Nine myths of the gun-control debate

[fmj]

http://www2.tbo.com/news/opinion/2013/j ... ar-599230/

[xl_target]

A lot of Hooey and BS in this article. This is a thinly veiled attempt to appear "reasonable" in the gun control discussion. After all most people consider themselves reasonable, don't they? So they should agree with these reasonable restrictions. Every time these "reasonable restrictions" have passed, they have only affected law abiding citizens and not criminals.

You really think that if these guys were concerned about reducing the mortality rate of US citizens, they wouldn't tackle the leading causes of death first? They go after guns because they believe that guns are "bad"and no civilians should have guns but cops. Forget that rogue cops have been responsible for more crime than the law abiding permit holder in the US. I have posted some of the leading causes of death in the US with links to the Centers for Disease Control (CDC). These are the Government's own statistics.


The italicized comments in the quotes are mine.

1.

The NRA's tactic is to gin up paranoia among gun owners that President Barack Obama is going to confiscate their legally owned weapons.

The White House is weighing a far broader and more comprehensive approach to curbing the nation’s gun violence than simply reinstating an expired ban on assault weapons and high-capacity ammunition, according to multiple people involved in the administration’s discussions.A working group led by Vice President Biden is seriously considering measures backed by key law enforcement leaders that would require universal background checks for firearm buyers (already exists), track the movement and sale of weapons through a national database (gun registration - proven to not help solve crimes, ask Canada), strengthen mental health checks (provision in the law already exists; mental health records are communicated to NICS- didn't stop shootings), and stiffen penalties for carrying guns near schools or giving them to minors (stiff penalties already exist and that hasn't stopped school shootings), the sources said.

http://americablog.com/2013/01/obama-fl ... lloon.html


2. People no longer believe in what politicians say. Also see above.

3.

A semi-smart criminal, or a high-functioning deranged person, would still most likely find his way to a gun. But it would be beneficial to place more stumbling blocks in his path.

Another one? When every "stumbling block" (there are something like 20,000 gun laws on the books already) is cheerfully ignored by criminals, the only people whose access to firearms is actually being restricted are law abiding citizens.

4.

Again, it may be beneficial to ban large-capacity magazines and other exceptionally deadly implements.

If you're really serious about that, banning McDonalds and other fast food restaurants, Smoking, Suicide, Cars, ladders, Poisons, etc. should be your number one priority. How do you think that will go over? Why not make Heart Disease eradication and a cure for cancers a national priority? Gun Control fans will tell you that these deaths are not being caused by these other implements but they are.
Here are the CDC stats for the leading cause of death in the US:
The top ten leading causes of death:
Heart disease: 599,413
Cancer: 567,628
Chronic lower respiratory diseases: 137,353
Stroke (cerebrovascular diseases): 128,842
Accidents (unintentional injuries): 118,021
Alzheimer's disease: 79,003
Diabetes: 68,705
Influenza and Pneumonia: 53,692
Nephritis, nephrotic syndrome, and nephrosis: 48,935
Intentional self-harm (suicide): 36,909

Accidents is #5. Here are the CDC stats for accidents.
All unintentional injury deaths
Number of deaths: 118,021
Deaths per 100,000 population: 38.4
Cause of death rank: 5
Unintentional fall deaths
Number of deaths: 24,792
Deaths per 100,000 population: 8.1
Motor vehicle traffic deaths
Number of deaths: 34,485
Deaths per 100,000 population: 11.2
Unintentional poisoning deaths
Number of deaths: 31,758
Deaths per 100,000 population: 10.3

But we shouldn't be under the illusion that this will stop mass killings.

Correct. The last assault weapons ban did nothing to stop mass killings. What did Einstein say the definition of insanity was?

Here are the CDC Stats for Homicides:
All homicides
Number of deaths: 16,799
Deaths per 100,000 population: 5.5
Cause of death rank: 15
Firearm homicides
Number of deaths: 11,493
Deaths per 100,000 population: 3.7

I could go on with each point in the article but whats the use? However, being reasonable has saddled the law abiding gun owner with
The National Firearms Act of 1934
The Gun Control Act of 1968
The Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act of 1990
1994 Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act
Gun-Free School Zones Act of 1995

None of these Acts/Laws have prevented the crimes that have followed but they have made it harder for the law abiding citizen to acquire certain firearms.
Many American gun owners are to the point where they are no longer willing to "compromise" and be "reasonable" as they get nothing in return. Instead they continue to see inroads being made on the Second Amendment's "shall not be infringed".

Albert Einstein is supposed to have defined insanity as:
Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.
Passing more and more laws will not stop the crimes. Identify, apprehend and punish the perpetrators of the crimes. Don't punish law abiding citizens for the transgressions of others.

[fmj]

Whats your point Mate?
I thanked you and am 100% pro Guns and a NRA member who has just enrolled another member too.
I posted a article, dint make you an offer you cant refuse.
Not that i give a zit about anything when I am called a Red Neck by my dear ones.
RELAX

[fmj]

Do you just bark or you got the jaws to bite too.
Whats the toys you use??

