed guards in every school. What in Hell is wrong with that LaPierre guy?) and actionable ways to allow guns but also keep guns away from those who shouldn’t have them. And to rid our society of the weapons that serve no purpose other than killing as many people as possible as fast as possible. I don’t believe that any responsible citizen needs the weapon that sent 20 first graders and six heroic adults to a very early and undeserved grave.
I’ll have to post anonymously as I’ve forgotten my Tuscon Weekly password.
Let the kvetching begin!
OK, I guess it won’t be anonymous.
Mr Danehy were you and your friends offended by the Guns with large clips that were allowed by Eric Holder and the rest of the walking lobotamised Democrats into Mexico where Citizens are not allowed to have guns. There again if it is your neighbors gun take it they should not have it, but you should have your gun. Yikes! Did you also tell your kids not to drink with a 6-pack in your hand?
I don’t drink. Never have. Same for my kids.
They really do let any Tom, Dick and Harry write here. Sorry Tom but yes they are for hunting, my buddy just took a deer with his last month and with the new law you dont have to worry about magazine size, thanks to our bad neighbor down south, they want to make sure we can defend our selves from any drug and human smuggler that we might run into while we are hunting. So yes tom they do have other uses unlike anti-gun columnists.
and P.S.
What is really scarey is you thinking our own government would use nuclear bombs against it’s own people. I’m going to keep my AR closer now and I really meant Tom, DICK and Hairy.
Tom you forgot one good reason to have large capacity magazines, THE ZOMBIE APPOCOLYPSE!
About the ridiculous analogies that gun nuts keep making about banning cars?
Amazingly stupid.
During the past few decades, auto makers have been spending billions upon billions to make cars safer.
Actually, Matthew Ribarich, that so-called Holder gun-running operation into Mexico was set up by the Bush Administration.
Mr or Mrs Wisdom, it was not set up under Bush. IF you do your research you will find the program under the Bush Administration tracked the guns and when they found unlike Obama’s, when they found some slipping through, they shut it down. Didn’t lie about it have our fellow countryman killed by it and also under Bush NO WHERE near the amount of death’s in Mexico as Obama. Is He you god or what excuses, lies and none of it bothers the left none of it.
State Senator R.C. Soles (D – NC)
Long time Anti-Gun Advocate State Senator R.C. Soles, 74, shot one of two intruders at his home just outside Tabor City , N.C. about 5 p.m. Sunday, the prosecutor for the politician’s home county said.
The intruder, Kyle Blackburn, was taken to a South Carolina hospital, but the injuries were not reported to be life-threatening, according to Rex Gore, district attorney for Columbus, Bladen andBrunswick counties..
The State Bureau of Investigation and Columbus County Sheriff’s Department are investigating the shooting, Gore said. Soles, who was not arrested,declined to discuss the incident Sunday evening.
“I am not in a position to talk to you,” Soles said by telephone. “I’m right in the middle of an investigation.”
The Senator, who has made a career of being against gun ownership for the general public, didn’t hesitate to defend himself with his own gun when he believed he was in immediate danger and he was the victim.
In typical hypocritical liberal fashion, the “Do as i say and not as i do” Anti-Gun Activist Lawmaker picked up his gun and took action in what apparently was a self-defense shooting. Why hypocritical you may ask? It is because his long legislative record shows that the actions that he took to protect his family, his own response to a dangerous life threatening situation, are actions that he feels ordinary citizens should not have if they were faced with an identical situation.
It has prompted some to ask if the Senator believes his life and personal safety is more valuable than yours or mine.
But, this is to be expected from those who believe they can run our lives, raise our kids, and protect our families better than we can.
What is needed is a clear minded, level headed discussion based on logic and rationale without the distortions of idealogy. In my experience, that’s almost impossible with gun advocates. I’ve even been told that I am a danger to the country for not owning a weapon. At the mere mention of such a conversation, gun people come back with the same specious arguments and abusive replies to my comments.
I appreciate Thom Danahy’s candor and refusal to be intimidated. I wish there were more like him.
First, somewhere between 40-50% of all firearms deaths are by suicide. This is homicide of the self, however, is it truly accurate to include these deaths? It would be if the ownership of a firearm was highly correlated with the rate of suicide (it is not). So, Tom’s mathematical argument takes a massive 40-50% hit (Oops! That could be construed as violent imagery! Remember 23 months ago when all the media hacks had their knickers in a twist over any perceived violent word/picture imagery? Seems the average American wouldn’t fall for that Shinola and they dropped it).
