Gun Lobbyist Ready to Give Up

 

By Alan Korwin

The following story originally appeared at gunlaws.net and is re-printed here with permission.

A gun lobbyist, traumatized by the evil in Newtown, Conn., under pressure by reporters for an interview, asked me desperately for help. What is he supposed to say? How can he respond to such slaughter, how can he defend guns in the light of this massacre? He is at his wits’ end, ready to give up, throw in the towel. Help me please, he implores. What can he say in the face of such an abomination? There are no words. And there aren’t any. Why does the media only cover guns in the face of such tragedy? Why don’t they discuss it when we can examine the subject coolly and rationally, and maybe get somewhere? Because then . . .

we might learn something. Because then the public could become educated, and the media does not really want this to happen. Because then you might learn that guns have social utility, and are indispensable — that guns serve good purposes — instead of being pounded with the hopelessly false idea that arms are bad.

If the media covered guns without tragedy as a background, you would learn that guns save lives, which is why we want our police heavily armed, with high-capacity magazines, and high-powered rifles, and all the ammunition they can carry. You would learn that you need guns and ammo and full-capacity magazines — for the exact same reason.

You would learn that your need is even greater, because YOU are the first responders, and police are always second. You face the criminals first, in every event. Police, with all their deadly bullets only show up later. Police are the second responders. Media stories are always wrong about that. That’s what you say.

People would learn that guns are for stopping crime. Guns protect you. Guns are good. Guns keep you safe, and help you sleep quietly at night. Guns are why America is still free. And the media doesn’t want that message to get out. That’s why they only haul out the subject with horror as a backdrop. That’s what you say.

Thirteen scholarly studies show that guns are used to prevent crimes and save lives between 700,000 and 2.5 million times each year (depending on study size, time frame and other factors). You could get the book entitled “Armed,” by Kleck and Kates, and read the studies yourself. Why doesn’t the media ferret out those stories and put them on the front page? That’s what you say.

Even the FBI says justifiable homicide happens every day, and they’re only counting the cases that go all the way through court. Most armed self defense is so clean it never even makes it to court — or the gun isn’t even fired. Why isn’t that in the national news every day?

Because you, Mr. and Ms. Reporter, don’t want the public educated about guns. Because you want the public ignorant, misinformed and terrified of guns, just like you are. Because you are pushing an agenda to vilify and ban fundamental rights we hold dear, that have helped make America great. Because you want people to have a lopsided unbalanced distorted view, and you’re doing a great job of that.

That’s what you say. And let them try to deny it.

Because so-called “news” media gun stories are not news, they are propaganda. Showing the image of a mass murderer 100 times a day isn’t news, it is propaganda. Because staying on the same single event for a week or more isn’t news — even reporters would call it old news, or yesterday’s news, or yellow journalism, if they were being honest — a trait many have long since lost the ability to exercise. It is propaganda by every definition of that term.

It is designed to disgust, and cause revulsion, and motivate mob mentality. It serves no news purpose other than to induce fear and cause terror. In five minutes you have told the story, nothing new is added, yet it rolls on with images on endless loop. It promotes evil, encourages copycats,  with zero redeeming news value. It violates every rule of ethical news behavior there is. That’s what you say.

Showing the grief and tears day after day as you are doing, dear reporter, is not news, it is manipulation of we the people. It is an effort to turn people against something you as a reporter personally detest, because you are as poorly educated on the subject as many of your viewers and readers. You are so poorly informed on this subject you need counseling.

That’s what you say. Tell reporters they are acting like hoplophobes. Let them look it up.

When eighty people died that day, with their bloodied bodies strewn all over the place, they didn’t care. When children were torn from their parents, and parents never came home, they didn’t care. When people left home and said, “See you later honey,” and were never heard from again, they didn’t care, and I didn’t care, and they never even mentioned it, because those people died in their cars.

Eighty people. Entire families. Moms and dads, infants, teenagers, all across this great land, not just in one town. That grief was every bit as tragic. And eighty more the next day. And today. And reporters didn’t even mention it. Because reporters don’t care about human tragedy. They just want to use their favorite tragedy, a maniac’s evil, now [five] days old, to promote a terrible agenda they and their bosses and their political puppet masters want them to promote. And that’s the abomination. They should be ashamed of themselves. They are a disgrace. That’s what you say.

