In a recent post, I stated my disgust at the the antis’ claim that a firearm in the home puts a gun owner and his or her loved ones at greater risk of injury or death than if they’re gun-free. Suffice it to say, it’s a deeply misleading stat that’s been fisked numerous times. “Your gun will hurt you!” is the latest “go-to” claim for gun control advocates. It replaces another one which used to drive me crazy . . .
The claim that unregulated gun shows and private sales account for 40 percent of gun sales. Like so many other anti-gun talking points, that one was torpedoed by the facts, too. And then there’s the stat that says that states with “loose” gun control have higher homicide rates than states with “strong” gun control laws.
Aaaaarrrrgghhh! What’s your least favorite “argument” against Americans’ natural, civil and Constitutionally protected right to keep and bear arms, which does not depend on social utility or the democratic process?
“Having immediate access to a firearm causes CCW permit holders to be more aggressive” My experience is the complete opposite.
This has been my experience as well.
I was curious and searched for “estimate us concealed carriers”. After a cursory look at some of the articles, it looks like the range is ~5% – 11% of the total US population. Being very un-scientific, I decided to take the US population at 300M and 3M (1%) of them as licensed concealed carriers. So this comes out to 1 concealed carrier for every 100 US citizens. If concealed carriers are so aggressive, shouldn’t there be closer to 3,000,000 yearly court cases against lawful concealed carriers for various levels of aggression?
🙂
The last figures I saw were something over 16 million licenses for a population of 323 million, which works out to be about 5%. the crime rate among CCW holders in Florida (which includes all crimes, not just gun crimes) is 2.4 per 100,000.
Actual numbers are 325 million resident population (https://www.census.gov/) x 73% (21 and older) = 237 million. 16 m CCW / 237 m = 6.8% of US adults have CCW. I did not take out those institutionalized nor those with felonies nor on no fly list etc (who knows what that number actually is?), so the 6.8% does not represent percent that could get CCW, just the % of US resident adults that do have ccw.
I know some of these are rounded, but pretty close. If we are going to criticize the gun grabbers for fake stats we should get ours right.
A little late to the conversation but I just reworked the numbers again this morning using census data and the newly reported 16.3 million CCW holders. If you subtract the populations of states that do not issue permits, children too young to be issued a permit and felons the remaining population is just a shade under 150,000,000 people. That comes out to 9.2% of the adult population of America or 1-in-11 adults in shall issue states with a CCW permit.
John Lott’s latest, just published, data indicate that the current number is 8 percent (outside of CA and NY). So your assumptions may be even more strongly supported!
Criminals get more aggressive, anti-gunners being closet criminals get more aggressive. But lawful gun owners are reminded by a few pounds of metal to not go to the bar and get drunk, to not pickup strangers, to not forget to lock their doors. Lawful gun owners don’t do criminal things very often.
Statistics prove the private CCW/CCH holders are less violent than the non-gun owners. We’re even less likely to commit any crime than sworn police officers.
Couldn’t agree more. Carrying comes with great responsibility. Those that carry understand that and conduct themselves accordingly.
The sophistry of the term “Gun Violence”. What is “Gun Violence”? Violence committed by guns? If just violence involving guns, then what makes it so much more special than other forms of violence; Especially the rarer and much more preventable forms like vaccuum cleaner violence?
I rather go with the sophistry of grabbing the stats you want and ignoring the rest. The worst is the constant focus on “Gun Violence” as only those crimes committed with guns that result in someone being dead. Or worse, Defensive Gun Uses only count when the good guy actually shoots the bad guy and then usually only if he kills them dead.
I like the Chicago type stats better: 4th of July weekend 100 people shot, xx number died. It would also be nice to see something like: 100 Quickie marts robbed, 47 perps shot, 18 died. You cannot correctly score violence with guns or defense with guns if you do not know the aggregate numbers.
And then there’s the problem of only focusing on violence with guns (especially deadly violence) and ignoring all the other violent crimes committed with other tools. The Brits and Aussies love to work the stats this way and crow about how seldom anyone is shot to death in England or Australia while keeping mum about the stabbings and beatings with cricket bats and strong-arm robberies and rapes.
Yeah, that really annoys me. I would rather (and usually do) take the time to say “violence committed with guns” than say “gun violence,” for basically the same reasons you listed. It’s like when people say “drugs and alcohol,” as if alcohol wasn’t a drug. It just creates a false distinction between them and adds more confusion to a topic that is already wrought with it.
