Here’s hoping
Gun Control NOT on Dem’s Agenda. I don’t believe them.
Remember, I do this to entertain me, not you.
Uncle Pays the Bills
 |
|
Find Local
|
Categories
- ATF (769)
- Death Match (10)
- Eminent Domain (225)
- In the bag (9)
- Notes to Junior (546)
- Poker (74)
- Recipes (142)
- Shotgun Noob (11)
- The Airing of Grievances (19)
- uncategorized (47,725)
October 12th, 2006 at 10:09 am
Though there are some Democrats who actually support the RKBA, like my Congressman Bart Gordon (6th District, TN). But the national establishment of the Democratic Party will push their Nazi-Commie anti-gun agenda if they take control. That will happen especially as a simplistic, reactionary response to the recent school shootings in which numerous gun control laws were violated demonstratiing that gun control doesn’t work. Allowing adult law-abiding citizens to be armed does work to protect kids. Criminals prey on unarmed and disarmed victims. Politicians that want to disarm us with more gun control and “gun-free” zones are accomplices to violent criminals. And how would they enforce gun control against those of us who refuse to give up the RIGHT of armed self-defense?? Oh, by guns of course!!
October 12th, 2006 at 1:33 pm
I don’t either. See my post at Rivrdog on the subject yesterday, and it will also be in th Carnival of Cordite soon.
October 12th, 2006 at 3:13 pm
Uncle:
I think the Democrats have finally realized that gun control is a losing issue for them. If they get a majority and get too comfortable with that majority, it will probably rear its head again, but the solution to this isn’t to avoid Democrats, it’s to elect pro-gun Democrats. (Who actually do exist outside the realm of rumor and speculation…)
Ron W:
But the national establishment of the Democratic Party will push their Nazi-Commie anti-gun agenda if they take control.
A big part of this can be explained by the fact that Democratic influence is currently limited to places like New York, California, and Massachussetts. In the rest of America, there are a lot more pro-gun Democrats. But since Democrats aren’t winning in those places (presumably because they’re gay abortionists who want to destroy Christmas or something), these Democrats have little or no influence.
Allowing adult law-abiding citizens to be armed does work to protect kids.
I hear claims like this repeated, but I’ve never seen compelling evidence to indicate that it’s actually so. In fact, if I’m not mistaken, the majority of violent crime in America is of the gang/drug related variety, in which the victims are themselves often armed (and presumably dangerous).
October 12th, 2006 at 4:11 pm
tgirsch,
The statistics show that armed citizens either thwart crime or defend themselves and others thousands of times each year. Those incidents are usually kept out of the media, hence your apparent lack of evidence. A few years ago two college students retrieved their guns from their vehicles to stop a shooting at a Virginia college. I remember that part of the incident being left out of news reports–just as happened in Memphis a few months ago when an armed citizen stopped a slasher that had attacked several peopel at a grocery store and was chasing another outside. I remember that WSMV here in Nashville reported that incident two or three times and Dan Miller NEVER mentioned the armed citizen, but said he “was wrestled to the ground”. I wrote him and another of my friends wrote him to correct him and he still subsequently did NOT mention the armed citizen. That’s two examples that the lack of “compelling evidence” for aremd self-defense is deliberate.
And tgirsch, if YOU are ever confronted with an armed criminal(s), would you rather be unarmed or armed?
October 12th, 2006 at 4:15 pm
I hear claims like this repeated, but I’ve never seen compelling evidence to indicate that it’s actually so.
Pearl. Ms. , Appalachian School of Law, NYC (don’t remember the father’s name, shot and killed an assailant in his child’s bedroom). Hunting camp, police stations, firing ranges.
Compelling evidence is not available because it is hard to quantify non-events. If you have paid attention, though, you will note that mass murder of children or anyone else only takes place where the unarmed are. Even in the few instances where a killer has miscalculated and someone other than he had a gun, even illegally as did the principal in Pearl, Ms. the killing doesn’t reach the proportions it traditionally does where all are defenseless. Here again, you ask for compelling evidence, yet by its nature and armed citizenry is responsible for non-events, which are very hard to quantify.
I suggest you read some Gary Kleck or a book by another author, More Guns,Less Crime.
October 12th, 2006 at 8:59 pm
” In fact, if I’m not mistaken, the majority of violent crime in America is of the gang/drug related variety, in which the victims are themselves often armed (and presumably dangerous).”
Although I can’t answer the statistic conundrum, the above seems like a pretty good reason to carry a gun to me.
If a gang member or meth junkie accosts me, no statistic will be of any benefit whatsoever.
October 13th, 2006 at 3:43 pm
Ron W:
And tgirsch, if YOU are ever confronted with an armed criminal(s), would you rather be unarmed or armed?
Honestly, it depends. If I’m armed, and he’s armed, and he’s already got his weapon trained on me, drawing my weapon will only escalate the situation from possible violence to near-certain violence. Now, if he just wants my wallet, even if I’m armed, I’m probably better off just giving it to him. If violence is his intent, then I’ve probably got nothing to lose by drawing. Yes, having a weapon gives me an option I wouldn’t otherwise have, but it also potentially opens up a bad decision — in the heat of the moment, if I’m armed, I may unwisely choose to draw my weapon when the more prudent thing to do would be to just hand over the wallet; and in this scenario, I just got myself shot when I could have gotten away with a loss of $100 and the hassle of canceling my credit cards.
Look, I’m more pro-gun than most, but in these scenarios, I think that gunnies are guilty of way oversimplifying things, treating the weapon as if it’s a “magic bullet” (no pun intended), when the reality is MUCH more complicated. It’s not enough to be armed. You have to be proficient in the use of the weapon, and in fact you have to be more proficient than your attacker(s). And you have to be cool under pressure.
In real life, nobody really wants everyone to be packing. What we want is people who are rational, law abiding, competent, and responsible to be packing. I generally support open gun rights because I do believe in a fundamental right to self defense, and recognize that it’s impossible for the government to make those distinctions without a great deal of intrusion.
All I’m saying here is that that we on the pro-gun side aren’t necessarily well-served by throwing out bogus statistics and statements not supported by solid evidence (bearing in mind that the plural of anecdote is not data). This truism is exacerbated by the fact that to most ordinary people, the idea that more guns = safer public is incredibly counterintuitive, such that if you’re going to make statements like that, you need to be willing to back that up with overwhelming evidence. But that’s not really what the evidence actually shows. Even from the intuitive perspective, the only thing that’s intuitively true is that I’m probably safer if I’m armed and my assailant isn’t. That doesn’t extend to the macro scale, however.
straightarrow:
Isn’t More Guns, Less Crime based on the oft-discredited Lott work?