I tried, tell me what you think (long)

[4my son]

Now, this is my first attempt at talking to an anti, and trying to explain our (pro gun) rational for owning and especially CCW. I'll try to rewrite my initial letter to better explain my points, and hopefully reduce the amount of (well that's just wrong) reply's, I don't really think it will matter.

These guys at gunguys.com are supposedly for reasonable gun ownership, hunting only, no semi/auto's(assault) or handguns, much less CCW.

Please let me know what you think, and if you think it would matter if anything was changed.

Here is my initial letter

Dear Gun Guys,

I was writing to see if we could open up a civilized discussion on the differences in beliefs of the two sides of the gun debate. I’m sure no will argue that there are more than two sides to the debate, but for now lets just stick with more or less (leaning towards less restrictions) and (leaning towards more restrictions).


Let me start off with a brief history of my-self so you will have an understanding of who I am. I was born and raised in the suburbs of Richmond, Va, and have been around firearms all my life, Yes, by age 11 or 12, I had been taught to shoot handguns, rifles, and shotguns. This instruction came from my father whom was an army MP among other things in his life. He also grew up with guns and still shoots and hunts today. I am a CCW holder and I do NOT currently have a membership in the NRA, but I do vote in every election.

After reading several of your articles on your web site, It appears that you are not adverse to citizens owning firearms, but are against handguns, Military type of weapons, (topic for later discussion) and definitely against concealed carry.

You wrote that all the letters you get from pro gun people could have been written by the same person, and why don’t we get it. That’s funny, because I and a lot of pro gun/CCW people that think the same about those who would like to see most or all guns and especially CCW go away.

Leaving statistics aside, I think we can all agree that they can be, and have been used by both sides to (on purpose, or inadvertently) show that their position is the better one.

Here are three reasons why I feel the need to go as far as carrying a handgun to ensure the protection of mine and myself. I am not against reasonable restrictions or limits on types or quantities of firearms or training limits on CCW, but please understand also, that it is believed by many, my self included to be a slippery slope, Once you give up a right, whole or part, you don't get it back, and will most likely lead to more restrictions later.


Reason 1:
Criminals will always have weapons.

Reason 2:
The Police can't be everywhere all the time.

Reason 3:
Police are not responsible for the individual citizen. (you and me)


Here are the expanded explinations of the above mentioned reasons.

Reason1,
Criminals will always have weapons, despite the best efforts of local, state, and federal law enforcement, and sometimes with the assistance of the military, the domestic manufacture of, or the importation of illegal drugs, can not be stopped. Can anyone honestly say that if guns could be removed from the criminals, they would give up their life if crime, and cease to victimize others. Even if guns were removed from society, criminals would still be able to continue to victimize law abiding citizens with knives, sticks, or by size and shear numbers. Evil has existed long before the advent of the gun. It’s not going anywhere just because their tools have been limited. I, as many believe that an outright ban would equate to putting a lock on a white picket fence. The only people it will keep out are the decent law abiding citizen you don't have to worry about in the first place.


Reason 2:
Law enforcement can't be everywhere all the time. It's a simple law of numbers, and you don't even have to have the current numbers of LOE's vs population in America. Look around while you are out. How often do you see a police officer. Slightly more in town, and a lot less when out in the suburbs. Stop sometime and think, If I were approached by someone looking to do me harm right now, how long would it take to find my phone, dial 911, explain to the dispatcher what is going on, and where I am, and how much longer to get the word out to an officer, and that officer to find where the dispatcher understood where I was, providing they are the same place, and I have not had to leave that location in order to avoid the confrontation.

Reason 3: The big one
Police are not responsible for the individual citizen. If we look at the case of Warren Vs. District of Columbia, an interesting quote came from a DC court of appeals as to why it upheld a lower courts decision disallowing a lawsuit against the police for failing to protect three young women who called 911 twice asking for help. Keep in mind, this happened in Washington DC, a no guns allowed city. Interesting too, a protection order provides the protected one no guarantee of protection. Re: Hartzler v. City of San Jose

"fundamental principle of American law that a government and its agents are under no general duty to provide public services, such as police protection, to any individual citizen." [Warren v. District of Columbia, 444 A.2d 1 (D.C. Ct. of Ap., 1981)]



I look forward to your comments and views on the subject at hand. I can only speak for myself, but I know of others that feel the same way on part or all of the topics mentioned above and the reason’s you feel that restrictions and or bans would be effective.