Thus Archie Bunker’s question: “Would you feel any better, little girl, if they was pushed out of winders?”
We don’t want to take your guns.
After thinking about it and hearing you say it, I’ll go with this. The reason why is a lot of debates and phrases they use in marketing go away without this claim.
X2
I’ll probably go with this one, too. It’s more than just the flagrant lie itself, though.
It’s that condescending, insulting, dismissive tone and manner in which they deliver that line:
” *SIGH* Nobody wants to take away your guns”, followed up by the unspoken, but strongly implied by an even heavier sigh, “you paranoid, psychotic, inbred, uneducated, compound-dwelling troglodyte.”
That just makes me want to, well, let’s just say, because the Internet is forever, politely and persuasively refute their mistaken assertion. Or something.
It’s a tough call for me between that and For The Children(tm).
Actually, no, For The Children is the one that really burns my biscuits.
They say “if it only saves one life…” but they ignore any life that doesn’t fit their no-guns-anywhere agenda. They would rather let my children die helplessly in a classroom, crying for help that will never come, than let someone protect them with a gun. And yet they have the unmitigated gall to tell me that my desire to defend the innocent is wrong.
The same people saying for the children usually have no issue with the idea of state paid abortions or the complete lives system that values a child’s life as near worthless. Or I suppose they value the child’s life as worthless, but potentially worth the tax revenue in the future.
You hit the nail on the head with “For The Children.” That seems to be used by both parties as a last resort talking/bullet (no pun intended) point on any issue the majority of Americans disagree with them.
“Gun Crime Epidemic” Every time Hillary said that, I wanted to punch her in the face.
Agreed, with murders at an all time low, I found that one to be particularly galling.
That’s the one that bugs me the most also. Largely because the ‘epidemic’ is the justification the antis use to state that “something must be done” and “common sense” dictates that that something is gun control. The entire argument is built on the foundational assumption that gun crime is so rampant that extreme measures are warranted. When I counter that gun crime victimizes a tiny minority of the population I then often end up with an increasingly unhinged anti screaming at me because “You don’t care about the 33,000 people killed by guns every year”. They aren’t killed BY guns but with, 20,000+ are suicides and, in a country of 330,000,000 the remaining 11,000 are 0.0033% of the population. The I get told that I am a member of the KKK, evil, sexist and a homophobe.
“Common Sense” is also a term used in the argument that I found particularly distasteful.
The antis throw it around and call the most idiotic ideas “common sense” as if the sheeple will sit around, look at each other, nod in agreement and mutter how it sounds just fine and really is common sense, except it’s NOT.
Virtually all “common sense” ideas are pure idiocy. For example Washington States I-594. It sounded pretty, but the reality is that it has done nothing. Another common sense idea was the Seattle gun tax. It sounded nice, except it fell flat on its face and also has done nothing, collecting far less in taxes than originally anticipated. So much less, the city didn’t want to talk about how much they….didn’t get.
Common sense is only that — common. Not good, not right, just common. As a catchphrase, it’s pure bandwagon fallacy (everyone agrees, so it must be right). When combined with the usual appeals to emotion, it’s a great way to short out people’s logic circuits.
Seattle has a nice catch-22 going with that gun tax. They’re saying they can’t release tax figures because there’s literally only one shop left to pay the taxes, which means they’d be unethically releasing personally identifiable information…and the reason that condition exists in the first place is because they taxed everyone else out of the market. (And of course the real reason they don’t want to release the numbers is that people might realize the tax windfall was always a lie.) That’s progressivism for you.
“The entire argument is built on the foundational assumption that gun crime is so rampant that extreme measures are warranted.”
Or, perhaps it’s built on the false foundation that taking away law-abiding citizens’ weapons will reduce crime.
Either way, poor assumption.
“Democrat Crime Epidemic”…. FTFY
Thats one of the many reasons she should be punched in the face…. while wearing a glove made of depleted uranium.
My answer is all of them. They are all pure bullsh!t.
My top two.
2A was designed for muskets.
And
“No one wants to take your guns.” Followed by of course, citing Australia as the model for gun laws.
“2A designed for muskets!”
