Three Reasons Gun Control Advocates Don’t Want You to Have A Gun

If you’re wondering why the gun control community favors civilian disarmament, it’s all about personal responsibility. They don’t believe that Americans are responsible enough to own a gun. Why? I’ve got a simple list. But before I trot-out the terrible troika of gun grabbing gibberish, I want to highlight an important point: contrary to their public protestations about “good” vs. “bad” gun owners, gun control advocates do want to grab your guns. But they know they can’t. And not just because the Supreme Court says they can’t.

Gun control advocates know there are several million Ted Nugent-types ready to do the cold dead hands thing. So they focus their efforts on preventing newbies from tooling up. By discouraging new firearms owners (to say the least), they can grab the guns before they’re sold. They’re gun abortionists, as it were.

In this they have been ridiculously successful. Although gun rights are on a roll, let’s not forget that we’re only now emerging from a period where gun control advocates ruled the day. You still can’t carry a concealed weapon in Illinois. New York? New Jersey? Fuhgeddaboutit. My City of Providence Conceal Carry Permit reads number 20. As in twenty ever.

To stop American citizens from exercising their right to keep and bear arms, gun control activists have a simple message: guns are dangerous. Dangerous for unarmed civilians. Dangerous for armed civilians. Dangerous for children. Dangerous for police. Dangerous for society. Too dangerous for you!

Here’s the problem: guns are dangerous. If they weren’t dangerous they wouldn’t exist. What’s more, people get shot. By guns. What’s worse, dangerous people use them. Criminal, mentally deranged and stupid people. There’s no denying this fact. But there is a little matter of context.

It’s your job as a gun owner to provide that context for people who don’t own guns, or own them and support gun control anyway. To do that, you have to counter the three big lies that gun control advocates use to make their case that guns are too dangerous for civilians. Lies that are absorbed by people who’ve never really thought about it. The fibs are as follows . . .

1. People are too stupid to own a gun

It’s certainly true that some people are too stupid to own firearms. TTAG has a whole category’s worth of Irresponsible Gun Owner of the Day posts to prove the point. In general, nothing could be further from the truth.

At the risk of insulting the intelligence of the people who insult the intelligence of existing and potential gun owners, shooting a firearm is a relative simple business. You put the bullets in (the hard part), you aim the gun and pull the trigger. If you don’t pull the trigger . . . nothing happens.

Statistics show that firearms are no more dangerous than swimming pools, automobiles and (in the case of children) plastic bags. That’s before you exclude firearms-related suicides and gun crimes committed by gang bangers. My local gun range—open to the public—pays less than a thousand dollars a month for insurance coverage.

The fact that there are tens of millions of gun owners walking around who’ve never shot themselves or another human being also attests to the simplicity and inherent safety of firearms ownership. The general public may not shoot well, but they get it: be careful with guns. Not because they’re smart. Because they’re smart enough.

If you’re fighting this “people are too dumb to own a gun” meme, keep in mind that gun control advocates are, like gun rights advocates, a highly educated group of people. The key difference: gun grabbers are elitists. [This is the main reasons gun control found so much favor over the last century. Elitists controlled the media.]

The easiest way to counter the argument: ask a simple series of questions. Do you think the average person is intelligent enough to handle poisonous cleaning chemicals? Can they cut their food with a sharp knife—and not use it to stab themselves or others? Can most people operate a car safely? The last one may be a bit of a stretch, but they’ll know what you mean.

2. People are too mentally unstable to own a gun

Remember Emotional Intelligence? Gun control advocates have extrapolated a general principle from the book’s core proposition: most people are emotionally retarded. In the gun grabbers’ world view, the average person is prone to flipping out, grabbing a gun and shooting someone. Or a bunch of someones.

Yes, it happens. But tens of thousands of mentally disturbed people aren’t shooting people on a regular basis (or at all, for that matter). Even if there were tens of thousands of mentally challenged murderers, that would still represent a fraction of the total U.S. population. Aas for spree killings, they’re so rare that the President of the United States felt obliged to fly our 747 to Arizona to personally praise the survivors of a recent massacre.