Thanks in advance.

Mike in Richmond, VA

And their reply

Mike,

As you saw, most of the letters we get from pro-gun advocates sound the same, and yours is not much different (less cursing than most, which is nice). Unfortunately we don't have time to respond to everyone all the time, but in the
interest of being good neighbors, we'll give your points a quick once over.


Reason 1:
Criminals will always have weapons.

This is not true. Not all criminals have rocket launchers, because those are outlawed in civilian hands. Not all criminals have tanks, because those are outlawed in civilian hands. Will some criminals always have weapons? Yes. But stronger gun laws will make it so that fewer criminals have weapons. We're sure there are other reasons you don't want stronger gun laws (probably because you want weapons of your own), but arguing that criminals will always have weapons isn't just a huge generalization, it's defeatist. People will always murder each other as well-- does that mean we should not make it illegal?


Reason 2:
The Police can't be everywhere all the time.

Again, this is a generalization that is far too broad. No one can be everywhere all the time. We agree that you should not depend on law enforcement to rescue you from every situation. The police are there to serve and protect and keep order when they can. They help, but there are (as we're sure you know) no guarantees, no matter how many cops are on the beat.


Reason 3:
Police are not responsible for the individual citizen. (you and me)

Who else should they be responsible for? We pay their salaries, if we call they should show up. If someone's in trouble, and the police can help, they should. If not, we need to put new police officers in place.

Based on the rest of your reasoning, it seems like you meant to say police should not be the only ones responsible for the individual citizen-- that people should take their own responsibility into their own hands. And we couldn't agree more with that one. You should be doing everything you can to keep yourself and your family safe. We do.

Unfortunately, keeping a gun isn't keeping your family safe. A gun in the house is always, always, always a danger to anyone living there. The stats prove it (we know you said you didn't want them), the stories prove it, and the news, every single day of the week, proves it.

Anyway, thanks for writing. We're sure you have lots more things you want to say to us, but we're pretty busy working on the site. Fortunately for you, all of our opinions are right there for you to read up on, every single day. If you've got a question about the gun debate, all the answers are there on our site.

Thanks again for your email.

-GG

And my reply, I haven't heard back after this.

GGMike

Thanks for taking the time to reply to someone who obliviously doesn't share your views. To briefly re cap my views,

1: I'm not talking about rockets and tanks, I'm talking about the ability of a (stronger by size or numbers) person(s) victimizing the weak. Our (pro gun) view is that the criminal who is already disobeying the law by using guns to comitte crimes, will not obey the gun bans, and turn in their guns. Let me throw out an old saying that I'm sure is laughed at by pretty much every person that is or has been against guns, "When guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns". That is something that can be argued till the cows come home. But let me make one simple change and see if it doesn't have a ring of truth to it. "When street drugs are outlawed, only outlaws will have street drugs. That is why we (pro gun people) fight so hard to keep our ability to legaly keep and carry firearms. We understand that their are "bad apples" that do things that aren't safe or pretty much stupid, but as for the overall picture or the welfare of the nation, How many women standing on equal footing with an equally unarmed criminal, do you think will not be at the mercy of their attacker.

I'll end with an interesting report that has been posted in a pier reviewed publication, British Journal of Criminology, that dispels the notion that gun bans will lower crime rates. I do not have access to the article as printed in the Journal, but I do believe that the reporting on it from the Sydney Morning Herald should be a reputable enough source.

http://www.smh.com.au/news/national/...455665717.html


Thanks again for your time,

Mike in Richmond, VA

Thanks in advance for your feedback,

[DefensiveCarry.com]

[Musketeer]

They are a front organization or complete imbeciles. In either case they are not worth botherring with.

If you really want to push it ask them to explain the difference between a military sniper weapon and a long range big game rifle.

[cmidkiff]

You're throwing pearls before swine...

