This is a discussion on Another anti who doesn't know what he's talking about within the In the News: The Good, the Bad and the Ugly forums, part of the The Back Porch category; 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 ...
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).
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.
"Without fear there can be no Courage!"
"To believe that social reforms can eradicate evil altogether is to forget that evil is a protean creature, forever assuming a new shape when deprived of an old one." - SAT
Never argue with an idiot - they'll bring you down to their level then beat you with experience.
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.
The ultimate result of shielding men from the effects of folly is to fill the world with fools.
NRA Life Member
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.
“Monsters are real and so are ghosts. They live inside of us, and sometimes they win.”
~ Stephen King
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.
Kansas Concealed Carry Website
NRA/Ks. Firearms instructor
Cheif Range Safety Officer
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.
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!
There are only TWO kinds of people in this world; those who describe the world as filled with two kinds of people...and those who don't.
"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.
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.
"We're paratroopers. We're supposed to be surrounded!" Dick Winters
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.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.
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?
Proverbs 27:12 says: “The prudent see danger and take refuge, but the simple keep going and suffer for it.”
Certified Glock Armorer
NRA Life Member
Just another empty suit with no facts just talk
your a genius?? If you wanted to regulate guns, you should have made your case for gun control 240 years ago.........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.
HAPPY NEW YEAR
I bet if we ban criminals....crime would drop dramatically!
Magazine <> clip - know the difference
martyr is a fancy name for crappy fighter
You have never lived until you have almost died. For those that have fought for it, life has a special flavor the protected will never know