Interesting Anti-gun argument page

This is a discussion on Interesting Anti-gun argument page within the The Second Amendment & Gun Legislation Discussion forums, part of the Related Topics category; Anyone who's read any of my posts in this section of the forum knows I believe that it's to our advantage to try to change ...

Results 1 to 8 of 8
Like Tree2Likes
  • 1 Post By peckman28
  • 1 Post By Chorizo

Thread: Interesting Anti-gun argument page

  1. #1
    Senior Member Array RicT's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Seattle, WA
    Posts
    598

    Interesting Anti-gun argument page

    Anyone who's read any of my posts in this section of the forum knows I believe that it's to our advantage to try to change the minds of SOME of the "anti-gun" people, especially those who are not frozen in their thinking. I also believe that it makes sense for us to present logical, reasoned arguments when talking to the "antis" about guns and 2nd Amendment Rights, rather than just write them all off as "left-wing nutjobs" who won't ever change their minds.

    Because of that, not only do I read as many pro-2nd Amendment books and websites as I can find, but I also continually search out the "gun control" sites to see what our opponents are talking about, and how they are framing their arguments. (While I enjoy discussing these arguments here, doing it ONLY in pro-2A sites would make be worse than "preaching to the choir"...more like talking to myself.)

    So, I came across this webpage recently (originally created about a year ago, but still relevant):
    Why Using The ?Criminals Don?t Follow Laws Anyway!? Argument Makes You An Idiot | The Political Garbage Chute

    The argument that the original author provides (since criminals don't follow laws anyway, so why do we need a laws against rape, or murder, or theft, or assault, or whatever; since that proposal is ridiculous, then using that argument against more gun laws is ridiculous) is seriously flawed, but that's not what I want to discuss here.

    The more interesting thoughts come from some of the comments on the original article; here are a couple:

    "Disarming our country won’t end the killing — and attempts to disarm our country would create a reactionary backlash that would frighten the Herald Angels.

    What we need to do, up front, is to admit that gun tragedies are real, have a genuine impact on society and aren’t the product of some contrived script that the “libtard” media is using to sell Acuras. This is the NRA’s gravest mistake — projecting an attitude of indifference to Sandy Hook."


    I've never liked the phrase "gun violence"; like others have said, this phrase makes it seem that "gun violence" is a distinct entity from "violence" in general, and has no more validity than, say, "knife violence", or "motor vehicle violence", or "hammer violence". But I have to admit, as much as I agree with the NRA's stance on measures to prevent school shootings, I have felt a smidge of this attitude of indifference come across when the NRA is presented with these horrific tragedies. It may be just me, but I think the NRA could reformulate/repackage their approach/language to these kinds of situations, which might just gain us a better image with the "gun-neutral" people, and make our arguments slightly more well-received.

    ...

    "If we want to disarm criminals, we already identified most of them — street gangs. Disarming them is do-able. We know who they are. I honestly don’t care about their civil rights. As active gang members, they are already committing felonies.

    Hire more cops, better cops, pay them better, train them, and equip them. Disarm the gangs first. What this does is send a message to America that America is serious about crime. We want to end the crime.

    Street gangs, the control advocates say, add “only” 10 percent to the homicides in this country. My point is: Get off the groove, homicides are NOT the problem. Many of the aristocrats who want to end gun violence have a real suburban grasp of street gangs in the cities. In other words, they are clueless. (I worked in Gary, Ind., for 12 years. You can “google” for their crime data.)

    The homicides — most of them are against each other — are not relevant. In truth, I’m happy they are killing each other off. "



    This statement is especially interesting; an obviously anti-gun commenter who's happy that the gang members are killing each other off!

    Well, as much as that is devotly to be hoped for, the real meat of the comment is about disarming the street gangs. This follows along with some statistics that I saw recently (which I don't have in front of me right now), which said that X number of violent career criminals/gang members commit Y percentage of gun-related murders...something along the lines of X = 3000 criminals, and Y = 80%.

    So if that statistic is even close, that means that getting that X number of criminals off the street would make a huge difference in the death stats due to "gun violence". If even anti-gun types agree on that, how do we implement this change? Seems to me that enforcing the existing gun laws, especially those targeting convicted felons possessing firearms, would be a huge first step. No need for more gun laws, just enforce the ones already on the books.

    How about we (all pro-2n Amendment supporters) become pro-active in pushing for more vigorous enforcement of gun laws and encourage the antis and the "gun-neutral" to do the same? We could take back the anti-gun talking points and be seen as more than just a reactive group that wants to save our guns from confiscation...

    Yes, I know that generally we want less government intrusion into our lives and pushing for this might mean some kind of official governmental mandate...but the laws are already there. The actual legislative change would be minimal, which the perceived change could be significant. And, if I'm not mistaken, this was actually one of Obama's Executive Orders (13. Maximize enforcement efforts to prevent gun violence and prosecute gun crime.), making it more palatable to liberals.

    Just some thoughts...
    ...

  2. Remove Ads

  3. #2
    VIP Member Array Harryball's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Lansing Mi
    Posts
    6,979
    Interesting. However, my belief is that its not about guns. Its about control. Some people are fine with someone else telling them what they can and can not do. Those are the ones that wont change. The fence sitters are, are best bet.
    Don"t let stupid be your skill set....

