Comments on: Another unsigned gun editorial http://www.saysuncle.com/2004/06/28/another_unsigned_gun_editorial/ Remember, I do this to entertain me... not you. Sun, 08 Nov 2009 18:00:44 -0500 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.4 hourly 1 By: Xrlq http://www.saysuncle.com/2004/06/28/another_unsigned_gun_editorial/comment-page-1/#comment-7087 Xrlq Mon, 28 Jun 2004 17:56:22 +0000 /?p=3147#comment-7087 They lost me with the "traced" canard, which tells you nothing about what percentage of any guns were actually used in any crimes, or even what percentage of crimes involved any particular type of gun. They lost me with the “traced” canard, which tells you nothing about what percentage of any guns were actually used in any crimes, or even what percentage of crimes involved any particular type of gun.

]]> By: Thibodeaux http://www.saysuncle.com/2004/06/28/another_unsigned_gun_editorial/comment-page-1/#comment-7086 Thibodeaux Mon, 28 Jun 2004 17:27:26 +0000 /?p=3147#comment-7086 It's interesting that a "ban" that didn't actually, you know, ban any existing guns, somehow caused the "number of assault weapons traced in crime investigations [to decline] 20 percent" in just one year. And of course we have the old chestnut about "assault weapons" killing cops, when in fact most cops are killed by handguns, quite a few of which are the <em>cop's own weapon</em>. Oh and let's not forget that teenagers could use "assault weapons" to kill teachers and students, even though they're probably not even old enough to legally posess a firearm. Of course, they could use sawed off shotguns or 9mm pistols, too, but "assault weapons" are designed to kill as many people as possible, as quickly as possible, unlike other guns that are designed to give the victim a sporting chance. But what REALLY hacks me off is this litany of "no one needs." When I see that, I know there's no point arguing; we're dealing with someone who is stupid or dishonest. Possibly both. It’s interesting that a “ban” that didn’t actually, you know, ban any existing guns, somehow caused the “number of assault weapons traced in crime investigations [to decline] 20 percent” in just one year.

And of course we have the old chestnut about “assault weapons” killing cops, when in fact most cops are killed by handguns, quite a few of which are the cop’s own weapon.

Oh and let’s not forget that teenagers could use “assault weapons” to kill teachers and students, even though they’re probably not even old enough to legally posess a firearm. Of course, they could use sawed off shotguns or 9mm pistols, too, but “assault weapons” are designed to kill as many people as possible, as quickly as possible, unlike other guns that are designed to give the victim a sporting chance.

But what REALLY hacks me off is this litany of “no one needs.” When I see that, I know there’s no point arguing; we’re dealing with someone who is stupid or dishonest. Possibly both.

]]> By: Xrlq http://www.saysuncle.com/2004/06/28/another_unsigned_gun_editorial/comment-page-1/#comment-7083 Xrlq Mon, 28 Jun 2004 17:10:06 +0000 /?p=3147#comment-7083 Technically, it does; however, I think we need a gun exception to the "too stupid to fisk" rule. Like flat-earthers in a pre-Columbus world, there are just too many people out there who still believe that crap. Technically, it does; however, I think we need a gun exception to the “too stupid to fisk” rule. Like flat-earthers in a pre-Columbus world, there are just too many people out there who still believe that crap.

]]>