Common sense lost on "Anti's"

gwhall57 · July 2nd, 2008, 12:41 PM

With the landmark ruling by the Supreme Court, the liberal mass media were quick to trot out professors, medical doctors, politicians and citizens who decried the ruling as the court effectively opening the flood-gates of murder, robbery and rampage by gun-totin’ whackos upon the streets of the nation.

Why do the Antis consistently (and, regardless of facts and figures, seemingly permanently) decry guns, and the law-abiding, gun-owning citizen, as the root of all gun-violence evil? How can they not understand the common sense arguments in favor of guns rights?

The Antis preach a gospel of strict gun-control laws. They seem to cling to the notion that, with the passage of a few more highly restrictive gun laws that ban handguns, they will solve the problem of gun violence in our society today.

This mind-set makes no sense at all to me. The vast majority of the people committing the crimes of gun violence (murder, robbery, etc.) are, as a rule, criminals – gang bangers, thugs, thieves, murderers, etc. By definition, criminals DO NOT obey the law. Let me repeat that point – criminals DO NOT obey the law. How, then, will enacting more laws have any effect on the criminals committing the crimes? The criminals already ignore the existing gun-control laws. What will be the effect of passing even more restrictive gun-control laws? The criminals will simply ignore them.

There are very strict laws in this country regarding speeding on the roadways. Has this eliminated speeding? There are strict laws against driving while intoxicated. Have these laws eliminated drunk driving? There are already very harsh consequences associated with being convicted of killing someone, up to and including the death penalty. Has this seriously reduced the numbers of murders committed? Will more gun-control laws eliminate gun violence in our society?

This argument, unfortunately, falls on deaf ears. Antis don’t, or can’t, make the logical connection between the policy of endlessly promulgating strict gun laws, and the actual (non) impact that such laws have on the amount of gun violence. What happened after the draconian gun-control laws in Washington DC went into effect? Did the murder rate decrease? In all but one year, the rate of homicides in DC increased. The amount of gun violence increased. In effect, the laws in DC just made the average citizen living there a helpless victim to any thug with a gun.

To an Anti, a gun is inherently evil and dangerous, even when the gun is just lying on a table with no one in proximity. They blame the gun for being the cause of so many murders and robberies, instead of blaming the criminal intent of the perpetrator. They miss the point – if criminals have no guns, they simply arm themselves with some other device (knife, sword, club, tire-iron, etc.) to attack their intended victims. It’s not having a gun in hand that turns someone into a killer – it’s that person deciding to kill someone, and become a killer, that turns someone into a killer.

To Antis, guns only have one purpose – to kill. I beg to disagree; there are legitimate uses for guns that do not involve killing – I use my gun to shoot targets. I enjoy shooting targets at the range, just as some people enjoy hiking, or sailing. I have put several thousand rounds down-range in my lifetime, and I have never, ever, killed any one. I may have used up a couple of trees worth of paper for the targets, but I have never caused any human being (or animal, for that matter) to die.

My gun is also used for self-defense. Luckily, I have never had to use my pistol to defend myself, but I do keep it ready for that use. I am no longer “21 and bullet-proof”; I happen to be old, and slower than I used to be, and missing 1/3 of one of my legs. I would be at a tremendous disadvantage if I were to be accosted by a criminal or several criminals (they do seem to like to hunt in packs, don’t they?) – “easy pickings” is a phrase that comes to mind. I am no longer physically able to flee, so standing my ground is my likely choice. And for that reason, my gun is an essential survival tool – a great equalizer. I do not go out and seek danger, but if I am attacked, I can increase my chances of survival through being armed and ready.

Antis always seem to believe that everyone should depend on the local police department for protection from criminal attack. That belief has a major fallacy – the police are not legally required to protect anyone. In addition to that fact, there are only so many police officers working at any one time. The chances that there is a police officer nearby when any one is attacked are very, very slim.

All in all, it seems that, when one enters into the Brady-Bunch ranks, one must check one's commons sense at the door, where it is lost forever....

.

rodc13 · July 2nd, 2008, 01:34 PM

You're right about how illogical they are.

The one that always gets me is, "If we can save even one life, it's still worth it to ban/regulate/etc. . . . "

I beg to differ. Saving "a" life may or may not be worth it, but it doesn't even take into account the likelihood that lives may be saved, and harm may be prevented by people having the ability to defend themselves.