Some gun control advocates reckon that anyone who shoots anyone is mentally challenged. Ipso facto. The average American may not know Latin, but they know that most people who shoot people are not mentally ill individuals off their meds struggling with inner demons. They’re criminals. Bad guys.

Again it does happen. But whacko, serial and spree killings don’t lead to new gun control measures because Americans know a bald-headed aberration like Jared Lee Loughner when they see one. The fundamental flaw in the gun grabbers’ “We’re All One Step From Madness” argument is that few people have had any direct contact with someone who’s gone off the rails and shot someone. And that’s because, statistically speaking, it doesn’t happen.

Ultimately, thankfully, personal experience trumps media. Equally important, the fear of psycho killers is greater than the fear of someone becoming one. Besides, how do you counter a madman? With criminals you can call the cops or negotiate. (At least in theory.) With a nut-job you need . . . a gun. Hence Arizona’s determination not to do a damn thing about gun control after the Loughner killings.

The best way to counter the Gun Control as Anti-Flip Out meme: make it personal. Force gun control advocates to confront their elitism. I own a gun. If I got really angry or really sad, do you think I’d shoot (name family members)? So why am I so different from other gun owners? I don’t think I am, and I don’t think you can devise a law that stop the crazies without stopping the rest of us. Do you?

By this point, a gun control advocate may start parroting the “If One Life is Saved” argument. Basically, they’re asking you to jettison the very thing that they claim to promote: common sense. Common sense says life is about balancing risk with reward. A fraction of a fraction of the total population of American children may shoot themselves with Daddy’s gun, but society is generally safer from criminals when its law-abiding citizens are armed.

Or is it? The final argument . . .

3. Gun owners are trigger-happy

Gun control advocates (like our very own MikeB30200) see gun owners as wanna-be or proto-vigilantes. They’re just itching to take the law into their own hands at the right end of a gun. And if you “let” average people own guns, they’ll forgo their reliance on civility and the criminal justice system and use their firearms to execute rough justice. Call it The Return of the Wild West (ROTWW).

Admittedly, armed aggression against perceived slight and threats is not an unknown occurrence—especially where it overlaps with the aforementioned mental instability or somehow involves gang signs. Real “trigger happiness”—an average Joe engaging in a road rage revenge shooting or some neighbor-on-neighbor gunfighting—is exciting stuff. But it’s statistically meaningless.

UNLESS you redefine legitimate armed self-defense as trigger happy behavior. As many gun advocates do. So let’s drill down a bit . . .

Nobody knows how many defensive gun uses (DGUs) go down in the US of A. Some say it’s millions per year. It could be less. Or more. Many if not most gun owners never tell the police when they brandish their weapon to successfully thwart a bad guy—given that doing so runs the very real risk of firearms confiscation and banning.

It’s also true that civilians wound and kill more bad guys than cops. But very few of the gun owners who do so go to jail for so doing. Either the court system is cutting gun owners too much slack (a complaint that gun control advocates make on a regular basis), or the shooters weren’t “trigger happy.” Anyone with an ounce of faith in our legal system—the same system that gun grabbers ask citizens to trust instead of a self-defense firearm—will go with the latter.

Distilling this [non]issue to its basics is simple enough: what’s the danger of a gun owner killing the wrong person? Despite the fact that most people are lousy shots, you can round down the odds of a “trigger happy” non-criminal civilian killing an innocent bystander down to zero. It’s not the last thing an unarmed civilian needs to worry about, but I’d buy a lightning rod before I’d don a bullet-resistant vest.

All that’s without considering the benefits of an armed, law-abiding population (i.e. deterrence). Anyway, countering this feeble supposition is child’s play. Do you think that the average person wants to shoot someone? If I gave you a gun, would you want to shoot someone?