...nice try though. Here's a few thoughts that crossed my mind while reading your exchange.

Note that even if tanks and rocket launchers were available to criminals, they would not be used (at least not much). Hard to rob someone from a tank, or to sexually assault someone you just blew to pieces with a rocket launcher. These weapons are simply not suitable to your typical street thug, and therefore aren't used.

If banning handguns worked, why are there still handguns being used in crimes in AU, GB, Canada... how about WashDC, NYC, Chicago?

Even if every gun ever created could be rounded up and dumped in the ocean, and the knowledge of how to build one zapped from the minds of every person on earth... there would still be those that will use force to prey on the weak. The handgun is simply the most effective method for a smaller, weaker person to defend themselves against a larger, stronger opponent.

One more minor point in your favor that shouldn't be overlooked...

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

[raysheen]

Yeah, They aren't nearly as "reasonable" as they claim to be

I would be interested in hearing more about your opinions on what you were saying here though...

I am not against reasonable restrictions or limits on types or quantities of firearms or training limits on CCW, but please understand also, that it is believed by many, my self included to be a slippery slope, Once you give up a right, whole or part, you don't get it back, and will most likely lead to more restrictions later.

makes me wonder what other peoples views of acceptable gun control are on a board like this...I mean for the most part we all carry a gun so I'm sure we all think that should be legal, but I wonder about other aspects of gun control and what people here think are "reasonable"...perhaps I'll start another thread to ask this question as I don't want to hijack yours! :)

Nice try dealing with the gun guys...it's my opinion that their view of reality is a bit different than what I see in the real world... [foil beanie]I'm also of the opinion that they are a front of some sort of front[/foil beanie]

[TravisABQ]

If you follow the links you'll see that it is one site of several which look to be posing as different organizations affiliated in an "alliance" of "grassroots" organizations. It's just a front for the usual suspects.

Probably the Violence Policy Center, I think. I think That bunch is headed by Josh Sugarman who was originally the Big Shot of HCI, before he turned it over to Sarah Brady. As I understood it, she had the "victim" cachet from her name, and Sugarman started the VPC as a complementary organization.

I have never seen much point in debating with ANTIs but there are sometimes undecided people whose opinions are not quite "set". So you need a forum where an audience can be dazzled by your facts and reason.

Countering Editorials with facts, I think, are a better activity.


--Travis--

[Bryan]

Other posters are right they are a front organisation so don't waist you time. Also they said your letter had less cursing in it. It had no cursing. They are trying to derail you and put you on the defensive.

Rebuttal to their post:

1. Who said we are carrying rocket launchers? Only rabid liberals say this.

2. they defeated their own argument "no guaranties". So what, we are spouse to lie down accept our being assaulted is just a small percentage and make piece with it????

3. They once again defeat their own argument. Isn't responsible carry part of doing anything to prevent an assault. They quot the misguided statement the guns are more likely to be used in the home. It is a known skewed anti propaganda stunt. If that were true wouldn't the news be every hour having a report on some one being shot? Tell me what 33% of 20mill (gun owners) is I don't see an epidemic yet do you? This goes with the large stat that handguns stop attacks without being used. No shoot no story not good for news supporting our side.

[Lew]

Well they are so legitament that they have to hide the ownership of the gunguys.com url with a proxy holding company. This is so you can't trace who actually owns the url. I bet it is owned by Mayor Daley. Sucks that a good url like that is wasted....

[pogo2]

I don't think it is useful to debate anti gun people because this only treats the symptoms of the disease, and not the cause. The cause is a fundamental mistrust of individuals and their rights, and excessive reliance upon the state and its power.

Personal ownership of a gun represents a small bit of personal power. Anti gun people believe that all power (and all guns) should reside with the state, and individuals should do as they are told by the state. Anti gun people can also be called liberals, socialists or communists, depending on the fashion of the times. But they all share a belief in subordinating individual rights to the "common good". And they will determine the common good, since they are more enlightened and intelligent than the masses.

One's feeling about guns is generally a good litmus test for your overall political beliefs regarding individual vs. the state.