OK, I need you to carve a turkey feather into a quill pen, make some ink out of iron gall, write a letter (in cursive!), hire a guy on a horse to deliver it to me, and then I’ll listen. None of this fancy pants, new-fangled “interwebz” stuff.
Next time ask them where it explicitly says musket.
Their response is, “Those were the ‘arms’ at the time.”
When I respond that cannons were often privately owned, they sputter for a while, and then say something incoherent about not being able to ‘carry’ a cannon.
When I also point out that a bayonet was a normal part of a musket, they are usually left speechless.
When I point out that the musket was the “assault weapon” of the day, they leave.
“Assault gun”
The assertion that “gun crime” is inherently worse than other violent crime. Yes, “gun crime” dropped in the UK after their handgun ban, but violent crime rates increased, including homicides. Are the people who are shot to death any more dead than those who are stabbed, clubbed or throttled to death?
The notion that gun control reduces homicides is demonstrably false, as can be seen in every single case where we have access to homicide rates before and after gun control. Homicide rates stay the same or often increase after the laws are passed.
“would it make you feel any better little girl if they was pushed outta windas?”
https://youtu.be/GzFWRPiNXOI
Why do you need so many bullets in those “clips”……
Head bangs on table when I hear that one.
Response to that one: Why do you need more gas in your car than is required to get to the grocery store and back?
Why do you need a car that can do 120 when the speed limit on the interstate is only 85? Why does your car have 225hp when 105 can also turn the wheels?
If I can scrape by on $40k per year, then you don’t need that $125k salary. Hand it over.
“I support the Second Amendment BUT . . . .”
This?
Any stat that has a majority of Americans supposedly believing the way the do. They don’t know, can’t know, and will ever refuse to know, what all of American thinks. Until they hit the voting box.
“Your right to have a gun doesn’t trump my right to be safe.”
Yeah, there is no actual right to safety, because there’s no way to guarantee it.
The Second Amendment is as close to a “right to safety” as it gets.
My right to safety is protected by my gun. Yours?
Exactly.
Make it a point to ask them to show you where their purported right is protected in the United States Constitution and then offer to show them yours.
That it’s for our own good.
That one I haven’t heard too often, but man is it an evil lie.
Background checks will keep guns out of criminals hands is the biggest lie in the gun control playbook. With the untold millions of firearms on the street today. Getting a firearm from the street is much easier than going through the hassle of filling out a 4473.
We all know that crooks and criminals pay full retail for firearms and they aren’t stolen during thefts and burglaries.
That’s just common sense!
Excuse me while I go puke 😮
Had an on-line argument with a guy just this morning who swore that the NFA is what has kept gangsters from using machine guns and silencers since 1934!
The fact that there is a grand total of roughly 180,000 registered NFA firearms in existence coupled with their relatively high price might explain a bit too. Rare and expensive items are not usually used in risky endeavors. Anyone heard of a 1962 Ferrari GT being used as a getaway car from a bank robbery? Didn’t think so.
Arguments based on social utility. First social utility is hard to define, but collectivists will always have a bunch of crap data, like as not paid for by tax money, and high-minded platitudes, so basically maximum social utility is what they say it is. You can debate but it’s an energy-wasting battle for territory that us useless to the pro-liberty side. Second, I don’t care about any kind of social utility, I exist for myself not for the greater good.
I support the 2nd amendment but we don’t “need” open carry here. Why make yourself a target?
-“pro gun” gun owners in Florida, WHILST open carry is illegal by statute, making it worse than an opinion.
So I joined in with the ‘epidemic’ bit above but, upon reflection, I have another talking point to hate on: I hate it when the antis argue that making guns “more difficult to access” is reasonable, possible, and would have any impact on crime. There are hundreds of millions of guns in the U.S. and, at most, a few hundred thousand are used in crimes. Around 12 million new guns are added to the marketplace each year so, just the new guns from last year are enough to satisfy the demand for crime guns for the next 30 years without even considering the 300-500 million already out there. Seeking to restrict a tiny fraction of a market (the 0.1% that represents guns used in crime) by seeking to control the other 99.9% of that market makes about as much sense as trying to eliminate bee stings by regulating the consumption of honey.
“If it saves just one life…”
“Think of the children…”
“You can always run away…”
33K gun deaths a year… There about 16K murders a year, most are gang related… Take out the suicides in that 33K. For the country our size we have a low suicide rate. However, among the veteran community we are loosing 22 a day.