And they certainly have no evidence that less restrictive gun laws will cause more people to run amok and kill people right and left. In fact, there's not a single circumstance they can point to where that's been the case.

HotGuns · July 2nd, 2008, 01:39 PM

If they had common sense or logic...they wouldnt be "anti's".

Ram Rod · July 2nd, 2008, 01:42 PM

Quote:

If they had common sense or logic...they wouldnt be "anti's".

Exactly. The 'anti's' are already "lost", so their loosing common sense is in effect a non-issue. They're just all around total losers.

Musketeer · July 2nd, 2008, 02:06 PM

Sorry but I did not read your entire post, too long.

The answer to your question is simple though. Their position is based on emotion and any position based emotion is impervious to logic or reason. We may win some over but it will never be with facts and numbers. Only with emotional examples can it be done.

Dano50 · July 2nd, 2008, 03:42 PM

Parden me for the intrusion. I have been a long time reader to this board, but, somewhat reticent in posting.

The larger question seems to be, who (or what) is orchestrating the hew and cry of the "anti" crowd. The condescending derision of the so called "red kneck" hunting crowd by the (again) so called enlightened educated elite, villification of gunowners in the press and other media, patriarchal attitude of the governing body(ies)over their charges...all these are precursors to disarmament and subjugation of (up to this point) a free people.

The pupeteers, (read, Soros, Bloomburg and anyone in the United Nations) appear to have a larger agenda. By appealing to a segment of the society (read "liberals"), they can propagandize imagined and exagerated "reasons" to disarm a population for the greater (to them) good. The fear, IMHO, is that a portion of the population can and will have a sense of self reliance in contravention of a governmentally mandated regimen, the "sheep" will follow the will of the governing body as long as that body continues to stroke their egos.

Son of a union worker (shop steward), undergraduate degree in population biology with a minor in American Literature, Business Adminstration (accounting) and Tax degrees, and even I am derided by the local bureaucrats as "not understanding" the issues...

I think our concentration should be on being vigilant and focus on what, perhaps, is the real driving force behind the ranting. I do believe the anti's understand the real issues, and, are fully cognizant of the real agenda.

Anyone else?

goldshellback · July 2nd, 2008, 04:18 PM

I'm of the 'emotional' standpoint WRT the anti's screaming for more gun control. No guns, no gun crimes, right? Now, WRT the goverment......they just don't want an armed population.......for the exact reason the Founding Fathers wrote it into our BOR's, to keep the Govt. on the up-n-up.
Really, two seperate groups desiring two diffrent (but like) outcomes by using the same means....emotional appeals and tighter gun control laws.

digitalexplr · July 2nd, 2008, 04:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rodc13

You're right about how illogical they are.

The one that always gets me is, "If we can save even one life, it's still worth it to ban/regulate/etc. . . . "

I beg to differ. Saving "a" life may or may not be worth it, but it doesn't even take into account the likelihood that lives may be saved, and harm may be prevented by people having the ability to defend themselves.

And they certainly have no evidence that less restrictive gun laws will cause more people to run amok and kill people right and left. In fact, there's not a single circumstance they can point to where that's been the case.

The problem they have is that their efforts have never saved one life. Rather their idiocy has cost many lives of armed robbery victims, rape victims, home invasion victims, etc.

sniper58 · July 2nd, 2008, 06:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rodc13

You're right about how illogical they are.

The one that always gets me is, "If we can save even one life, it's still worth it to ban/regulate/etc. . . . "

I beg to differ. Saving "a" life may or may not be worth it, but it doesn't even take into account the likelihood that lives may be saved, and harm may be prevented by people having the ability to defend themselves.

And they certainly have no evidence that less restrictive gun laws will cause more people to run amok and kill people right and left. In fact, there's not a single circumstance they can point to where that's been the case.

+1! They have plenty of time-tested evidence that shatters their whole belief system. CCW people have instances of criminal behavior that is far below the national average. Areas with relaxed gun legislation has less instances of overall crime, gun crime specifically. They don't want to hear it as it destoys their persona. So all you can do is

when you must,

when you can and

educate whenever possible. If all else fails, stand back and just watch

stanislaskasava · July 2nd, 2008, 07:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by gwhall57

The Antis preach a gospel of strict gun-control laws. They seem to cling to the notion that, with the passage of a few more highly restrictive gun laws that ban handguns, they will solve the problem of gun violence in our society today.