Even though cars are involved in virtually the same number of deaths as firearms, and typically used by all the murderers, we don’t call for their elimination, because cars serve a purpose greater than the harm they cause. Doctors kill between ten- and one-hundred-thousand people every year through “medical misadventures,” a sugarcoated term for mistakes (the actual number is hotly disputed). We don’t call for doctors’ elimination, because doctors serve a greater purpose than the harm they cause too.

Guns are precisely the same, but you wouldn’t know it watching the so-called “news.” Think of all the lives guns save and crimes they prevent. We should call for education and training — and the pro-rights side does, constantly, to the media’s deaf ears. Right now, schools and the media are a black hole of ignorance on the subject. Half of all American homes have guns — how is it possible to get a high-school diploma without one-credit in gun safety and marksmanship? How can you honestly argue for ignorance instead of education and live with yourself? That’s what you say.

The greater part of this great nation is on to you. We hold our rights dear. We hold the Bill of Rights in highest regard, while you spit on it with your unethical and vile effort to destroy it from your high and mighty seat. You believe you are protected by the very thing you would use to demolish it. Your use of propaganda, every time a tragedy occurs, to deny us our rights is the highest form of treason, a fifth-column effort, an enemy both foreign and domestic of which we are keenly aware. You will reap what you sow. That’s what you say.

The media says it wants more laws but we already know that everything about every one of these tragedies is already a gross violation of every law on the books, many times over. You media types would outlaw all guns, as many of you are calling for. We all know it would be as effective as the cocaine ban — a product many of you enjoy in the privacy of… Hollywood and Wall Street and Occupy rallies and your upscale parties and across America. And if you like the war on some drugs, you’re going to love the war on guns. That’s what you say.

And if you think the rule of law is the solution — like for people on Prozac and Ritalin suddenly going berserk — remember that, at least for tomorrow, if the man next to you is going to suddenly crack, you really do need a gun.

Ask yourself why people in greater numbers are suddenly cracking up and taking up the devil’s cause, to speak metaphorically. So many reporters have obviously given up on religion and the morality it used to exert, the binding social effect it had on people. Are you a religious person? Ask them. People typically never ask the reporters questions. Reporters don’t know how to handle that. Try it. That’s what you say.

Do films like American Psycho, where scriptwriters invent characters who enjoy killing and go around gleefully murdering people, and financiers who put millions behind such projects, and which the entertainment industry put in our faces on a constant basis — does that have any effect? Would you argue it has no effect? Hundreds of films like that, filling our TV’s daily — doesn’t that do something to people? Dexter, a mass murderer disguised as a cop who is the hero of the series, does that shift people’s thinking, their sense of balance? How do you justify supporting such things instead of shunning and casting such perverts and miscreants from the industry? That’s what you say.

But here’s the bottom line as far as I’m concerned. Here’s the Pulitzer Prize, waiting for you if you want one. Should people who put scores of guns into the hands of drug lords get one-month sentences — like we saw the very day before this massacre — is that right? If you get the laws you’re shouting for, would it matter if that’s what the Justice Dept. does with them?

Why isn’t THAT discussed? How did you let that skate by? Don’t tell me you covered that story, if you simply reported the government handout, that Fast and Furious smugglers Avila and Carillo were sentenced. That’s not reporting, that’s reading.

That’s the ugly underbelly of this “gun problem” we have. There are the laws for real crimes, and the feckless government role, letting slaughter continue unabated, even abetted. There’s the solution you say you seek, squandered.

Were the hundreds murdered that way less important? Is it a racist thing — because they were brown-skinned Mexicans and not little White children, is that it? How could Eric Holder’s Justice Dept. — and you — let those perps off so easy? Why isn’t that the headline? It was the biggest gun scandal in U.S. history — your own words. One-month sentences? Not even a trial? And you bought into this? That’s what you say.

The ring leaders in the biggest gun-running death-dealing high-powered so-called “assault-weapon” scandal in U.S. history were caught red-handed giving guns to murderers, but they got a plea deal from the administration, not even a trial, and the media had nothing to say.

The media that has so much to say about guns — or so they would have us falsely believe — are shills for the Justice Dept. that perpetrated this travesty, and now would use their bully pulpit to attack our rights, in the name of little children, day after day. Journalists have become a travesty, that’s what you say.

More than 90 of these fearsome guns were delivered by our very government to the worst murderers on the planet. And now, thanks to double-jeopardy protection, we won’t have a trial so we can’t even find out who in our government gave the orders. And now we have nothing to say.

The event in a small Connecticut town has opened the gun issue again.

And that’s what you say.

comments

  1. avatar Chris says:

    Of the lobbyist actually believed in what he was selling he wouldn’t have a problem supporting the 2nd ammendment or honestly tell the media he will discuss when they calm down and grow up.

  2. avatar Leon says:

    Excellent piece Alan!
    +1
    Remember the media on all sides are just trying to sell ads and make headlines.
    Increasingly they want to be the story. They should report the facts, but now even the most cub reporter thinks his/her opinion matters if you put a microphone in their hands. It doesn’t !

  3. avatar Dirk Diggler says:

    there also needs to be a SERIOUS discussion of gun control in the context of race, and why such “control” (ie, fear of armed Black men) was insitituted so long ago . . . . Robert and Crew – you should do a story on Dr. Ossian Sweet, a Black dentist from Detroit who defended his home against an angry White mob. His only crime? He moved into a White neighborhood. Clarence Darrow defended him and scored an acquittal with an all White jury using the phrase, a man’s home is his castle. In response, Michigan got major gun control. We need to start painting those who want gun control as what they are: RACISTS. They will make sure they have exceptions for them to have guns, but heaven forbid if anyone Black or Brown got them: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ossian_Sweet

    1. avatar Sammy says:

      Well, you have at least one person mis interpreted. Me. I have stated that any gun laws will affect minorities and low income people most adversely. 1 Any monetary penalty ie taxes, on guns or ammunition hurts lower income people the most restricting their ability to protect themselves and their families or to train adequately with the gun of their choice. 2 Minorities are the most victimized segment of the population in regards to violence involving all types of weapons. This is yet another reason gun control is counter productive. If any type of gun ban is instituted the lower income and minority communities will pay the dearest price as they do now under the current restrictions in place. As evidence I give you Camden, N.J. And as far as potentially lethal things in every day life goes guns per unit are less dangerous than doctors.

    2. avatar matt says:

      Yes of course, gun control must be inherently racist. I’m not sure if you noticed but racists arent fan of gun control either. The number 3 cause of death of black males is other black males, the only thing which poses a greater threat to them is heart disease and cancer. Arming them just makes sense from a racist’s point of view. But hey, keep on crying racist at anything you dont like.

      http://afrodaddy.com/health/top-10-killers-black-men

  4. avatar Bobby says:

    I love this article. But I also love Dexter.

    1. avatar Carrymagnum says:

      + 1. He kills assholes we want to see dead. I I agree with everything he said except for that poor example. I sure hope no one comes to my door asking for my guns. Because they sure as hell aren’t getting them.

  5. avatar LLARMS says:

    What do you say?

    The same thing we have always said.

    Choose any number of facts.

    How about we stop making laws up to “hopefully” stop 0.01% of the population that ends up hurting the other 99.9%?

    Seems like a good start to me.

    – D

  6. avatar Badger 8-3 says:

    Deaths from automobiles and deaths from the illegal use of firearms “virtually the same”? Since when?

    Sadly, using a rational defense in the face of an emotional attack will only cause you to be labeled as a cold emotionless monster. Doubt me? Take a look at the comment section over on cnn.com (link is on Drudge) under the story about Dicks Sporting Goods removing MSR’s from their line up. According to those fine examples of American tolerance and education, “gun owners” are domestic terrorists who pose a “serious” threat to national security. You can’t make this stuff up. Calling people serious threats to national security and demanding that they be locked away, and then turning around and calling those same people crazy for entertaining the idea that the US government may attempt to curtail their rights or kick in their doors. Incredible…

    People will only be as educated as they want to be, and sadly, most would rather have their opinion fed to them than take the time to look it up on their own.

    For the record, this “gun lobbyist” is a poor excuse of a lobbyist. A short, simple statement along the lines of “This is a time of mourning, and I will not engage in a discussion of politics or policy until the families of these children have had ample time to grieve.” would have solved that problem. Then, he could have prepared a rational, cited defense of his position, using pictures of the families defended by their own firearms…since pictures seem to be more effective than logic.

    Badger 8-3

    1. avatar Casey T says:

      So people on CNN are calling me and how many veterans domestic terrorists? The sure absurdity of that is laughable. How many veterans make up the gun owner population? I would bet it’s a large segment. We aren’t terrorists, we were willing to fight to protect the constitution at the risk of our lives being ended. I bet none of those people making that comment are veterans who have honorable discharges. I will not allow my rights to be limited because of the ignorance of the majority and that is what makes the Constitution great, it protects me and my fellow citizens from the foolish majority.

      1. avatar Badger 8-3 says:

        “So people on CNN are calling me and how many veterans domestic terrorists?”

        Short answer: Yes.
        Long answer: Not just the ignorant masses on CNN, but also the DHS, which has labeled returning vets “potential threats” thereby allowing them to keep tabs upon returning veterans, yourself and myself included.

        “How many veterans make up the gun owner population?”

        I’d be willing to bet many, if not most. Army and Marine veterans typically come from more rural Southern areas of the country (typically…I said typically). Area’s with strong gun ownership and strong individualism and patriotism. A non-gun owner from the rural South is…rare…

        ” I bet none of those people making that comment are veterans who have honorable discharges”

        I cannot truthfully say for sure…but I’d make my own wager that you are correct.

        “We aren’t terrorists, we were willing to fight to protect the constitution at the risk of our lives being ended.”

        I’d be proud to stand next to you…my honor demands it. How could I look my nieces and nephew in the face and say “I allowed your inheritance to be taken away by those who neither understood it nor worked for it.”? I’d rather die trying to save it.

        “I will not allow my rights to be limited because of the ignorance of the majority and that is what makes the Constitution great, it protects me and my fellow citizens from the foolish majority.”

        I fear that the foolish majority has elected multiple individuals who do not see the United States as an example for the world, nor as anything more than a failed experiment or wayward child who must now be brought back into the fold, destroying in the process the very system that allowed these “enlightened few” to rise to power in the first place. I fear for our nation.

  7. avatar Cyrano says:

    We are all sinners first. Only by attempting to be good are we such. Some people just give in to being evil. There are always people who will prey on children whether it be the shooter last week or the bomber next week. We as a society need to know how to protect ourselves from these people. To mill about like sheep expecting a semiabsent shepherd to show up 20 minutes after the event isn’t good enough to stop those who want to do evil. Guns are tools that serve the honest and the dishonest. They are the are the equilizers for those who want to use them. I enjoyed the reference to the Bath, MI massacre in another blog post. That 1927 event was horrifying and a reminder that evil never goes away. http://www.trutv.com/library/crime/serial_killers/history/bath/index_1.html

  8. avatar Gregolas says:

    Outstanding Mr. Korwin. Thank you.

  9. avatar Mike123 says:

    We should be shouted from every venue several questions:

    Joe Biden sponsored the Bill (Gun-Free School Zone Act) in 1990, shouldn’t he comment on the success of that policy?

    Or

    It took Law Enforcement 20 minutes to reach the school. Why were the students and teachers disarmed by law and then abandoned? How many bleed to death waiting?

    1. avatar Casey T says:

      So Biden is to blame for them being unarmed? Good to know, we all should seek his immediate resignation then because he shares responsibility for this. #JoeBidenResignNow

  10. avatar Awesome says:

    This article fired me up. Great piece. I wish something like this would see the light of day in the MSM.

  11. avatar Awesome says:

    This article fired me up. Great piece. I wish something like this would see the light of day in the mainstream media although I know it won’t.

  12. avatar Coytoe Gray says:

    How about we start, by stopping the “guns save lives” or “self defense” argument. True or not, it requires a long round about explanation using studies that are hotly contested. The last article, explaining the details of what an AR is, its use in hunting, and value to hobbyist would be a great start. Additionally, we need to promote it’s use as a pass time. I take my kids shooting, teaching them marksmanship, discipline, responsibility, respect of it’s power, the same way I learned in the Marines. And we also need to stop cementing ourselves into such partisan positions and at least consider legislation that makes it harder for some people to get access to certain weapons. It’s also worth noting, that we need to only do this, in the bigger context of a much larger solution. One that involves America taking a long, hard look at ourselves in the mirror. We have lost at least 2 generations of kids, to broken homes, early exposure to violent video games, desensitization due to over exposure to violence in movies and TV’s, a love affair with violent sports like UFC, Boxing, and MMA, and the move to a more secular society. We cut school and social health care programs, and then wonder why some of these crazies aren’t caught sooner. The typical gun owner needs to evolve and grow the sophistication of our stances/arguments regarding 2A, and understand that perception is reality. Right now, as far as the media is concerned and many non gun owners are concerned, every gun owner is a villain. We need to take back the conversation, and create a responsible narrative that doesn’t trample our rights, but that also doesn’t inflame a country reeling from unimaginable tragedy.