Only 9,616 firearm homicides in all 2015 including all 50 states and US protectorates such as Guam and the Virgin Islands according to the FBI statistics here: https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u.s/2015/crime-in-the-u.s.-2015/tables/table-20
And how many of those homicides were justifiable homicides? Like defensive use of a firearm, or a perp killed in a shootout with police? Removing the justifiable homicides should lower that total even more.
“No one wants to take your guns”. “I respect the Second Amendment “. Me, I don’t like fascists and I think democrats are Domestic Terrorists. Literally. My number 1 issue is that I advocate for a kinetic, Restorative War. I wish these anti gunners would be honest about what they want and actually start with their confiscations in states where they can get away with it. The sooner we get this civil Engagement finished, the sooner my child may know peace.
Totally agree. Civil war is coming to this country, not to mention Europe. It’s only a matter of when.
Thomas Paine said it best, long before us.
“I prefer peace. But if trouble must come, let it come in my time, so that my children can live in peace.”
California is working very hard towards their ultimate goal of confiscation. Anyone who has paid attention to CA gun laws over time can easily see the progression towards outright confiscation.
“If we let people concealed carry and a CHL holder tries to stop an active shooter, it’ll turn into a bloodbath because no one will know who is who.”
Newsflash – the active shooter is probably the one going after unarmed people.
Sweepy beat me to it. “Blood in the streets and people having gunfights over parking places!”
My second was “I believe in the second amendment but,….”
I’m among those old enough to actually hear that blood would run in the streets if Florida allowed concealed carry.
I’m also old enough to remember that a special deer hunt wasn’t necessary in Florida (claimed by the same people, of course), as deer could simply be rounded up and relocated. Thousands of deer starved to death that winter.
Those harsh Florida winters are killers.
“Those harsh Florida winters are killers.”
They are when the browse disappears and there are way too many deer for the land to support.
Places that have strict gun control but still have high levels of “gun violence” are only that way because neighboring states have such lax gun laws.
On an unrelated note, I believe that is the first time I have ever typed “gun violence”, and now I feel dirty.
“Over 90 percent of Americans want background checks” when it’s *universal* background checks, AKA ‘gun registration’ what they are really after…
All of them. I’ve never yet seen a valid argument for gun control.
“A two handed grip increases your control of the muzzle recoil.”
That the 2nd Amendment doesn’t guarantee an individual right but a government power.
Exactly like the 1st, 3rd, 4th, 5th, 6th, 7th, 8th , 9th AND 10th amendments convey a government power. Isn’t the Constitution all about establishing government powers?
Technically the 10th Amendment grants powers to the states, but all 10 restrict federal powers. The Constitution grants (government) powers, the Bill of Rights restricts them.
Refuse to admit that guns save lives.
“we should just ban guns..”
reminds me of this :
Step 1: we should just ban guns
Step 2: ??
Step 3: No more death!
Yeah but that pushes Profit to step 4.
“You don’t need {insert Bullshit here}”
I don’t “need” lots of things. Want to play that game? Fine all any human “needs” is water, food, shelter, and warmth.
So that means all we need is a 6ft x 8ft shed with a cot, a fire pit, vitamin enriched gruel, and bottled water. All provided by the government in exchange for work of course.
“Need”
GFYS
Can I just sleep on the floor? Cots usually make my back hurt.
Luxuries like bottled water! Next you will ask for champagne. Tap water is good enough.
Guns have no place in schools.
That’s easy to fix! Guns aren’t very big so I’m sure most schools could find a place for some. What the hell, mount a couple on the roof.
“The 2nd Amendment is useless because you’re not going to stand up to an army of tanks, attack helicopters, etc. with an AR-15.” Such people have zero knowledge of history…or importantly the value of deterrence.
That would be from someone not alive for Vietnam, I guess, since a bunch of little guys with AK-47s beat aircraft carriers, battleships, tanks, helicopter gunships and jet fighters quite handily.
“What do you NEED *that* for?”
*insert any gun or magazine here*
My favorite response is: No one needs a whiny little bitch either. Yet here you are.
Thanks for the spit up coffee funny ?
Common sense gun control.
I notice the antis are getting pretty slick, invading forums posing as gun owners, etc. It’s really starting to piss me off.
^ This
https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=5&v=emhy-RV3oq4
The government loophole.