  4. #3
    VIP Member Array peckman28's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Maryland
    Posts
    2,079
    This is nice if you take the people behind this at face value. There is too much evidence that their stated goals are incompatible with their tactics. Therefore, you're dealing with imbeciles, willful ignorants, or liars. I see very little potential for a rational discussion with any of them, and especially not when it's taking place from a position of just "keeping the laws we have". The laws we have are already an unconstitutional outrage, and such a strategy will just result in more chipping away at our freedoms.
    Aceoky likes this.

  5. #4
    Senior Member Array RicT's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Seattle, WA
    Posts
    598
    Quote Originally Posted by peckman28 View Post
    ... especially not when it's taking place from a position of just "keeping the laws we have". The laws we have are already an unconstitutional outrage, and such a strategy will just result in more chipping away at our freedoms.
    I agree with you on this; I'm not thrilled about keeping all the gun laws we have...but if the choices are between:
    a.) keeping the ones we have, or
    b.) having even more created

    I'll take "a".

    I just don't see it being realistic that we'll get a bunch of those laws taken off the books anytime soon, without a major attitudinal change by the American people.

    Just like the antis try to chip away at the 2nd Amendment one tiny piece at a time while reassuring us that they "support the 2nd Amendment", we use the same approach of taking little gains over the long haul, assuring the antis that we are being pro-active in alleviating their fears.

  6. #5
    Distinguished Member Array lionround's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Memphis
    Posts
    1,743
    According to 18 USC 922 (g), a felon in possession of a weapon is subject to a 10 year minimum prison sentence. If they have a prior "violent" felony or related drug charges, that goes up to 20 years. The problem is that not enough of these are being prosecuted. BTW, there is no parole in the Federal system. 10 years means......wait for it, 10 years. The state systems in most states are a revolving door. You commit a "gang" crime, get 10 years, get out in 2 and do it all over again. Street cred, you know.
    The early bird gets the worm, but the second mouse gets the cheese.
    -- Steven Wright
    1950 Colt .38 Police Positive Special
    2013 SCCY 9mm CPX-2 Stainless Steel
    US Army 1973-1977, 95B

  7. #6
    Distinguished Member
    Array Chorizo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    SW Idaho
    Posts
    1,959
    We had a severe hispanic gang problem in the western Treasure Valley (west of Boise) 10-15 years ago. 3-5 drive-by shootings per week, a couple of murders a month. After the standard liberal tactics of night basketball, youth centers and group hugs, we dumped the politicians, got a new batch, hired more gang/drug enforcement officers, invested in a joint federal prosecutor with local money to bring federal gun, drug and racketeering charges and started focussed enforcement. When convicted we ensured they were sent to faraway prisons (not local), arrested and convicted the recruiters (usually women), gave them stiff sentences for gun crimes, deported the illegals after they served federal time and focussed on breaking the gangs up.

    Crime has diminished to the point of one drive-by shooting every couple of years, gang gun related crimes almost stopped and murders are significantly reduced.

    Here are a couple of examples: All three are separate pieces of information, even though 2 of the links look the same.

    USDOJ: US Attorney's Office - District of Idaho

    Mexican drug trafficker sentenced to 19 years

    USDOJ: US Attorney's Office - District of Idaho

    It can be done if the political will is there.
    Aceoky likes this.
    21 years and 21 days, United States Marine Corps & NRA Life Member since 1972

    "The trouble is with the increasingly widespread problem of idiots prancing around out there confusing their opinions with actual facts." peckman28

  8. #7
    Senior Member Array RicT's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Seattle, WA
    Posts
    598
    Quote Originally Posted by Chorizo View Post
    We had a severe hispanic gang problem in the western Treasure Valley (west of Boise) 10-15 years ago. 3-5 drive-by shootings per week, a couple of murders a month. After the standard liberal tactic of night basketball, youth centers and group hugs, we dumped the politicians, got a new batch, hired more gang/drug enforcement officers, invested in a joint federal prosecutor with local money to bring federal gun, drug and racketeering charges and started focussed enforcement. When convicted we ensured they were sent to faraway prisons (not local), arrested and convicted the recruiters (usually women), gave them stiff sentences for gun crimes, deported the illegals after they served federal time and focussed on breaking the gangs up.

    Crime has diminished to the point of one drive-by shooting every couple of years, gang gun related crimes almost stopped and murders are significantly reduced.

    Here are a couple of examples:

    USDOJ: US Attorney's Office - District of Idaho

    Mexican drug trafficker sentenced to 19 years

    USDOJ: US Attorney's Office - District of Idaho

    It can be done if the political will is there.
    Now THAT's what I'm talking about!

  9. #8
    Senior Member Array CanuckQue's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    Maritimes Canada
    Posts
    1,129
    This is a battle of public perception. Truly, people don't actually care about 'distant' gang violence or suicides. So, even gun control advocates don't really use these type of things to get momentum, except tokenly. It's high profile shootings (usually involving mental illness) that bother galvanize people.
    Our current plan for Universal Iron Lung coverage, just sayin'.
    Wisest. Retirement. Plan. Ever.
    Good thing the March of Dimes worked. How, why?

    Alternately, for those with a tool shed, ideas, or creative loved ones to tell..


Links

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •