“Guns are manufactured for one purpose only: to kill. So I ask, why would you want to purchase one, especially the type that can kill many people in a few short seconds? Changes in gun laws will make it harder for the bad guys to get their hands on guns. Why is that so hard to understand? Don’t we want to make it harder, not easier? Yes some bad guys will find them somehow if they really want them, but if it’s harder or takes longer for that to happen, maybe, just maybe, they would change their minds during that wait period and a few less people would die every day.” – Lisa Cardoza, Mattapoisett, MA in a Letter to the Editor [via southcoasttoday.com]
Home Quote of the Day Blue Force Gear Quote of the Day: Gun Control Makes Bad...
Evil existed long before guns and would long after any sort of regulations.
Silly. So silly.
She’s got spare time to write letters to the editor now that middle school is out. Shouldn’t you be working on your summer reading assignments?
How naive can some people be?
Sometimes it’s just mind boggling…
At some point, it stops being forgivable naivete and gently transitions into willful stupidity.
I don’t know where on that scale Lisa is specifically, but given that she hit so many talking points in a single paragraph, I can offer an educated guess.
You call it willful stupidity, I call it treason and sedition.
Willfully ignorant + zealotry to the social justice cause
Another imbecile that thinks: ‘they’re just misguided ‘youts’. We should give them every chance to change their minds…’ It’s sad how willfully delusional some people are.
Its narcissism. She superimposes her rationality on to people who would harm her and deamonizes those who would do her no harm but challenge her world view.
That looks like a little 0bama in the blue shirt.
If I had a son….
All three look like community organizers.
Yeah France’s gun laws totally stopped terrorists. Mexico is basically the safest country ever because of their gun laws, why do you think so many Americans are going over the border illegally?
You are absolutely correct. Mexican wannabe drug lords like El Chappo were prevented from becoming wealthy kingpins of criminal empires when they realized their were strict gun control laws in Mexico.
Fortunately, the US federal government, not the US private sector, was there to supply the arms through military sales and Fast and Furious. Not only that, but they also started machining plants to make their own guns. By all means, we should give them another revenue stream.
I’m being sarcastic on the first part. The second is sadly true.
The only time I’ve ever known a criminal to have a hard time getting anything he wanted be it weapons, drugs, cars, money or even sex was when somebody was willing and able to protect that thing the very moment the criminal decided he wanted it.
But this is from MA. They all have handicapped plates down there.
You know, you are right.
I was going to post “or when he’s incarcerated.” Then I realized they actually DO get weapons and drugs even in prison.
Your point stands strong.
did she write this before or after she bumped her head?? LMFAO…
A criminal might change his mind about being a criminal…hang on to that happy thought, lady.
If wishes were fishes she’d smell like a trout.
Now I see the light! What criminals really need is a waiting period before they illegally secure their weapon of choice. I mean, clearly the criminals might change their mind if it took a bit longer for them to get a gun. I mean, just because waiting periods for the LEGAL purchase of firearms has NEVER been proven – you know, with actual facts – to reduce crime, that shouldn’t stop us from trying to impose a virtual waiting period for the ILLEGAL purchase of firearms by people who have already chosen to NOT follow the law.
The more insight I get into the mind of a gun grabber, the more I wonder where evolution has failed.
Liberals thwart evolution at every step of the way by removing the natural consequences of people’s decisions. Seat belts stop poor drivers from killing themselves, helmets protect the segment of unsafe cyclists, welfare stops people from starving to death or becoming motivated enough to better themselves, free Healthcare perpetuates poor genes being passed on due to curing of diseases that would otherwise have removed them from the breeding population, etc. If you really believe in survival of the fittest there can be no safety nets if you want the species to thrive. Just sayin.
Yes, we want to make it harder for a criminal to get a gun. I don’t think many disagree on that.
…But how far can we practically achieve that with laws? At what point does it become counter productive?