    1. avatar Casey T says:

      I wouldn’t stop discussing how guns save lives but we should augment the discussion with you points.

    2. avatar JustAJ says:

      Drawing an analogy regarding how you trained in the marines is a bad call IMO. One of the Platoon Leaders in my basic company put our training into perspective, so there was no question – we were there in basic training (infantry) to learn to kill. I’m big enough to admit that’s exactly what it was – learining how to effectively kill the enemies of my country. That’s a tad different than civvy marksmanship training.

  13. avatar Jon says:

    There is a time for grief over what happened in Newtown, but this is not the time to be second-guessing our principles. Nobody should be surprised that great evil was perpetrated with a gun. That’s what evil does: it takes things–sometimes very good things–and twists and distorts them for its own terrible ends. This inversion is fundamental to the way that evil works; you will not find an exception. But too often we forget this reality, and instead of recognizing evil for what it is, we allow it to hide behind its implements.

    The massacre of innocent children at Newtown was a win for evil. If the populace is disarmed as a result of this tragedy, that will be another win for evil. Because to confront evil and win, you have to be able to destroy it. But because of the insidious way in which evil works, it is entirely possible that our response to it will only result in more of it.

    Stick to your principles. Do not be afraid to look evil in its face and call it what it is. Do not let it hide behind the things it deforms for its own twisted purposes. And do not let it rob you of the means of destroying it. The lesson of Newtown is that evil is real, and no law of man can change that.

    1. avatar KCK says:

      Jon,
      You have a way with words.
      Speak more, so that we may use them to help crystallize our own thoughts.
      Thanks

      1. avatar Jon says:

        Thanks for the kind words.

      2. avatar Carrymagnum says:

        Agree big time.

    2. avatar Sanchanim says:

      You can not legislate evil into non existence, it can not be done. You need to sand and fight it where is presents itself, be it a school, theater, or on the street.

  14. avatar Ash. Housewares. says:

    I’d blame cars. Every mass shooter in recent years has driven to their destination.

  15. avatar Aharon says:

    Great piece Alan. Thank you.

  16. avatar nonnamous says:

    Thank you for bringing up HSBC…America’s judicial system is a travesty and a joke.

  17. avatar Matt in FL says:

    That was an excellent read, and I’ll do my best to put it to good use in the days and weeks ahead.

  18. avatar John Rand says:

    Gun control isn’t about guns, it’s about control.

    Weapons serve a specific purpose, It empowers every person to be on an equitable level. Guns are the best of the current available weapons because they require the least training and physical prowess compared to previous weapons. If that person is evil, then it’s likely they will do evil with this power and vice-versa for good.

    There’s two schools of thought in regards to this. Either empower everyone to take care of themselves, or revoke everyone’s power.

    The problem with revoking everyone’s power is that some people are just more powerful than others (be it in physical or mechanical prowess) or they just refuse to play by the rules (criminals). This requires that you keep some people empowered, but revoke the rest of people. This is the police state. The police state is under the control of someone. Whatever title you wish to assign to this person, in the end it boils down to being ‘king’.

    Conversely though, if you don’t wish to have a king, then you have to concede that empowering of your people will result in evil. This means that implicit with support of the 2nd amendment, you’re admitting that there WILL be incidents such as this. That doesn’t mean you condone it, just that you’ve accepted it as collateral damage. If you can’t stand in front of those grieving families and tell them this, then it’s probably best to not say anything.

    Evil will do evil, and it will find myriad ways to dispense it. Guns cause massacres much in the same way armies cause wars. The same line of reasoning for the current gun control fanatics says that if we disarmed all our armed forces, there would be no more war. Plenty of them DO believe this.