Gun control advocates view the common man as stupid, emotionally unstable and aggressive. In this they are wrong. They understand that they must hide this elitism (perhaps even from themselves) to protect their cause. For once it’s exposed, it’s reviled. And their argument with it. Which is how it should be. But don’t expect them to reveal/confront their true colors without your help.

It all starts with a simple question. Do you believe the average American is responsible enough to own a gun?

avatar

About Robert Farago

Robert Farago is the Publisher of The Truth About Guns (TTAG). He started the site to explore the ethics, morality, business, politics, culture, technology, practice, strategy, dangers and fun of guns.

53 Responses to Three Reasons Gun Control Advocates Don’t Want You to Have A Gun

  1. avatarBuuurr says:

    “Gun control advocates (like our very own MikeB30200) see gun owners as wanna-be or proto-vigilantes. They’re just itching to take the law into their own hands at the right end of a gun.”

    The above are thoughts that have been expressed by MikeB and our very own Magoo. Both seem to think of everyday gun toting folks as heroes, as people who will jump in to save your hide without a thought for anything but taking down the bad guy to be the hero.

    By and large, as much as we all would ‘want’ to be the hero, family issues (like continuing to see your son or daughter grow and having a wife you would miss) are a factor.

    Fear is a factor. Let’s face it. Some of us that own guns actually have a fear of being shot. It’s why we have a gun! To counter other guns, no?

    Last but not least is the legal aspect. Anyone who has done a CCW course and carries a gun has been told and knows that to shoot another person WITHOUT any immediate danger to yourself is pretty much a guaranteed jail term unless you have a wizard gun attorney (even then you are screwed most likely). But you would have to be in the know and actually have had some training to carry a CCW to know this. Most gun control fools… sorry… folks have no idea what the hell they are talking about and this really is the heart of the issue.

    As for… “Do you believe the average American is responsible enough to own a gun?”

    Yes, I do. Very much so. Considering the classes I have done involving gun safety and those that I have talked to randomly at my local range – many of them are some of the most sensible people I know and have met.

  2. avatarDave says:

    Well done, some of the better counter arguments I’ve seen

  3. avatarAndy says:

    Excellently written. That last paragraph is great and can easily stand on its own.

    This post should be a permanent link on the side navigation.

  4. avatartdiinva says:

    Robert:

    Please don’t continue to validate the Wild West meme. The West was much safer then the urban East in the 19th Century because everybody was armed.

    The movers and shakers of gun control are socialists who want us disarmed, immobilized and impovershed all to be exploited by a ruling elite. Their vision of the US is one giant Detroit.

  5. avatarJames Felix says:

    “Gun control advocates (like our very own MikeB30200) see gun owners as wanna-be or proto-vigilantes. They’re just itching to take the law into their own hands at the right end of a gun.”

    Which shows just how profoundly ignorant they are about what makes the average gun owner tick. I don’t know any gun owners that want to be involved in the criminal justice system, and if you shoot someone you will be in that system no matter how justified the action was.

    And that’s not even addressing how insulting it is that they think we want to take human lives casually or frivolously.

    What most of us want more than anything is to be left in peace, not to look for trouble. If I go the rest of my life never shooting anything but paper I’ll be a happy guy for it.

    • avatarWilliam says:

      “And that’s not even addressing how insulting it is that they think we want to take human lives casually or frivolously.”

      Gun control advocates are largely guilty of PROJECTION, that is, they often imagine themselves killing others, so naturally they think the same of gun owners.

  6. Robert, Just put the word “Some” in front of your three statements and you’ve got it. After that we can argue about what “some” really means, but at least we’ll be having a fair discussion.

    • avatarBuuurr says:

      Methinks and ‘feel’ you need to read an entire post.

    • avatartdiinva says:

      I read a lot of blogs and I have noticed that there is always some snide joker like you on any blog that deviates from the Huffington Post, Daily Kos, Media Matters party line. Even a center-left blogger like Ann Althouse is infested with know-nothing posters who think they are oh-so smart. I was wondering does someone pay you or are you just freeloading off your parents?