“But that is the military and police . . .”
As if cops and soldiers never murdered anyone. The gun control statists never want to talk about reducing the amount or grade of weapons in the hands of governments even though government entities are the biggest proliferators and traffickers of small arms.
In this argument, I turn them to how many cops have killed “innocent unarmed black men”, yet, they want only those people to be armed. Makes a lot of damn sense, doesn’t it?
“What’s Your Least Favorite Gun Control Claim?” – My least favorite claims are claims about they’re motivations. “No one wants to take your guns.” Then why are most of my guns illegal to own or possess in California? “We’re just advocating common sense solutions.” What your advocating is neither common sense nor a solution. “We’re a gun safety organization.” What gun safety programs do you have? How many of the 4 rules of gun safety do you know? “I support the 2A.” No, you don’t.
“What’s your least favorite [gun control] “argument” … which does not depend on social utility or the democratic process?” – All their arguments are based either on social utility or the democratic process. Their factual support for those arguments are almost all lies.
Even arguments about feelings are arguments based in social utility. Rocket’s argument in Guardians of the Galaxy that he should be able to take something if he wants it more than the person who has it is an excellent argument from a social utilitarian point of view.
All arguments about what most Americans support, what the 2A means, or which “reasonable restrictions” are acceptable are all about democratic process.
Anti gun states only have crime because criminals go to the much safer neighboring free states and bring guns back. Gun owners are insecure so they own guns. Gun owners are uneducated rednecks. Common sense… You are more likely to have your gun used against you. Gun owners have small dicks. Nobody wants to take your guns. Gun show loophole. Well it was written back when they only had muskets… I could go on, literally anything they say is a regurgitated lie that they sheepishly accept as truth.
The argument that anyone else has anything to say about how I choose to protect myself and my family.
This is a free country and the right to keep and bear arms is a natural right which is protected by the United States Constitution and the Constitutions of many of the individual States.
Grabbers should literally have nothing to say on the issue, but they keep flapping their gums anyway.
My least favorite aspect of the gun rights deniers isn’t a claim but rather the psychological projection embedded in many claims and arguments. By saying that gun owners/carriers possess some unpleasant attribute (e.g. apt to start shooting in a road rage incident), they are making it clear that they themselves suffer from the aforementioned unpleasant attribute. Because they wouldn’t trust themselves with a firearm, they assume no one is trustworthy. That is the insult to which they then add the injury of trying to use govt force to infringe on my right to adequately equipped self defense.
I was just told today by a liberal that I don’t stand a chance because somebody out there will always have a “bigger, faster gun” than I do. And that I just shouldn’t get myself in bad situations.
Get an 88 magnum, it shoots through schools.
“‘Well-regulated’ means the founding fathers wanted gun control!”
“‘Militia’ means only the army/national guard/police/etc. can have guns!”
“‘Well-regulated’ means the founding fathers wanted gun control!”
All while ignoring the well established fact that decades before and after the 2nd Amendment was penned, the phrase ‘well-regulated’ meant “in good working order, or functioning well”. Such as in “a well-regulated mind”. But I suppose modern interpretation of that would be “mind control”?
3) Nobody wants to take your guns. 2) Gun violence epidemic
1) The 2nd Amendment was written for muskets and doesn’t apply to anything more more advanced.
Wouldn’t an AR15 with an un-rifled barrel be a “Musket” ???
Just wondering.
My least favorite term is simple. “Common Sense”. Next would be “Gun Violence”.
Common sense means to me read the words to the 2nd A as it was written for its time. Its NOT a living amendment to be changed on a whim. Nor to be translated to todays usage of the words as written.. With the exception of “Shall Not be Infringed” That’s the same meaning today as it was 250 years ago.
Gun violence?? Whats that??
Any “gun violence” statistic that is intellectually dishonest by virtue of being padded with suicides. Or the highly effective push to redefine simple words like “assault x”, “safety”, “control”, “high capacity”.
“Using a gun for self-defense will result in the gun being taken off you and used against you” was a popular anti gun statement. I would prefer to take my own chances with my own protection.
And this corker from the local senior plods (many of whom are ex-pat Brits) “we are getting guns off the streets”. Newsflash sparky, the legal registered firearms are not “on the streets”. They are locked in safes when not in use.