There's a lot of money to be 'raked' off the top of donations, etc. when you can construct the illusion of a societal problem -- whether it be so-called 'gun violence' or a global warming crisis, it's easy to guess who's lining their own pockets.

It's the Sheep who get raked and the People who pay the other price (bad laws and policies).

If you're an 'anti' politician and your wallet is getting fat, what reason would you have to try to actually understand an issue? There's little money in the truth.

July 2nd, 2008, 12:41 PM	#1
gwhall57 Member Join Date: Aug 2006 Location: Midlothian, VA Posts: 303	Common sense lost on "Anti's" With the landmark ruling by the Supreme Court, the liberal mass media were quick to trot out professors, medical doctors, politicians and citizens who decried the ruling as the court effectively opening the flood-gates of murder, robbery and rampage by gun-totin’ whackos upon the streets of the nation. Why do the Antis consistently (and, regardless of facts and figures, seemingly permanently) decry guns, and the law-abiding, gun-owning citizen, as the root of all gun-violence evil? How can they not understand the common sense arguments in favor of guns rights? The Antis preach a gospel of strict gun-control laws. They seem to cling to the notion that, with the passage of a few more highly restrictive gun laws that ban handguns, they will solve the problem of gun violence in our society today. This mind-set makes no sense at all to me. The vast majority of the people committing the crimes of gun violence (murder, robbery, etc.) are, as a rule, criminals – gang bangers, thugs, thieves, murderers, etc. By definition, criminals DO NOT obey the law. Let me repeat that point – criminals DO NOT obey the law. How, then, will enacting more laws have any effect on the criminals committing the crimes? The criminals already ignore the existing gun-control laws. What will be the effect of passing even more restrictive gun-control laws? The criminals will simply ignore them. There are very strict laws in this country regarding speeding on the roadways. Has this eliminated speeding? There are strict laws against driving while intoxicated. Have these laws eliminated drunk driving? There are already very harsh consequences associated with being convicted of killing someone, up to and including the death penalty. Has this seriously reduced the numbers of murders committed? Will more gun-control laws eliminate gun violence in our society? This argument, unfortunately, falls on deaf ears. Antis don’t, or can’t, make the logical connection between the policy of endlessly promulgating strict gun laws, and the actual (non) impact that such laws have on the amount of gun violence. What happened after the draconian gun-control laws in Washington DC went into effect? Did the murder rate decrease? In all but one year, the rate of homicides in DC increased. The amount of gun violence increased. In effect, the laws in DC just made the average citizen living there a helpless victim to any thug with a gun. To an Anti, a gun is inherently evil and dangerous, even when the gun is just lying on a table with no one in proximity. They blame the gun for being the cause of so many murders and robberies, instead of blaming the criminal intent of the perpetrator. They miss the point – if criminals have no guns, they simply arm themselves with some other device (knife, sword, club, tire-iron, etc.) to attack their intended victims. It’s not having a gun in hand that turns someone into a killer – it’s that person deciding to kill someone, and become a killer, that turns someone into a killer. To Antis, guns only have one purpose – to kill. I beg to disagree; there are legitimate uses for guns that do not involve killing – I use my gun to shoot targets. I enjoy shooting targets at the range, just as some people enjoy hiking, or sailing. I have put several thousand rounds down-range in my lifetime, and I have never, ever, killed any one. I may have used up a couple of trees worth of paper for the targets, but I have never caused any human being (or animal, for that matter) to die. My gun is also used for self-defense. Luckily, I have never had to use my pistol to defend myself, but I do keep it ready for that use. I am no longer “21 and bullet-proof”; I happen to be old, and slower than I used to be, and missing 1/3 of one of my legs. I would be at a tremendous disadvantage if I were to be accosted by a criminal or several criminals (they do seem to like to hunt in packs, don’t they?) – “easy pickings” is a phrase that comes to mind. I am no longer physically able to flee, so standing my ground is my likely choice. And for that reason, my gun is an essential survival tool – a great equalizer. I do not go out and seek danger, but if I am attacked, I can increase my chances of survival through being armed and ready. Antis always seem to believe that everyone should depend on the local police department for protection from criminal attack. That belief has a major fallacy – the police are not legally required to protect anyone. In addition to that fact, there are only so many police officers working at any one time. The chances that there is a police officer nearby when any one is attacked are very, very slim. All in all, it seems that, when one enters into the Brady-Bunch ranks, one must check one's commons sense at the door, where it is lost forever.... . __________________ "Bad spellers of the world - untie!" DAV Life member, NRA Life member Springfield XD 9mm Sub-Compact Taurus PT111 Millennium Pro 9mm