Its like saying “make it harder for them to get drugs” and so you start a war that costs tens of thousands of lives and incriminates millions, but you still haven’t dealt with addiction. So you end up with the cost of the war, the death toll, and you are no closer to resolving drug problem you always had.
Here you end up with increased violence, the cost of the gun control measures, and no decrease in criminal use because you let perfection become the enemy of good.
At some point you have to admit that the efforts proposed won’t making it harder for criminals to get guns, but you know they will make it harder for decent people to have them, so what you’re really doing is giving the criminals the upper hand.
Yes, but you’re “doing something” and isn’t that all that really matters?
Well, that and new excuses to pump a few more cc’s of steroids into the police state which aids in controlling everyone not just those involved in the drug trade.
Only until Republicans propose a gun law, then effectiveness magically becomes an issue again.
Yes, let’s make it so only the people who really, really want to go out and kill people have access to guns. Brilliant!
Wow I didn’t realise it was so easy! Yup ban everything! You may not believe in god, that’s your choice, you may not want a gun, also your choice, but when you become a victim, call someone with a gun and pray to God they get there in time because a true criminal cares not about any law, stupid liberal, no biscuit.
If guns kill then cars drive drunk, pencils misspell words and spoons make people fat. Guns are not the issue but try addressing the morality issue if society.
You may want to take a look at some of the “literature” that has been accumulated by people that study criminals before you draw such asinine conclusions.
Here’s a slight tidbit…I BELIEVE from William Aprill. I’ll paraphrase since I don’t have the actual quote in front of me, but you will get the idea. Feel free to look it up if you think I’ve changed it too much.
“You know that good feeling you get when you achieve something…graduate high school, start a new job, get married?
That’s the feeling violent criminal actors get when they bash your head in with a shovel.”
Absolutely nothing in your acculturation equates to theirs. You simply cannot measure what they want and how they will go about getting it through the lens of your values.
It’s as though all if humanity is living simultaneously in at least several different centuries.
Vast swaths out there are simply not as evolved as others are. If you want to interpret that as stunted cultural evolution and lacking respect for human life, then fine. If you want to interpret that as stunted biological evolution and lacking impulse control, then fine.
Bottom line is that there are millions, if not billions, of people out there who will kill you outside of what we would consider legal parameters. Carry a gun.
Here’s what gets me- When we “evolve” to the next step, and take that great leap off this rock we all evolved on, into the black void… You better believe we should go armed. Evolution to “pacifism” is displayed by no animal ever. The beasts of the earth (of which we are one) only evolve to be more aggressive, and more dangerous. We are here on this planet not just because of our ability to work together, but also because there has never been another species more adaptable or dangerous than man. Find a woman, not neutered by progressive brainwashing, and strike her child. I don’t care how tiny that woman is… She will attempt to destroy you. Not hurt, not “stop”… Destroy. Take a normal, well adjusted man, and threaten his family. Same response.
Technology is a form of evolution, each innovation building upon the ones previous. Certain belief systems (progressiveism, fascism, fundamentalism) attempt to halt that next step, to hold things where they were so as to avoid any further “change”. That is not how life survives. Lethality is evolution.
So, in a few words… Yeah. I agree.
“Evolution to “pacifism” is displayed by no animal ever. The beasts of the earth (of which we are one) only evolve to be more aggressive, and more dangerous. “
So, you discount r/K selection theory completely then?
r Selected organisms tend to be pretty passive, unless threatened directly so that fight/flight kicks in. Some are even pretty passive in that case.
Its like some people are living in a parallel dimension, they are “here” but not really.
And, if you ever have wondered why the most liberal cities have some of the worst crime, this should tell you everything you need to know.
“maybe, just maybe” is dangerous thinking when it comes to restricting people’s Constitutional rights. Anyone in the U.S. is maybe, just maybe, is a terrorist. I guess we should ban all firearms and wire tap every citizen.
“maybe, just maybe, they would change their minds during that wait period and a few less people would die every day.”
