Another anti who doesn't know what he's talking about

[Dal1Celt]

This was posted in the Fayetteville Observer this morning.

I love how he has no facts, just his "knowledge".

Would like to know what he'd say if he was ever to become a victim. Wonder if any BG's in the area know him and now look forward to meeting up with him (I am not condoning anything happening him, just wondering).

http://www.fayobserver.com/Articles/2009/08/17/924964

Guns have a single purpose

Increase the tools of violence to decrease violence. Does that make any logical sense?

Rebekah Sanderlin's proposal that more people carrying concealed weapons would lead to less gun violence is absolutely absurd ("Respect best deterrent," July 27). Some may argue that someone with a concealed carry permit might have ended Columbine or the Virginia Tech massacres earlier. I argue that if guns were not readily available to the perpetrators, they never would have happened.

This is the same failed reasoning of Mutually Assured Destruction that occurred during the Cold War. Some might say that our stockpiling of nuclear weapons to keep pace with the Soviets (and vice versa) prevented a nuclear war. Maybe. But it also created a world with thousands, if not hundreds of thousands, of nuclear weapons and now we worry that they will fall into the wrong hands. When it comes to bombs with the power to destroy our entire planet, any hands are the wrong hands.

Sanderlin is right about one thing: Gun control will not stop someone hell-bent to murder. But it will make it more difficult. And it will reduce the number of gun accidents. I have a hunch that for every time a handgun was successfully used "for defense," there are many more accidental deaths as a result of a weapon intended for defense. Guns are destructive tools. Their purpose is to destroy, to hurt, to kill. It seems absolutely ludicrous not to limit their availability.
Brian Ziegler
Fayetteville

[DefensiveCarry.com]

[bbqgrill]

I love how he has no facts, just his "knowledge".


FayObserver.com -

It seems absolutely ludicrous not to limit their availability.

Brian Ziegler
Fayetteville

Someone needs to clue Brian to the fact that availability is already heavily regulated.

Cheers,

[lacrosse50]

I agree that having some facts rather than hunches to back up those opinions allows them to carry more weight. At least he (1) allows that gun control isn't a cure-all and (2) refers to guns as tools.

Sadly there will always be people who don't use or ignore the facts. And there will always be people who rely on others to give them information. Put the two together and you have quite the symbiosis.

[Saber]

Brian apparently lives in a glass bubble and has likely never broken a fingernail. If only the world were truly like’ Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs.
Regards,

[doctruptwn]

Perhaps Brian can use his logic of controlling firearms, controls crime. To explain why Vermont has like a 1% crime rate when, everybody carries. He would probably say that vermont only has a population of 1.

[ccw9mm]

If "Brian" were raped or brutalized, or saw his family taken down by criminals, then perhaps he could see the utility of self-defense and the tools that allow us some chance against such wolves. Though, I have a hunch: perhaps not even then.

[ghost tracker]

It's just too easy to find "another anti who doesn't know what he's talking about". After all, if they knew what they were talking about...they'd be PRO-R2K&B!

[cz2075bd]

"Their purpose is to destroy, to hurt, to kill."

I guess my guns are defective. They have not destroyed anything (other than paper), nor have they hurt or killed anyone.

[rodc13]

I see a couple of fallacies here, in addition, of course, to those already pointed out.

1) He refers to mutually assured destruction (MAD) as "failed reasoning". He neglects to consider that it worked. The deterrence was indeed effective, and has remained so to this day. I wonder if he's thought about what might have happened if we had no deterrent capability?

2) He then refers to WMDs (and by extension, guns), "any hands are the wrong hands" to possess them. I rather ardently disagree. If they're in the hands of the good guys (meaning us), then they're not in the wrong hands.

I've had lots of discussions with folks like this. The main question I start from is "Do you believe that there is an inherent right to self defense?" If they say no, then there's a philosophical gulf of such vast proportions as to be insurmountable. If they say yes, then we can usually find some common ground, and logic and facts can indeed be persuasive.

[Holger]

I see a couple of fallacies here, in addition, of course, to those already pointed out.

1) He refers to mutually assured destruction (MAD) as "failed reasoning". He neglects to consider that it worked.

That's what I was thinking when I was reading the article. Peace through strength, si vis pacem, para bellum, etc. It works.

[natticarry]

Brian apparently lives in a glass bubble and has likely never broken a fingernail. If only the world were truly like’ Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs.
Regards,

I am a strong proponent of Poison Apple Control

2) He then refers to WMDs (and by extension, guns), "any hands are the wrong hands" to possess them. I rather ardently disagree. If they're in the hands of the good guys (meaning us), then they're not in the wrong hands.

People who use his logic are generally the ones who would probably use those implements for poor reasons in moments of weakness. Thats usually why they don't trust anyone else with them.

[retsupt99]

Let's see, there was alcohol control (1920's), that didn't work too well.
We've had drug control for the last 30-some years...how's that working?

I'll gadly give up all my guns right after all the criminals turn theirs in...

Actually, no need for gun control, just put people in jail for a loooooong time when they commit crimes using guns...no repeat offenders. How many 'crime' threads have we all read where the dirtbag involved in a robbery, home invasion, or drug crime already has a gun crime either on his record or has a warrant for a gun crime and skipped out...why?

The same politicians who want to make more 'feel good' gun laws or want to limit our access to SD weapons, usually have their own gun and permit or are surrounded with a team of armed guards...why?

[Tom G]

Just another empty suit with no facts just talk

[Jmac00]

Rebekah Sanderlin's proposal that more people carrying concealed weapons would lead to less gun violence is absolutely absurd ("Respect best deterrent," July 27). Some may argue that someone with a concealed carry permit might have ended Columbine or the Virginia Tech massacres earlier. I argue that if guns were not readily available to the perpetrators, they never would have happened.

your a genius?? If you wanted to regulate guns, you should have made your case for gun control 240 years ago.........

[SIGguy229]

I bet if we ban criminals....crime would drop dramatically!