[raysheen]

Well they are so legitament that they have to hide the ownership of the gunguys.com url with a proxy holding company. This is so you can't trace who actually owns the url. I bet it is owned by Mayor Daley. Sucks that a good url like that is wasted....

yeah I found the same thing when I looked up their DNS entry after finding out about them and reading some of their articles...they have aways sounded "fishy" to me because of that...

[Zundfolge]

Reason 1:
Criminals will always have weapons.

This is not true. Not all criminals have rocket launchers, because those are outlawed in civilian hands. Not all criminals have tanks, because those are outlawed in civilian hands.

Wrong wrong wrong.

The reason that criminals don't have rocket launchers or tanks is because such weapons are not suited for virtually any criminal enterprise ... I guarantee you that there are illegally owned rocket launchers in this country right now, and if terrorists want them they can get them.


I guarantee you can NOT name ONE SINGLE ITEM that is kept out for the hands of criminals and other bad people just by outlawing them.

[Bob The Great]

makes me wonder what other peoples views of acceptable gun control are on a board like this...I mean for the most part we all carry a gun so I'm sure we all think that should be legal, but I wonder about other aspects of gun control and what people here think are "reasonable"...perhaps I'll start another thread to ask this question as I don't want to hijack yours! :)

I think that would be a very interesting thread, just to see the varied opinions, even though the liklihood of us all agreeing would be very slim, and the chances of a flame war very high. But if we can keep it heavily moderated against personal "you're retarded" posts, I think it would be very interesting to follow everyone's logic.

[jamz]

I'd take issue with 1 and 4. With 1, criminals don't have tanks because they are hard to make. Same with rocket launchers. Actually the launchers are easy to make, the rockets themselves are hard. Also, they are not "personal" weapons that help the criminal.

With 4, they say that a gun in the home is always a danger- they are evidently going to quote the Kellerman sudy about "44% more likely to shoot someone in the home". this has been thouroughly debunked by statisticians as well as researchers.
It also ignores the numbre of times a gun in the home is used to save the occupants.

That's what I'd toss back to them, in a more organized format of course, with all of your sources. :) I noted they had no actual sources.

[peacefuljeffrey]

You're wasting your time with an "organization" like that.

Does anyone here really believe that they are straightforward a GUN group, but that they believe in one tiny, narrow sliver of gun ownership (for hunting) and NOTHING ELSE?!?! How preposterous is that?

How many hunters here (raise your hands) are yourselves, or know of any hunter friends, who hunt, but absolutely abhorr the idea of any other kind of gun ownership, be it handgun, "assault weapon," or CCW?! And supposedly there's a whole "organization" of such people?! Yeah, right.

They're a FRONT for ANTI GUNNERS -- that is as clear as the button on your mouse! Why even discuss the subject with them? They are disingenuous and fraudulent from the word Go.

Reason 1:
Criminals will always have weapons.

This is not true. Not all criminals have rocket launchers, because those are outlawed in civilian hands. Not all criminals have tanks, because those are outlawed in civilian hands. Will some criminals always have weapons? Yes. But stronger gun laws will make it so that fewer criminals have weapons. We're sure there are other reasons you don't want stronger gun laws (probably because you want weapons of your own), but arguing that criminals will always have weapons isn't just a huge generalization, it's defeatist. People will always murder each other as well-- does that mean we should not make it illegal?

Sure, not all criminals have tanks, rocket launchers, etc., so it's not hard to keep them out of criminals' hands. But did they EVER have them? No. So the comparison of rockets and tanks to handguns is utterly invalid. The fact that there are tens of millions of handguns in circulation sets the issue a world apart from the idea of making sure criminals don't get tanks. How easy is it to conceal one's ownership of a TANK, versus one's ownership of a handgun? Their response on this is puerile.

Reason 2:
The Police can't be everywhere all the time.

Again, this is a generalization that is far too broad. No one can be everywhere all the time. We agree that you should not depend on law enforcement to rescue you from every situation. The police are there to serve and protect and keep order when they can. They help, but there are (as we're sure you know) no guarantees, no matter how many cops are on the beat.