This is why we get gun control…young people who have no experience with criminals, imposing a value they do not understand on law abiding citizens.
Okay, here we go! Let’s attack predators by removing the most effective defense mechanisms of their prey. Maybe, just maybe, the predators will die off after their prey does.
Sure, they may not be able to get a gun as easily, but you’ll see the number of crimes committed with clubs, hands/fists, and defenestrations increase quite dramatically since the state-disabled victims will have no way to defend themselves outside those same mechanisms. Which are already illegal, too.
It’s abject stupidity born of a sense of superiority that causes thinking like this woman has. Most if not all career criminals have friends, family and “mentors” who are or have been incarcerated; these criminals know the laws, they know the penalties and they don’t care. Some of them even believe that going to jail gives them credibility with their gangs and neighborhoods. No law will stop them before committing a crime, and Ms.Cardoza is a blithering idiot if she thinks so.
Maybe i need more coffee?
But as i was reading this i thought??
The human race started screwing up when we stopped throwing liberals and democrats in volcanos.
Really? Waiting periods for criminals?
Oh the country is screwed.
A person trained to deliver narratives happens to be not exactly knowledgeable about criminal’s mentality. How predictable.
Had all killers been that way (“Hey, they told me there is waiting period…OK, I suddenly feel I do not want to cheesecloth my ex with barrage of .223. Where is my VW Type 2, I gotta go full-hippie!”), world will be nicer place, indeed. Unicorns eating rainbow and shitting butterflies and all…
That twit. Even Newsweek agrees it not about the laws, but the enforcement.
And another study, from all places, Chicago, bastion of liberalism. Criminals don’t get guns legally. Period!
Obi Wan Gunobi—-The stupid is strong in this one
I’m willing to bet the letter ended with “Vote Billery 2016”
Well, to reduce carbon emissions, perhaps the anti-rheroticians could deploy a few fewer scarecrow arguments. Scarecrows are straw men, are they not? “Straw man argument” is in fact a reference to scarecrows and the like. Good to remember.
By whatever name, these are fake simulations with no power, no action, no substance, deployed to by fear of what they look like, scare away vs. engage.
You defeat a scarecrow, simply by not running. Once you remain engaged, they got nothing.
On to contribute to global warming by torching a few. (My carbon footprint is deficient these recent days, no weeks at least. I may catch up with this, as torching this lot is on the order of going Full Leo.)
“… Changes in gun laws will make it harder for the bad guys to get their hands on guns. Why is that so hard to understand? Don’t we want to make it harder, not easier? …”
Well, maybe it gets harder for the bad guys. We know with much greater confidence that “changes in gun laws” will make it harder for responsible, peaceful citizens – good guys – to get their hands on guns, and by a greater added burden.
So, how many peaceful, responsible people are we willing to disarm and get killed, to maybe keep how many guns away from bad guys? That’s the utility argument.
How many peaceful, responsible people, just trying to get by are we willing to get killed, rousted, cast into unemployable out-groups by a criminal record, scared on their own streets, extorted by threat of prosecution, to maybe keep how many guns away from bad guys? There’s more to this utility than people getting killed.
How much intrusion, coercion, monitoring, delay, overhead, and capricious restriction are we willing to impose on peaceful, responsible citizens who have done nothing wrong, to keep how many guns away from bad guys? Whatever the results, there’s a price in the doing of restrictions like these.
“…Yes some bad guys will find them somehow if they really want them, but if it’s harder or takes longer for that to happen, maybe, just maybe, they would change their minds during that wait period and a few less people would die every day.”
How many dead are worth how much “maybe, just maybe?”
How much prohibition on people who have done nothing wrong is worth how much “maybe, just maybe?”
How much abuse to a natural, civil, constitutionally mandated right is worth how much “maybe, just maybe?”
How much damage to ruling ourselves by law (vs. fiat), is worth how much “maybe, just maybe?”