  7. avatarMagoo says:

    I think the average citizen probably does have enough on the ball to carry a handgun, especially with proper orientation and training. It’s you guys who worry me.

    Oh, and don’t keep your handguns in the medicine cabinet. It’s unsafe and promotes corrosion.

    • avatarBuuurr says:

      lulz, Magoo.

    • avatareggyknap says:

      See, I’d rather the folks who talk about guns be the ones carrying them. As an analogy, I just spent a while talking with a programmer about the database he’s just built, pretty much without outside input. I’m a database professional, and in my opinion, his design stinks. But the only reason I can back up that opinion is I’ve been around the database world, and know what works. Similarly, people who have been around the gun world, talking to the armed public, are more likely to know “what works” than the person who just buys a gun and sticks it in a pocket. When you talk to gun owners, you do also get the “I just wanna blow &#$@ up!” crowd (not unknown on TTAG), and the “The sky is falling” crowd (also welcome here). I’d rather have them than the lady whose lipstick is about to cause a negligent discharge with the Bersa .380 she bought and dropped in her purse because she felt scared.

      • avatarMagoo says:

        Knowledgeable gun people, great. Mall ninjas and range commandos, not so great. The knowledge is of negative capability.

  8. avatarVincit Veritas says:

    As some positive anecdotal evidence to counter the generational gun-ownership gap, several of my friends from high school, my future brother in-law, my fiance and I all shoot and have (or will have within the year) a CCW. We’re all mid 20s, none of our parents were gun owners, and most of us are in MA. We all got into shooting for different reasons (a few were in the military), but I doubt we’re the only ones reversing the trend.

    -Patrick

  9. avatarDon says:

    MOST people are pretty on the ball. When you divide crime rates and accident statistics all added together by the 350 million people living here, this is easy to see.

    -D

  10. avatarJimulacrum says:

    Good article. I think an appropriate item #4 would be “Gun-restricting laws actually prevent guns from falling into the wrong hands.” A lot of the anti-gun folks fail to notice that law does not equal reality. Laws against common, non-criminal behavior rarely serve their intended purpose and often breed disrespect for the law from people who are otherwise law-abiding. It’s the same thing we see with functioning, responsible citizens whose only “crime” is enjoying certain recreational substances.

  11. avatarjames says:

    Anybody that can’t be trusted with a gun can’t be trusted without a custodian.

  12. avatarBuuurr says:

    “Magoo says:

    May 4, 2011 at 8:11 AM

    Eyes-closed range practice. Match triggers on carry weapons. Quick-draw drill. Shall I go on?”

    Yes, you should. What is your point? That doing all these things in a closed environment at a shooting range isn’t acceptable? That learning to draw your gun quickly isn’t a life saving skill?

    Shooting with your eyes closed is something that is dangerous but done in a safe environment it is a skill to learn. It tells you just how steady you are and maybe just maybe you will get even more steady with eyes closed. Have you ever wondered how some guys can aim a gun, turn their head, look at the person next to them, smile and hit the bulls eye? Here’s a hint. Eyes closed.

    Match triggers on carry weapons. Where is the issue there? I am confounded to see the issue. If you have proper firearm training and actually have an idea how to use and not use a firearm you would know that the weight on the trigger is irrelevant because the only time I put my finger on it is when I shoot a paper or when I have to and it isn’t a paper. As for those without the training (or common gun sense) the weight on the trigger is the least of our worries.