Okay, their response does not address the meat of the issue: given that we all acknowledge that the police can't be everywhere all the time (they can't even be most places all the time), are we supposed to just voluntarily be at the mercy of criminals when we happen to be in the same place as a criminal and no cops are there to protect us?! Or should we do something to protect ourselves, given that we know we could easily find ourselves in a place where no cops are present to protect us?

Reason 3:
Police are not responsible for the individual citizen. (you and me)

Who else should they be responsible for? We pay their salaries, if we call they should show up. If someone's in trouble, and the police can help, they should. If not, we need to put new police officers in place.

These people are obviously not acquainted with the court decisions (Supreme Court, right?) that make clear that the police will not be held responsible if any given citizen falls victim to a criminal and was not protected from that fate by the police.


Arguing this with this group, though, is futile. They clearly are not, and never were, anything remotely like a "pro-gun" group. They're a fraud, designed and conceived to try to fragment gun owners and have us squabbling amongst ourselves.

[Janq]

I wonder have these GunGuys ever actually been or even seen the outside of the snow globe they live in?

This sort of item and anti-gun reply comes up every so often at another board I frequent and two specific responses by others to this type of thinking in general that I personally have always liked are the following:

According to the CDC, in 2000 there were 19,358 deaths in the US that were directly alcohol-induced. NOT INCLUDING car accidents, homicide, etc. Just alcohol poisoning, alcoholic liver disease, etc.

According to the DOT, there were 16,653 alcohol-related traffic fatalities in the same year. That brings the total up to 36,011.

In the same year, there were 28,663 firearm related deaths in the US (of which 16,586, or 57.9%, were suicides.) This includes homicide (10,801, or 37.7%), accidents (2.7%), legal intervention (0.9%), and "unknown" (0.8%).

I see the objections to the automobile/firearm metaphor. ("But I NEED my car to get places. You don't NEED a gun.") Well, no one NEEDS alcohol. And it kills more people than guns. So, if you are "anti-gun", and you drink, at all, you're a hypocrite.

"But wait," you say, "I drink responsibly. I never drive drunk, and I only have a sip of port on Christmas Eve. I keep the booze locked up, so little Johnny can't get to it."

How many children each year die from accidental stabbing? [As opposed to accidental shootings]

Apparently 6 (Between 0-14 aged) a year in 2001 according to the CDC (http://webappa.cdc.gov/sasweb/ncipc/mortrate10_sy.html). Out of a population of over 60 million. Not a high number. Bicycles account for 134 deaths per year. 669 deaths a year for kids who are struck by cars or other vehicles. 952 kids died in car accidents as passengers. 96 kids died from poisoning. 859 kids died from drowning. Natural/Enviromental factors killed 94.

Firearms accidents killed 72. If we want to protect kids, I bet upping the penalties for not having them properly restrained in cars would have a better effect then banning guns.

And if I drop the 10-14 group, I drop down to 33 deaths. How about under 5? 15 deaths a year. Drowning is still at 526. Somehow 15 deaths out of 19 million is not an epidemic.

Firearm Homicide for the under 4's runs at 66. Whereas non-firearm Homocide runs at 681. 12 by stabbing, 58 by suffocation (Ban hands?)

I think the following demonstrates that firearms are not quite the death traps that you think they are.

I'll bet the GunGuys drink alcohol, drive a car, have knives in their homes, have friends & family with children who also ride in cars, as well as ride bikes, swim in pools, and live amongst knives & alcohol owned by adults who have 'hands' as well.

- Janq

"We accept the reality of the world with which we are presented." - Christoff, 'The Truman Show'

[peacefuljeffrey]

I'd take issue with 1 and 4. With 1, criminals don't have tanks because they are hard to make. Same with rocket launchers. Actually the launchers are easy to make, the rockets themselves are hard. Also, they are not "personal" weapons that help the criminal.

I think that the big issue there is, they want to make handguns illegal, right? But unlike rocket launchers and tanks, which have never been in widespread ownership by the public (and can't be concealed), handguns have been around for many decades and number in the scores of millions. Keeping tanks and rocket launchers illegal, and preventing their widespread ownership, is infinitely easier than making handguns illegal and then getting them out of the hands of the citizens. The two have nothing to do with each other.