“Guns are manufactured for one purpose only: to kill. So I ask, why would you want to purchase one, especially the type that can kill many people in a few short seconds?…”
Well, guns are manufactured for several purposes. Ignoring that disqualifying nonsense for the sake of answering the question …
A peaceful, responsible citizen would want a gun that can kill because, even with more restrictive gun prohibitions “… some bad guys will find them … if they really want them.” And some bad guys will use them. Some peaceful, responsible citizens will choose to live, even if that means shooting the bad guy trying to kill them.
Anyone is free to hold still and quietly be eaten when a predator comes along. Demanding that someone else do the same is something else, entirely.
It’s hardly righteous to declare that someone else must die for one’s convictions. I’m pretty sure there’s a word for this.
“Changes in gun laws will make it harder for the bad guys to get their hands on guns. Why is that so hard to understand?”
She starts from the premise that “harder” presupposes “hard.” It doesn’t. The incremental difference in difficulty in acquiring a firearm illegally, as a result of gun laws, is infinitesimal. It’s the equivalent of locking the little door knob lock on a home bathroom door as a form of security.
Anyone even remotely interested in gaining access to that bathroom will gain access virtually immediately. Same with a gun. In fact, it’s probably even faster to buy a gun illegally than to buy one legally, as anyone who’s had to stand around awaiting counter help at Gander Mountain can attest.
This lady thinks in terms of a tiny group of hardcore narco traffickers and international assassins as being the only only ones willing and able to acquire guns illegally, what with their inscrutable network of shadowy underground figures. Just because her world revolves around minivans, bake sales, book clubs and holiday savings on capri pants at Kohl’s, with zero familiarity with the seedy side of the city, doesn’t mean that such side is a remote and minute sector of society. All that she knows is not all there is to know.
So when she’s exasperated and cannot figure out why her simple solution is so difficult to understand, she only needs to step back and see that her simple solution addresses a problem bearing no resemblance to the real world.
She might as well complain why her plan to change the law of gravity and just have bad guys float away is so difficult for us to understand.
“Changes in gun laws will make it harder for the bad guys to get their hands on guns. Why is that so hard to understand? ”
This is the line of reasoning I get the most from the antis I know/meet and it blows my mind that they can think this.
Last time I checked, if I recall, there are around 140,000 crimes committed with a gun in the U.S. annually. Let’s just say that every “crime gun” is used only once and then either disposed of or confiscated. That means the supply of crime guns “needed” is equal to the number of gun crimes. Even if we double that number we have a demand for 280k guns a year to supply our current crime rate.
Even if we eliminate all new gun manufacturing, with the current 300-400 million guns in the U.S., in a century the 280k crime guns per annum will have only consumed 28,000,000 of the stockpile. So there would still be between 270,000,000 and 370,000,000 guns out there.
Given that it is impossible to conclusively estimate the number of guns in this nation, a reduction of 28,000,000 guns in just one year would not have a remotely measurable effect on the availability of guns to criminals.
The response I get when I tell them this is usually “Well, it might help, shouldn’t we try it?”
NO!, it won’t help you math challenged fools.
Here’s where it is useful to pull out some research from the past, in particular the Wright-Rossi Report of violent felons and their attitudes towards gun control. Here’s the exec summary:
Meh. Too stupid to even comment about…
How is the war on drugs going?
Why would anything that banning guns would have a different result than banning drugs????
wow…well if guns are made only to kill, I’ve been seriously ripped off. 25 years and apparently none of my guns has ever done what they were meant to.
“…maybe, just maybe….”
“Blue Force Gear Quote of the Day: Gun Control Makes Bad Guys Think Twice”
Ya, if it comes easy, take it twice.
Thanks for upping the assumption of easy-grab, and [sic] the threat-level gun-grabbers.
I always love the seat belt analogy. They’ve made cars safer, reduced injury and are mandated by the government.yada yada yada. Seat belts dont reduce accidents but they do reduce the injury caused by the accident. So if you really want to make a gun analogy, the state should mandate carrying of a firearm in case of a crime (accident) so as to prevent injury to the victim, making the public safer.