    So while the average US citizen probably won’t go down this path (at this point), they have been lead to follow the same logic to firearm disarmament. Some because they truly just wish the simpler life of a slave. Others because they’ve lived such a life of comfort and excess for so long they can’t imagine how quickly tyranny can gain power.

    I side with the premise of the lobbyist who gives up, not because he doesn’t know how to answer, but because it’s a bit of a lost cause at this point. Humans, for the most part, don’t seem to learn except through pain. I’m only saddened to know I probably won’t live long enough to be able to laugh at them in the future (not that I’d be able to tell them anyway, as freedom of speech will be the next to go).

  19. avatar Lance says:

    Keep the pressure on our reps and lobbyist I dont think the NRA will go with a ban. Its waiting to get the facts straight before commenting they said.

  20. avatar Constitutional Right says:

    Need to boil these down to high-level talking points. That is the only way to persuade on TV because the media cuts and and edits heavily. Pick three points and repeat and bridge back regardless of the question.

    1. Gun ownership is one of the freedoms specifically cited in the Constitution. Responsible gun owners have a constitutionally-protected right to guns.

    2. “Gun Free Zones” are Killing Zones because psychopaths don’t follow laws or obey signs. Every mass shooting since 1950–with only one exception–took place where citizens were not lawfully allowed to carry guns.

    3. School officials must have the tools–including guns–they need to protect people. Every bank has an armed guard because people rob banks. Every school has a fire extinguisher and fire drills. So long as there are school shootings, parents should demand that school officials receive firearms training and arm themselves to protect school children from psychopaths.

    3.

  21. avatar Constitutional Right says:

    12 REASONS WHY YOU SHOULD OWN A GUN

    1. Because You Own a Fire Extinguisher. Bad things happen. You can still call 911, but when seconds count, you need to act quickly to save your life and the life of those you love.

    2. Because Shooting Is An Olympic Sport. Shooting is an Olympic sport and the United States holds more gold medals than any other nation.

    3. Because Most Americans Own Guns. You’ll be in good company as a gun owner; nearly fifty percent of households in the U.S. own a firearm.

    4. Because You Respect The U.S. Constitution. Sometimes you won’t like it when people exercise fundamental freedoms protected by the Constitution, such as freedom of speech. But that simply doesn’t matter: The Supreme Court ruled that
    every person has a constitutional right to own guns. So respecting the Constitution means respecting the right of others to exercise those constitutional rights.

    5. Because You Are More Likely to Die By Falling. There were 613 fatal firearms accidents in 2007, one-half of one percent of all fatal accidents. You’re more likely to die by driving, poisoning, drowning or falling than by a gun accident.

    6. Because Guns Stop Burglars. Last year, the CDC estimated that Americans used guns about 498,000 times to frighten away intruders attempting to break into homes.

    7. Because Gun Bans Increase Murder Rates. After D.C. banned handguns in
    1984, the average murder rate jumped 73 percent while the U.S. murder rate
    fell 11 percent.

    8. Because Guns Don’t Cause Murder. A New York Times study of 1,662 murders
    in the city found that 90 percent of the killers had criminal records. Murderers are not ordinary, law abiding adults. Instead, virtually all murderers are extremely aberrant individuals with life histories of violence, psychopatholoy, and substance abuse.

    9. Because Gun Owners Win Political Battles. Gun rights groups have donated $22 million in political campaigns over the last decade, while gun control groups gave $1.8 million.

    10. Because Ignorance is Dangerous. At current homicide rates, 1 in 240
    Americans will be murdered this year. You need to know how to operate a
    tool that will immediately stop a threat and save your life and the life of those in your household.

    11. Because Guns Don’t Make Countries More Dangerous. Switzerland has one
    of the world’s highest gun ownership rates and also one of the lowest homicide rates. In contrast, the countries with the world’s worst homicide rates—South Africa, Columbia, Brazil, Mexico, Filipines, Taiwain—also prohibit law-abiding
    citizens from owning guns. Compare the 20 per 100,000 homicide rate in
    Russia, which bans guns, with the 2 per 100,000 rate in neighboring Poland. Compare gun-free Luxembourg’s 9 per 100,000 murder rate with Germany and France with rates of 0.93 and 1.65.