[xl_target]

fmj,
I never called you any names or made any references to your ancestry.

Calm down, mate.
My beef was with the article and not with you.
You are confusing my diatribe towards the author of the article with animosity towards you and such was not intended.

[fmj]

Cool am chilled, I love Guns.

[fmj]

I actually Thanked you for what you wrote earlier.
I like die hard Gun lovers Like you.
from what i remember A Paki General wrote this to A Indian genaral in 1971.
Why talk with the Pen, when you can talk with a Sten.
Of course The Indian General Pissed on them.
Cheers

[xl_target]

fmj,
There are many people who blithely accept the statistics and fallacies put out by people who want to ban guns. In the past, gun owners have thought that if we give them this, they will go away. They never go away. They are just back tomorrow asking for more. You already know all this, I'm preaching to the choir here. My post was trying to show other less informed people some of the fallacies and deliberate misinformation that gun controllers spout. My post was not aimed at you.

One that you hear a lot is: "you are eight times more likely to be shot if you own a gun". Huhn what? Where is the proof of this. However, this is accepted as gospel by a lot of people. Lets see, with 300 milliion guns in the US, .... our gun death rate should be....? Oh!!!!!

for example the author of that article says:

Closing the so-called gun-show loophole — which allows many guns to be sold without benefit of a federal background check — would make it at least marginally more difficult for unqualified buyers, such as felons and the mentally ill, to get weapons

It is already illegal for a FFL holder to sell without the benefit of a background check.
Private parties can sell without a background check but it is already illegal for them to sell to a felon or mentally deranged person. If a private party gets caught selling too many guns or selling to a felon, the ATF will be all over him. As a gun owner, I'm especially careful to follow the letter of the law so I don't lose the right to bear arms. Criminals don't care about the law. So is one more law going to fix this.

Then he says

Again, it may be beneficial to ban large-capacity magazines and other exceptionally deadly implements. But we shouldn't be under the illusion that this will stop mass killings.

if they wouldn't stop mass killings, then why are we even talking about banning them. The Columbine massacre occurred during the last AW ban. The law limiting mags to ten rounds didn't do squat for those people. As far as ensuring the safety of those students, this law did nothing but it prevented thousands of law abiding citizens from buying mags with capacities over 10 rounds. The logic of his argument escapes me.

He goes on with

Blaming video-game makers alone for such complicated and incomprehensible crimes is a cop-out.

He does this to make LaPierre look like an uninformed idiot. I watched the video of the speech. That is not all Mr Lapierre said but they choose to ignore the rest of it so they can attribute this to him.

Then he ends with

What do all these misconceptions add up to? Simply that we aren't even close to having a serious conversation about protecting ourselves from death by gun. I wouldn't mind having a national debate about the morality of the Second Amendment in the 21st century. But we're not even having a serious debate on the margins.

What "morality of the second Amendment"? What national Debate? Everytime there has been a "National Debate" about this, gun owners have lost and have had another bill shoved down their throats.
The second Amendment is a part of the constitution of the United States of America and is the Supreme Law of the Land. No if, and or but about it. They can try amending the constitution to get rid of it but good luck with that. This guy is just a gun banner trying to clothe his arguments in reasonableness. Any position published by a Bloomberg writer is not going to be good for gun owners.

[xl_target]

fmj,
I enjoyed the photos of the guns that you posted.
It's good to welcome another gun lover to our community.

[Oggie]

So what's the solution, learned friends ? And please don't tell me that arming teachers is !

[liljake82]

So what's the solution, learned friends ? And please don't tell me that arming teachers is !

Why not?

[xl_target]

Why not Oggie?
We trust our teachers to look after our kids, unsupervised, all day and every weekday. From when they enter nursery school to when they graduate from high school. Quite often they take students on field trips, some even overnight.
Will having a gun in their possession turn them into mass murderers overnight?
Have the Texas school teachers who are armed, shot any kids yet?

Experience has shown that active shooters will stop and/or invariably take their own lives as soon as they are confronted with a Police officer (authority figure) with a gun. Experience has also shown that the sooner an active shooter is confronted with that authority, the sooner the shooting usually ends. So why do you think an armed teacher won't be able to stop an active shooter? Isn't our first duty to prevent more kids from being shot.

Please note, my tone here is neutral. I am not being sarcastic in my reply to your question.
My intent is to debate why this would be such a horrible idea? What heinous crime would a teacher commit now that, all of a sudden, the gun that he had at home is on school property?

[fmj]

Here is the solution.........

[xl_target]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lwTpZpwj ... ata_player

While I grew up with PF and thoroughly enjoyed their music, unfortunately, that literally turned into the anthem for some of my generation.

(Once again just a comment on the times and not a reflection on your post or you, fmj )

[fmj]

: Jim Morrison: I'm gonna get my kicks before the whole shithouse goes up in flames.