    Quick draw. Well, if you had any official firearm training (or if you have but just missed this crucial part) you would know you have two seconds (FBI victims/defender stats) from an encounter to the resolution. Two seconds to draw your weapon, acquire and fire three shots on a little card. How quick you draw determines if that resolution ended with you making it through unharmed or not. And let us not forget the fear/surprise element. You have to repeat and practice to truly be ready for that. You would also know that in CCW you are told to practice drawing ‘slowly’, very slowly in front of a mirror. Draw so slow that you can make sure that you learn to wear your clothes just right, that nothing hinders you, that you don’t slip or pull the firearm in any way not right. You then work up. You do it faster without any hitches. You do this a hundred times over and over. Then you actually get a certification in this. Did you know that, Magoo? Did you know that to quick draw on most well run ranges you have to have a sanctioned piece of paper to do so? I bet not.

    You should go on, Magoo. As you do, you reveal just how ignorant you are of firearms and their owners.

  13. I believe most guys CAN handle guns responsibly. It’s the small percentage, somewhere between 10% and 30% that are dangerous, or potentially dangerous I should say. It’s among that group that much of the gun flow to criminals gets its start, too.

    So why do you guys try so hard to deny the existence of these bad apples among you and when forced to admit they exist, why do you fight so hard to allow them to continue having easy access to guns?

    I poke fun at the charming sobriquet which Farago has given you, but I think you are smart. You’re smart enough to organize things better so that the mentally unstable and the criminally inclined among you can’t get guns so easily. With pro-active involvement you could take the steam out of the gun control movement by pre-empting it.

    • avatarJimulacrum says:

      “[W]hy do you fight so hard to allow [the bad apples] to continue having easy access to guns?”

      Yes, there are “bad apples,” as in every group in the history of humankind, and I’m sure your 10–30% figure is accurate and evidence-based. But preventing their easy access to guns involves allowing the federal government to take yet another unconstitutional (and probably nonsensical) step toward infringement of our rights. Maybe we cannot trust some people to be responsible, but we definitely cannot trust the federal government to act reasonably within its limits, especially when it comes to firearms.

      Hell, it didn’t even take them ten years to redefine “terrorism” so that it includes non-violently challenging the Federal Reserve. (Google “Bernard Von NotHaus” if you’re scratching your head.) How long do you think it would take for “bad apple” to become a euphemism for “everyone we don’t like”? How long before nonviolent political protesters are considered “potentially dangerous” because they act in resistance to some aspect or other of the system?

      The “mentally unstable and criminally inclined” are already prohibited from owning firearms when they are known to be such. Would you suggest that we start allowing Big Brother to snoop in our medical records and personal business in order to exercise our rights?

      If you’re afraid of this alleged 10–30% of people to the extent that you’re willing to sacrifice your freedom and privacy, I’m sure there are plenty of countries out there for you.

    • avatarJavier E says:

      You’re right Mike there are some bad apples. Here’s one for you:
      http://www.wral.com/news/state/story/6757337/
      R. C. Soles AKA “anti – gun Soles”
      Senator Soles didn’t think anyone else should have a gun. The hypocryte!

    • avatarBuuurr says:

      “mikeb302000 says:

      May 4, 2011 at 1:11 PM

      I believe most guys CAN handle guns responsibly. It’s the small percentage, somewhere between 10% and 30% that are dangerous, or potentially dangerous I should say. It’s among that group that much of the gun flow to criminals gets its start, too.

      So why do you guys try so hard to deny the existence of these bad apples among you and when forced to admit they exist, why do you fight so hard to allow them to continue having easy access to guns?

      I poke fun at the charming sobriquet which Farago has given you, but I think you are smart. You’re smart enough to organize things better so that the mentally unstable and the criminally inclined among you can’t get guns so easily. With pro-active involvement you could take the steam out of the gun control movement by pre-empting it”

      Me still thinks you need to re-read the post.

  14. The “law” that required a “permit” for a concealed weapon will be essentially repealed as of July 31, 2011 in Wyoming. I’m a certified firearms and self defense instructor, and a number of people have expressed concern that new gun owners would not get the necessary training once this happens. I’m happy to report that my summer classes are filling up rapidly.

    I’ve not met every new gun owner in Wyoming, obviously, but all of those I do meet (I go to gun shows a lot) express a serious appreciation for good safety and defensive training – and spend good money to get it.