Re: Tom’s argument against “Guns provide us with protection from a tyrannical government.”
Shockingly, a long time sports coach for young adults, Tom argued against the ability of an outclassed, out experienced and out-equipped team having the ability to beat a superior team. The history of warfare and revolution, as well as the history of human sport, is replete with examples of the “inferior” besting the “superior,” even when the betting odds were extremely long.
Blah, blah, blah… I could continue picking apart Tom’s argument, however, it has become boring as, ah…well, shooting fish in a barrel.
OOOOOOooooo! For the few lefties that believe in hell, they surely are thinking I’m going to hell for that last comment. For the easily bunched panties crowd, that was NOT a threat against anyone. It is a long used idiom.
Somewhere between 40-50% of all firearm deaths are by suicide. This is homicide of the self, however, is it truly accurate to include these deaths? It would be if the ownership of a firearm was highly correlated with the rate of suicide (it is not). So, Tom’s mathematical argument takes a massive 40-50% hit (Oops! That could be construed as violent imagery! Remember 23 months ago when all the media hacks had their knickers in a twist over any perceived violent word/picture imagery? Seems the average American did’t fall for that Shinola argument and it died without a wimper -OOOOooo, there I go again with the violent imagery).
Re: Tom’s argument against “Guns provide us with protection from a tyrannical government.”
Shockingly, a long time sports coach for young adults, Tom argued against the ability of an outclassed, out experienced and out-equipped team having the ability to beat a superior team. The history of warfare and revolution, as well as the history of human sport, is replete with examples of the “inferior” besting the “superior,” even when the betting odds were long.
Blah, blah, blah… I could continue picking apart Tom’s argument, however, it has become boring as, ah…well, shooting fish in a barrel.
OOOOOOooooo! For the few lefties that believe in hell, they surely are thinking I’m going to hell for that last comment. For the easily bunched panties crowd, that was NOT a threat against anyone. It is a long used idiom. Geez, the disclaimers one has to write when dealing with the 21st century sensitive set.
Reading your horseshit once was bad enough, if you want to add a post script you shouldn’t bother to include your entire comment again before it.
Hey, folks! Check out the article below! It states the case FOR gun ownership a lot better than I can!
http://freedomoutpost.com/2012/12/hey-lefties-heres-an-example-of-the-need-for-assault-rifles/
Hey Lefties! Here’s An Example Of The Need For “Assault Rifles”
by Tim Brown
I used the term “assault rifles” in the title to get your attention. Now let me explain that I do not believe they are assault rifles. They are merely rifles capable firing many rounds quickly. The Left gun control crowd has been saying that there is no need for these kinds of weapons, but my friends nothing could be further from the truth and I want to share with you just one instance that everyone should be able to understand just how needy these weapons are.
The year was 1992, twenty years ago, when following a jury trial, four Los Angeles Police Department officers were acquitted, in April, after being accused in the video recorded beating of a black American named Rodney King.
As a result, people throughout the Los Angeles metropolitan area rioted over six days because of the verdict. They engaged in widespread looting, assault, arson, and even murder. The damage these criminals caused was well over $1 billion!
The rioting finally came to a halt after the California National Guard, along with U.S. Marines from Camp Pendleton were called in to help stop them.
During the riots, more than 60 people were killed and over 4,000 were injured.
On April 30, the second day of the riots, Korean-Americans saw the police fall back from Koreatown, leaving them to defend themselves in the midst of heavy looting and fires. A store owner at the time, Jay Rhee, told the Los Angeles Times, “we have lost faith in the police.”
The Times reported in May of 1992:
In the shadow of a flaming mini-mall near the corner of 5th and Western, behind a barricade of luxury sedans and battered grocery trucks, they built Firebase Koreatown.
Richard Rhee, owner of the supermarket on the corner, had watched as roving bands of looters ransacked and burned Korean-owned businesses on virtually every block.
But here, it would be different.
“Burn this down after 33 years?” asked Rhee, a survivor of the Korean War, the Watts riots and three decades of business in Los Angeles. “They don’t know how hard I’ve worked. This is my market and I’m going to protect it.”
From the rooftop of his supermarket, a group of Koreans armed with shotguns and automatic weapons peered onto the smoky streets. Scores of others, carrying steel pipes, pistols and automatic rifles, paced through the darkened parking lot in anticipation of an assault by looters.
“It’s just like war,” Rhee said, surveying his makeshift command. “I’ll shoot and worry about the law later.”