July 2nd, 2008, 01:34 PM	#2
rodc13 VIP Member Join Date: Jun 2006 Location: San Antonio, Texas Posts: 2,309	You're right about how illogical they are. The one that always gets me is, "If we can save even one life, it's still worth it to ban/regulate/etc. . . . " I beg to differ. Saving "a" life may or may not be worth it, but it doesn't even take into account the likelihood that lives may be saved, and harm may be prevented by people having the ability to defend themselves. And they certainly have no evidence that less restrictive gun laws will cause more people to run amok and kill people right and left. In fact, there's not a single circumstance they can point to where that's been the case. __________________ Cheers, Rod "We're paratroopers. We're supposed to be surrounded!" Dick Winters

July 2nd, 2008, 01:39 PM	#3
HotGuns VIP Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Arkansas Posts: 4,518	If they had common sense or logic...they wouldnt be "anti's". __________________ AR. CHL Instr. 'It cannot be emphasized too strongly or too often that this great nation was founded not by religionists but by Christians, not on religions but on the Gospel of Jesus Christ'. Patrick Henry

July 2nd, 2008, 04:18 PM	#7
goldshellback Distinguished Member Join Date: May 2007 Location: St. Mayberry, GA Posts: 1,565	I'm of the 'emotional' standpoint WRT the anti's screaming for more gun control. No guns, no gun crimes, right? Now, WRT the goverment......they just don't want an armed population.......for the exact reason the Founding Fathers wrote it into our BOR's, to keep the Govt. on the up-n-up. Really, two seperate groups desiring two diffrent (but like) outcomes by using the same means....emotional appeals and tighter gun control laws. __________________ "Just getting a concealed carry permit means you haven't commited a crime yet........CCP holders commit crimes." Daniel Vice, senior attorney for the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence, as quoted on Fox & Friends, July 7th, 2008

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode

July 2nd, 2008, 02:06 PM	#5
Musketeer Senior Member Join Date: Jul 2006 Location: USA Posts: 678	Sorry but I did not read your entire post, too long. The answer to your question is simple though. Their position is based on emotion and any position based emotion is impervious to logic or reason. We may win some over but it will never be with facts and numbers. Only with emotional examples can it be done.

July 2nd, 2008, 03:42 PM	#6
Dano50 New Member Join Date: Aug 2006 Location: Oregon Posts: 7	Parden me for the intrusion. I have been a long time reader to this board, but, somewhat reticent in posting. The larger question seems to be, who (or what) is orchestrating the hew and cry of the "anti" crowd. The condescending derision of the so called "red kneck" hunting crowd by the (again) so called enlightened educated elite, villification of gunowners in the press and other media, patriarchal attitude of the governing body(ies)over their charges...all these are precursors to disarmament and subjugation of (up to this point) a free people. The pupeteers, (read, Soros, Bloomburg and anyone in the United Nations) appear to have a larger agenda. By appealing to a segment of the society (read "liberals"), they can propagandize imagined and exagerated "reasons" to disarm a population for the greater (to them) good. The fear, IMHO, is that a portion of the population can and will have a sense of self reliance in contravention of a governmentally mandated regimen, the "sheep" will follow the will of the governing body as long as that body continues to stroke their egos. Son of a union worker (shop steward), undergraduate degree in population biology with a minor in American Literature, Business Adminstration (accounting) and Tax degrees, and even I am derided by the local bureaucrats as "not understanding" the issues... I think our concentration should be on being vigilant and focus on what, perhaps, is the real driving force behind the ranting. I do believe the anti's understand the real issues, and, are fully cognizant of the real agenda. Anyone else?