    Those who decide not to do so will have to live with the consequences, of course.

  15. avatarPete says:

    “Gun control advocates (like our very own MikeB30200) see gun owners as wanna-be or proto-vigilantes. They’re just itching to take the law into their own hands at the right end of a gun. And if you “let” average people own guns, they’ll forgo their reliance on civility and the criminal justice system and use their firearms to execute rough justice. ”

    I will second Mr. Farago’s comments on this irrational fear of the hoplophobes. As a CCW holder, the LAST thing I want to do is leap into the fray and save some hapless disarmed victims from a criminal. I carry a gun to protect myself, my family, and if I am with them, my close friends. There is NO WAY I would risk death, injury, arrest and a series of lawsuits to protect strangers who are too lazy, or too cowardly, to carry guns to protect themselves. If I find myself in a situation where some terrorist or nutcase is spraying bullets around, the first thing I am going to do is look for a way out that includes cover and concealment. The only way I would return fire is if I have no choice between shooting back and getting shot. I am definitely not going to rush to the sound of gunfire and try to be a hero, because I know damn well that if I shoot at the criminal and miss and hit some innocent 3rd party, I am going to be in jail and probably bankrupt. Forget it.

    If you prefer to go through life as a disarmed victim, that is your choice, and you can live or die with that choice without my protection. Call 911 and wait for the gummint to come save you. The last thing you need to worry about is me “acting like a vigilante” to save your sorry disarmed butt.

  16. avatarRichard says:

    Anyone who can’t be trusted with a gun should not be allowed to either drive OR vote.

  17. avatarJavier E says:

    That last question “Do you believe the average American is responsible enough to own a gun?” YES!!!!!! The military hands out weapons to its people to do their job with some training. So, if you can drive a 3000# or higher four wheeled weapon with minimal training, why not?

  18. avatarBob H. says:

    What about me? I am a former LEO, now retired, but since I no longer carry a badge I fall under the “civilian” category. I am neither mentally ill, deranged, or incompetent, but the anti-gun folks would deny me the right to carry a concealed firearm although I have in excess of 25 years of law enforcement training & in fact still have a current full-time peace officers license. The pure truth is that there are people in this country who don’t believe in the 2nd Amendment or any other amendment. They just don’t want you to have the ability to defend yourself or your loved ones. You concealed-carry folks…..do not surrender your constitutional rights to these liberal extremists, and do not give up the fight.

  19. avatarDocHoliday916 says:

    The author forgets an important point that the very existence and private ownership of guns is the lone deterrent from these nut jobs gaining the control of our lives that they crave. I’m a lover not fighter. I do prefer peace to war, law and justice over lawless anarchy. My guns are mine and they stay with me and they won’t be given up without a gun fight. From cold dead hands; mine or theirs. Are these dirtbags willing to risk it?

  20. avatarkyl says:

    No. 3 states that “Gun owners are trigger happy.” Based on what I read and see on the internet, the biggest problem is the damned cops! If you subscribe to Injustice for Everyone or CopWatch, etc., it’s scary how many cops are making people dead, innocent or not. I get the strong feeling that most cops choose that line of work because they want to experience what it’s like to pull the trigger, knowing in all likelihood they will get a free pass from their bud, the local prosecutor. Sometimes they high-five one another or demonstrate some other form of celebration after using deadly force. If you own a dog and the cops come to your house, you’ve got a dead dog. Doesn’t matter if the dog is chained or behind a fence. They ostensibly have a “need” to kill something, if not someone. Many veterans returning from war often apply and are hired as cops, and apparently still have killing fresh on their minds. And perhaps the most troubling aspect is that the more questionable the circumstances of a cop killing someone is that in order to lend legitimacy to the killing, these killer cops are freaking promoted to protect the image and reputation of their police departments. In the 21st century USA a badge is a license to kill.