    12. Because Gun Control Laws Don’t Increase Safety. The U.S. National
    Academy of Sciences failed to identify even one gun control measure
    that had a statistically significant reduction in violent crime, suicide,
    or gun accidents. The Center for Disease Control reached the same conclusion in 2003.

    1. avatar Martin says:

      + 12000 1000 for every point

      1. avatar Casey T says:

        + infinity

    2. avatar Flubnut says:

      In regards to point #10: 1 in 240 people will be “”murdered” this year? That would be around 1.3 million people. Do you mean “violent crime” instead?

  22. avatar Randy Drescher says:

    Tennessee isn’t buckling under. There going full speed ahead with their pro gun adjenda. All the crap you hear from the others is absent there, Randy

  23. avatar Martin says:

    Forgive me if this is not the right place to post this bit this is what I like to send to people to educate them about gun control

    http://rense.com/general32/nine.htm

  24. avatar TheSleeperHasAwakened@wakeup.org says:

    What happened in Newtown, CT was awful.

    But I fail to understand why this event should get anymore attention than all of the Libyan/Afghani/Pakistani/Syrian children the Nobel Peace Prize Winner slaughters daily via drone strikes!

    1. avatar matt says:

      It is because these kids were white, and the town itself is 95% white. The number of people shot in this town happens ever single weekend in Chicago, but no one likes to talk about that, because it would mean criticizing blacks.

      1. avatar John Rand says:

        They’re slightly different things though.

        I think it’s disingenuous to assume that situations like CT and the mall shooting would continue if you banned firearms in the US. These people weren’t from the criminal element. It’s unlikely they would have acquired illegal firearms and ammo that it would have resulted in a mass shooting. Of course, they could have gone in with myriad other ways of hurting people. It just probably wouldn’t have been with a gun. Unfortunately, humans are just fragile creatures.

        So, if you take that postulate as true, then you can say “well, if we ban guns we’ll prevent these situations.” Which is also probably true.

        The people that die due to criminal elements as you mention are going to get firearms. Producing one is astoundingly easy if you don’t care about longevity or quality control. Banning them is just going to create a more full-featured black market, the same as happened during Prohibition with alcohol.

        So, attempting to ban firearms to stop all the criminal murders is a fools errand (as the numbers have proven out already). Trying to argue that case is a lost cause, because you have no foundation to stand on.

        Like I said, If a citizen doesn’t find any value in freedom or their ability to defend it, if all they care about is being alive and not about living; then there’s little you’re going to be able to discuss with them to change their opinions. They do not value freedom (or don’t understand the costs involved), and so even one death in the name of freedom is too much for them. Appeasement always seems easier in the beginning.

      2. avatar Carrymagnum says:

        I’m real sure there is strict gun control in Chicago. So if this is the same Matt who loves the idea of gun control thank you so much for strengthening our position that tight gun control doesn’t help prevent evil.

  25. avatar Billy Wardlaw says:

    Well written. I was with you on 99% of it – with you until you held up religion as the moral bastion people have lost sight of.

    I am a Gun owner, a Constitutionalist, a secular humanist, and an atheist. I will stand shoulder to shoulder with you, faith or no, in defense of the Constitution – but I will not be told by you or anyone else that you have cornered the market on what is morally right or wrong because you choose to believe in something I do not.

    1. avatar Bob says:

      Let’s agree that the population in general is not as Moral and Ethical as they used to be. We can agree to disagree on the reason for that change, OK?

  26. avatar Bob says:

    “It is a misfortune, inseparable from human affairs, that public measures are rarely investigated with that spirit of moderation, which is essential to a just estimate of their real tendency to advance, or obstruct, the public good.” – James Madison, in Federalist Paper # 37, talking about how the legislature usually decided upon new laws

    This is why our gun control laws are so ineffective.

  27. avatar rosignol says:

    SEEN ON FACEBOOK:

    “What is the gun community going to do about this tragedy?”

    “I dunno. What is the gay community going to do about Penn State?”

    ———-

    I’ve had enough of this guilt-by-association crap- I’ve never shot anyone, and I daresay the overwhelming majority of gun owners haven’t, either. So why is it socially acceptable for jerks to insinuate that we had anything to do with a nutjob?

    It’s time to push back, hard.

Write a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

button to share on facebook
button to tweet
button to share via email