A click it or ticket I could get behind.
Why would anyone need a gun capable of killing several people at a time?
Well let’s see. Ah, few examples come to mind:
2. Mass murderers
3. Civil unrest
4. Natural disasters
5. Govt tyranny
All events that have happened in the last 10 years and will continue to happen. #5 has been ongoing for more than 10 years.
You can be prepared or you can put yourself in a position to be an easy victim. Choose.
6. Zombie Apocalypse
Find out which states get wiped out:
To the original poster you are CORRECT guns are for killing.
I am a mother of 3, i am very passionate about my 2nd amendment rights for a very good reason. I was raped and beaten with my 6th month old daughter in the room for over 10 hours. Have I had training and a firearm then this would not have happened and because he got away he went on to kidnap and murder an entire family. He never used a gun. Since then I have gotten a gun and proper training. The police could not find the guy and he came back to my house 18 months later and broke into my house. I shot a killed him were he stood using my .357 revolver while protecting my family and no charges brought against me. I sleep just fine at night knowing I have killed a human being and this situation the police could have not done anything until it would have been to late. I wont comply because i am no longer a victim im a survivor and will remain that way. So yes guns to kill people and believe EVERY law abiding citizen should have one a get trained.
She presupposes that something not designed “to kill” can’t be adapted for that purpose. Running my WRX through a crowd of people at 60MPH will kill several people very rapidly.
Gun are not designed “to kill” they are designed to fire a projectile in a fairly accurate way. What you do with that ability is up to you.
Further, I can confidently tell you that the black market can produce any product you wish it to and do so VERY rapidly. You can make a phone call to the right person and within a very short time they’re at your door with a whole menu of illicit items from stolen firearms, burglary tools (which may or not be illegal, check your state laws) and other stolen goods to marijuana to cocaine to LSD to Rx medications. The only questions are which ones do you want and do you have the cash on hand to buy them?
Hell, when I lived in the ghetto the guys across the street in a Section 8 house spent their days on their front porch drinking Bud Heavy, smoking dope and selling stolen home appliances while collecting welfare. Brand new SubZero fridge, $4000 at Home Depot (plus applicable taxes and delivery fees) available right across the street from me, NIB $500 with free delivery and installation if you wanted it. The only catch? No credit cards or checks please, cash only.
Who wants to live in a safe Third World country? Make America First World again!
The 2nd Amendment right is not just for pro-gun people. It’s a right belonging to all Americans. You would not believe how many people have, due to life experiences, switched from anti-gun to pro-gun… especially women.
A couple of things about the Liberal mindset.
First, bad guys do not care about gun control laws. period. Deal with it. They will get their hands on guns.
Second, let’s say the Libs get their most fervent wish and no one can own guns anymore. That would mean criminals would have to rely on hand weapons like clubs, knives, etc., or just their bare hands. great, so i think it’s pretty fair to say that the average criminal who lives by the law of the street would not be more capable of doing bodily harm than the average woman, elderly person, dweeby little dude who works in an office, someone in a wheelchair, a child and so on. So that means that we would be giving carte blanche to whoever is the meanest, strongest and most violent. Gee, sounds like a great world to me.
The people making these laws have no understanding of guns OR criminals.
What do real bad guys say?
“Gun control? It’s the best thing you can do for crooks and gangsters. I want you to have nothing. I’m a bad guy; I’m always gonna have a gun. Safety locks? You will pull the trigger with a lock on, and I’ll pull the trigger. We’ll see who wins.” — “Sammy the Bull” Gravano
What a moron.
“maybe, just maybe, they would change their minds during that wait period and a few less people would die every day.”
So true. Also, maybe, just maybe, the moon is made of green cheese. However, since I doubt that, I want to be ready to kill many of them in a few seconds, if they come for me. You want me to just die because of your fantasies. So we’re at odds. And you are a fool.