““Using a gun for self-defense will result in the gun being taken off you and used against you””
Therefore, police should have holsters that require four separate and distinct actions to remove the enclosed pistol. This will make self-defense uses of said guns impossible, and remove the possibility of a perp taking the gun and using it against the officer.
They’ll take it away from you and use it against you.
Well, maybe…If I’m out of ammo.
If you’re that bad a shot you deserve to be pistol whipped! [/sarc]
“More guns in the street will mean more gun crime.” This is the excuse used by every police chief for laws restricting the issuance of CCWs, and very prominently in every large California urban area other than Sacramento.
It’s pretty funny but several years ago before Illinois got CC I “debated”(don’t care NOW) guns with folks at the local gym. “The bad guy will just take yer gun”…”guns are too dangerous for anyone but cops”(LOL) and my favorite-“I just don’t TRUST myself”. At least the last loser was honest…
Is there a mag in that mag well?
Lets use the same line of logic that owning a gun makes you much more likely to harm yourself for other things.
Living in a home makes you much more likely to die in a house fire.
Being homeless makes you much more likely die die in the street.
Owning a car makes you much more likely to die in a car crash.
Eating food makes you much more likely to choke to death.
Swimming in a pool makes you much more likely to drown.
Owning a dog makes you much more likely to be bitten by a dog.
Being stupid makes you much more likely to believe the bullshit that gun control works.
That UBCs are only about firearm sales. They never mention how sharing firearms with trusted family and friends becomes illegal after UBCs are passed.
Don’t you know that if you want to let your friend shoot one of your firearms you have to do a legal transfer with UBC when you hand the firearm to him/her, then another legal transfer with UBC when/if he or she hands it back to you. And since each of these is considered a firearm transaction, you may have just exceeded the allowable number of monthly firearm transactions, in those states that put a limit on firearm transactions.
I keep remembering the original scare claim that there would be a river of blood flowing in the streets. Still waiting.
“We just want common sense gun control laws.”
No, they want control period.
The way the media here and overseas promotes the idea that there are no firearms in Australia and that legal owners should be treated like criminals.
Every time there is a crime the proposal is to make laws harder on legal owners.
As I’ve mentioned many times here gun laws in Australia are bad but there are still a million plus shooters and millions of firearms.
Yes, there are lots of good sayings in the thread. My personal favorites include Mike Dukakis stating that people wanting a gun should join the national guard. The clown also stated during a “National Disarmarment Day” (?) rally that gun owners should hand over their guns to the police.
Don’t tell me i don’t know about guns. My grandfather owned guns and let me shoot one. I believe in THE (not our) 2nd amendment but …..
Police have seen horrible gunshot wounds so they are an authority on guns and what they can do.
Former RI state representative said that guns should be registered so the police know where they are. She was defeated in the following election.
I believe that you can own certain guns for hunting and target shooting.
When a gun controller makes a factually incorrect claim, then when you, the gun rights advocate, counters their feelings based nonsense with fact, the law, and the truth of gun control, they reply, “well I’m not talking about that, I’m only talking about this one single assumption”.
When they claim fear of any man or woman who owns more than one gun, and that one gun better not be an MSR, cause all that black metal is just way too military looking, etc.
When Gavin Newsom, Kevin DeLeon, Nancy Pelosi, Michael Bloomberg, Soft Hands Shannon Watts, or any other such person says nearly anything about guns, it is my least favorite gun control blather.
It will be like the wild west.
I am more worried that they intentionally want it to be like Chicago, Baltimore, Detroit, Las Angeles or any other democrat run hell hole.
Disturbing
Most Disturbing
Several, and some have been mentioned:
We need “common sense” regulation. Reply: we already have it.
You’re more likely to shoot a family member or other innocent inside your house than an intruder. Reply: If you do that, you’ve no business owning a gun because you just violated the basic safety rule of knowing your target and what’s beyond it.
When the 2nd was written, they had muskets; it applies to muskets. Reply: Then you only have the freedom of press by using a Gutenberg press and a quill pen. ALL weapons were military weapons then!
No one needs a large clip (sic). Reply: See some recent shootouts by police where hundreds of rounds were fired in self defense and the bad guy got hit once. See recent DGU’s where there were multiple attackers.
Gun show loophole.
The only reason men have guns is to make up for their short manhood. Reply: So, if you’re faced with a home invader, show them your manhood. I’m sure they’ll say, “My bad!” and leave.