  21. avatartimmyoyo says:

    Why is it that guns which are clearly pronounced in that thing we call the Constitution are not protected by the Federal government and many states “ignore” that Constitution and ABORTION WHICH IS IN NO WAY MENTIONED IN THE CONSTITUTION and without a doubt kills an INNOCENT fetus, IS COMPLETELY PROTECTED BY THE FEDS

    So a “womens body a womens right” is backed by the full force of the Federals but the right to protect that “womens body” ( or a mans) is played with

    “It depends what you mean by “is” comes to mind when it comes to Leftists playing their games

  22. avatarStevelyn says:

    Most anti-gunners I’ve met have serious mental or emotional problems. They think it’s normal to be such a trainwreck and think everyone else is just as screwed up as they are.

  23. avatarjpeditor says:

    “1 man with a gun can control 100 without one.” – Lenin

    “A system of licensing and registration is the perfect device
    to deny gun ownership to the bourgeoisie.” – Lenin

    “Germans who wish to use firearms should join
    the SS or the SA — ordinary citizens don’t need guns,
    as their having guns doesn’t serve the State.” – Heinrich Himmler

    “We don’t let them have ideas.
    Why would we let them have guns? “– Joseph Stalin

    “Every Communist must grasp the truth that
    political power grows out of the barrel of a gun.” – Mao

    “We want them all registered.” – Nancy Pelosi

  24. avatarSPURWING PLOVER says:

    Yeah after a shooting or a gun control law is declared unconstitutional by the courts these stupid liberal scribblers insert those annoying editorial cartoons in their newspapers showing gun owners or the NRA and bloodsuckers or what else but knowing these journalists are bias leftists little worms we can no longer wonder why the public dont trust these rotten journalists anymore

  25. avatarAugy says:

    In my opinion the most obvious argument to make against a gun control advocate and one that I have NEVER seen properly addressed is this…

    “Criminals don’t obey the law, never have, don’t legally buy guns, and yet they all seem to have them. Who do you think will obey gun laws, criminals or law abiding citizens?”

    And this is the stumbling block to their entire argument – only law abiding citizens end up being disarmed and become target fodder for the armed criminal. If banning legal ownership of guns would disarm criminals they might be able to make an argument, but it doesn’t work. The criminal element has always done their work off the grid so to speak, and are not the least bit concerned about background checks, firearm owner identification cards, or 3 day waiting periods. When they want a gun they simply go buy one on the street as there are already millions of them out there illegally.

    The absurdity of the gun control advocate is that they try to make an intelligent argument as to why good citizens should be disarmed so they can become easy prey for the armed criminal..

  26. avatarjohn says:

    I feel like there are 2 kinds of people that oppose gun rights – 1) the kind that has some kind of emotional reaction to guns. They lump guns, violence, and death all together. That’s it. Statistics or rights or facts don’t matter. And 2) people who are afraid of violence, but have a means of protecting themselves – politicians. They all have bodyguards. They don’t need guns. They have their own little law enforcement with guns. If the average citizen can’t have a gun, then problem solved for them. That leaves us normal folks unprotected, but so what? Problem solved on their end.

  27. The “elitists” who always advocate STRONGER gun laws, surely believe that MOST of us out here don’t have enough skill or sense to “come in out of the rain” as it were. I still am not sure why these people think they can reform everybody into peaceful, non-criminal, sweet beings with no weapons and no ill intent. But I have a hot news flash for them: It ain’t gonna happen. I suggest that they pay more attention to their own lives and let the rest of us go with the flow. I have owned guns since I was 14 and have been shooting at the range for most of that time. This includes Army basic training with M1 rifle, M1 Carbine, and M1911. I never got to shoot a 50BMG but I certainly wanted to. Few of my fellow trainees had any experience with guns before they were inducted, which surprised and disappointed me at the time. Even guys who were raised on the farm. All these years associated with guns, gun clubs (LOTS of shooters there) and gun shows, all the deaths that were close to me were either suicide (only two) or old age or medical problems.
    I really despise people who attribute such low intelligence just to gun owners, when if they looked around carefully they might find some categories of people who really are unintelligent. Put on your boy panties and LIVE WITH IT.