From tiny liquor stores in South-Central Los Angeles to the upscale boutiques in Mid-Wilshire, Korean store owners have turned their pastel-colored mini-malls into fortresses against the looter’s tide.
For many store owners, the riots have become a watershed in the struggle for the survival of their community.
The store owners shot off at least 500 rounds into the sky and ground to break up masses of people that were looting. They could have only accomplished that with the types of weapons they were using.
By the end of that first day of defending themselves, they have killed four looters and beat back the mob that had moved into their area.
AR-15Though they desperately tried to get the police to respond, even asking “Where were you when we needed you?” police would not show up for another 24 hours. Additionally, it was reported that 200 police uniforms had been stolen and according to a Korean radio announcer at the time, “We cannot trust a person just because they are wearing a uniform.”
Eventually things were brought under control. However, understand that the Clinton signed “assault weapons ban” was just two years later. Imagine if that had been in place when the rioting took place. It is highly possible that many of these Korean-Americans would not have been able to defend themselves, their property or their families and obviously the police were not very effective.
So I ask those who may read this article who are in favor of gun bans, more gun laws, and simply more control, are you willing to simply stand for government telling you how you can and cannot defend yourself, your family and your property? You better think this through before you go calling for it. After all, if the police in LA will abandon the people of Koreatown, what makes you think they won’t leave you to fend for yourself should something similar take place in your neighborhood?
Have any of you seen the video of those 2 guys from Mass. who got the shit beat out of them with bats and tire irons by a gang of thugs out side a pizza joint in N.Y.C. Bet they wish they had a gun.
How about the fact that 94% of Homicides in the US are done with something other than an “assault weapon”? So you’re rallying, whooping and hollerin’ about a *nothingburger!*.
A worthless piece of “feel good” legislation that will do nothing but inconvenience lawful gun owners.
The magazine ban? Worse than worthless! The “gun nuts” saw you coming and imported hundreds of millions of them, which will all be grandfathered, and stored in little “weapons caches” throughout a a hometown near you by lawful (but fearful) gun owners, ready for a thief to steal and use against your precious children.
The ban on online sales of ammo? Well, that will raise the cost of ammo, making the “gun nuts” in your hometown less likely to practice. Smooth move!.
“These gun guys don’t employ so much talking points as babbling points.”
Ah, so knowledge and experience on a subject now equate to “babbling points”? I think it more accurate to say that ignorance and irrationality count as such, so I’ll explain yours.
“They’re not for hunting or target shooting”
Bull, I use my AR for both of those things. Hundreds of thousands, likely millions are used for the same activities. They are, in fact, one of the most popular rifle platforms for the rather misnomered “high power” target competitions. (In that category, “high power” means anything over a .22 rim-fire. The most common AR caliber is one of the weakest centerfire rifle rounds.)
“there’s no way that they’re for personal protection”
Bull again. That’s exactly what many of them are also for. (Hey it’s a very versatile weapon, deal with it.) Relatively low power, but enough to do the job, less likely than most rifle rounds to over-penetrate. A modular weapon system that can be easily configured for a variety of different-sized people with adjustable stocks and grips. Easy to handle, see prior adjustability, and relatively short over-all length. Low-recoil, so easy to fire for smaller/weaker/older people.
“They have one purpose and that is to kill a whole lot of human beings in a really short period of time.”
Bull #3. If that’s true, why do police and government agents need them? Why do 99.999999% of them never get used in crimes? How do explain any other semi-auto firearm?
I’d go on, but the destruction of your first four points pretty much takes the ground out from under all the rest of your wildly erroneous assertions. If you feel up to the discussion, I’ll happily detail the errors you have made in your other claims as well. Let me know…
South Jersey Doc, you are confused on the purpose of the Constitution. It is not a list of things the people may do. It sets out the limitations and responsibilities of the government, delegates certain, limited powers to the government, and explicitly lists and protects some Rights of the people, but specifically does not limit those Rights merely to the ones listed.
The Right to revolt against oppression is inherent in being human. And it’s not a crime… if you win. How do you think this nation came into existence? It need not be listed in the Constitution, but the additional writings of the founders made clear that it was one of several purposes of the Second Amendment.
grandma8, please tell me how the former “Assault Weapons Ban” was “successful”. Please cite to stats that prove it reduced crime. Or that crime rose after it expired.
And if you want a plan, please propose one.
Get real, gun lovers!
The reason you love guns so much is that they might solve your problems with impotency.