The thing I like least is the fact that the left wants to control guns in any form and not focus on the real issue of the CRIMINALS that are committing the crimes. When a repeat offender is found with a firearm that should automatically equal a life sentence! I am happy to send my tax dollars in to build more prisons. How about we fix the real problem and not the symptom? Then again I am also for bringing back the chain gangs and having parishioners learn trades and actually making incarceration be a bad thing. What was I thinking???
Least favorite claim is the silent one “we are protecting you through regulation(s)”. What a crock of sh_t. We all know that is impossible. If you had a cop in your pocket instead of a cell-phone to call one, you’d still be adding a step and late on deploying your self defense.
Plus, we all know the real reason that gun-grabbers gun-grab, and that’s because they can’t do tyranny if they don’t have their foot on the back of your neck, and armed people don’t play that.
Least favorite claim:
“We’re not POS (D), and rino MF’s here to tyrannize you”
“Pistol grips and collapsable stocks make a gun an ‘assault rifle’.”
Uhm, what? That’s like saying fancy rims and a new steering wheel make a car a racecar. Never mind the engine, transmission, and shocks are all still stock, you know THE THINGS THAT ACTUALLY MAKE A RACECAR.
Pistol grips, stocks, and foregrips are all accessories. They are there for shooter comfort. They don’t change the function of the gun, just like leather seats doesn’t change the function of a car. What gun grabbers are really trying to say when they claim these parts make an “assault rifle” is, “I don’t like your hobby. You’re not allowed to be comfortable doing. You’re not allowed to have fun doing it. I hate you. I want to make your life miserable.”
That’s a cold, malicious, and hateful way to be.
I think the argument that drives me nuts is the one that “the USA has the highest gun crime rates in the developed world.” I’m not sure what that means exactly, but our homicide rate is exactly in the middle compared to other countries worldwide, and if we dropped out the homicides in a few large inner city areas like Chicago, LA, Baltimore, and Washington DC, we’d be in the bottom 3 or 4. But my friends, especially those from other countries, invariably think we need more gun control because of this erroneous, but very widespread, belief.
“We’re not trying to take away your guns.” History repeats, and history has shown this statement to be a lie.
If I could have banned them all – ‘Mr. and Mrs. America turn in your guns’ – I would have! – Senator Dianne Feinstein
Ok, more of a quote than a claim, but still, come’ on…
Australia hasn’t had a massacre since 1996 so gun control works… We have actually, the Childers Backpacker’s fire, the Quakers Hill nursing home fire, the Black Saturday bushfire, some lady in Queensland murdering her 6 kids in their sleep with a knife and last year a farmer killed 4 members of his family in a murder suicide with a rifle.
It was after this most recent one that the gun control nutters here seriously suggested we change their already arbitrarily defined “gun massacre” /”mass shooting” terminology to require 5+ victims so they could still claim the “no mass shootings since 1996” stat. This doesn’t include the dramatic increase in drive by shootings perpetrated by our lovely outlaw motorcycle gangs and Middle Eastern organised crime syndicates (such a large problem they have dedicated police team forces to keep track of what they are up to).
Just call any kind of Gun Control “crime control” because all it does is create crime where none is intended.
The one that drives me nuts is the contention that the Second Amendment applies to militias only and those are now the National Guard.
Commons Sense gun laws …. Just makes me want to SCREAM!
The only common sense gun law is that everyone that wants one can buy one. If you are such a threat to others (if you want to off yourself that is your right) that you cannot own a gun, you should be institutionalized after a trial of your peers.
Just for the idiots that think, “Oh that just common sense, here take my gun away”.
Any gun control claim made by a politician, celebrity, or other person who is always surrounded by armed security. In other words they are saying it is okay for me to be protected by guns, but not for you. Damned hypocrites!!
“The NRA opposed the Cop killer bullet Bill”. No Mr. Schumer, they opposed YOUR bill which would of made 90% of ALL ammo illegal. It should of been called the “Immediate Closure and Bankruptcy of All US Ammunition Manufacturers Act”.
The bill that was passed the NRA helped author and since passed not one cop has been shot through a vest by a “Cop killer Bullet”. In decades. It also didn’t require making basically any jacketed and 99% of rifle ammunition illegal like yours bill did. Old Chucky pulls that canard out and drops it often, any chance he gets.
Comments are closed.