  28. avatarBrad says:

    “It’s also true that civilians wound and kill more bad guys than cops.”

    I see this line a lot. It is usually followed by the wishful thinking that civilian shooters practice a lot more with and thereby are more proficient with their firearms. I beg to differ. To truly get the picture of why this happens, you’d have to find out what occurs immediately after the shooting.
    I believe it comes down to the actions taken by the shooter. Police and Law Enforcement provide immediate action after the shooting. CPR, blood loss prevention (tourniquet, pressure bandage), preventing shock, etc go a long way to saving the life they just tried to take. Plus the response by paramedics is immediately undertaken, and that include an accurate description of the injuries. Ever listened to a 911 tape from a civilian DGU? It’s usually 30 seconds or more until the call is even dispatched. And then to get the caller to calm down and give an accurate medical description of where the shots went? Forget it. Read the results of a DGU by an armed citizen, I challenge you to find one instance where the shooter gets down and performs immediate aid after the shooting. Usualy, they go to a phone and a 2-3 minute call ensues to 911. Usually the 911 operator keeps the shooter on the phone to keep them out of the way when police arrive and avoid another shooting. They NEVER tell the shooter to get down and render aid. Maybe a passerby or the victim’s buddies try to help but that’s it. Not exactly medical care, rendered immediately after the shooting.
    In a recent post here was very accurate in its conclusion that blood loss in the main reason for death, followed closely by shock (the two are related). You can bleed out in as little to 3 minutes with an arterial hit. Even without, 10 minutes is about average. I am guessing the response from a civilian DGU by qualified medical personnel is right around 5-10 minutes. No links or sources, just my own 18 years of LE experience. If the shooting is in a rural area, that could be longer. With that amount of time, an irreversible amount of fluid can be lost and shock finishes the wounded off quickly after that. Thus, it looks like civilian DGU’s are more deadly, when it really comes down to when first aid was given.

  29. avatarOakieDoc says:

    I am a physician and I must be “dangerous” because I pay a lot more than $1000/month for malpractice insurance. Hospitals are dangerous. Nurses and respiratory therapists are dangerous. Heck, you could be hospitalized for a broken leg and die of pneumonia! So, the very institution of medicine, revered by the public as a life saving vehicle, could end up killing you or someone you love.

    • As far as Americans being too irresponsible to have guns, what about CARS, MOTORCYCLES, Bicycles, 18 wheelers, trains, graders, cranes, tractors, the list is endless. I suggest all these “nervous nellies” as I like to call them, put on their big-girl panties and man-up and live with LIFE. As far as restricting our guns and gun use, I say SCREWEM.

  30. The first 10 guns I bought were for personal enjoyment. The next 40 guns I bought after that were just to piss off the gun grabbers.

    Can you imagine the anguish gun grabbers are suffering when they look at the news and see that gun sales are skyrocketing!!! Can you imagine how gun grabbers toss and turn at night knowing that violent crime is going down as a result of gun sales going up!!!

    • avatarWilliam says:

      They toss and turn, imagining a GUN breaking into their home and KILLING THEM. Many of they seem to actually believe guns are independent, sentient, malicious beings. Like politicians, except for the “sentient” part.

  31. avatarJohn says:

    Is there something wrong with having to wait for a background check before a gun purchase can be made? It has been put into place to try to weed out the crazies. I can see from reading many of the gun blogs that the system has not worked up to that which it was put in place for. I can only imagine that most of you gun advocates are military trained sharp shooters and you can all disassemble your weapons blind folded or in the dark, clean and reassemble the weapon and have it work properly. BTW, violent crime has not gone down because of increased gun sales, we can thank law enforcement for reduced violent crime in this country.

Leave a Reply

Please use your real name instead of you company name or keyword spam.