“Both direct and indirect violence would be greatly reduced with gun control laws. With the non-existent ability to acquire a gun, direct gun violence like that of shootings related to gangs and robberies would be lessened. Moreover, indirect violence like accidental shootings that occur when children have access to guns in the home would also be greatly reduced as well.” – David Arnold, List of Pros on Gun Control [via eHow.com]
I saw that CNN is now “explaining the 2nd Amendment” now too:
http://thegunwire.com/blog/youtube-video-cnn-explains-the-2nd-amendment/
No Bias in the the “explanation” either, of course.
What planet do these people live on? Gun control laws are going to reduce gang crime and robberies? HAHAHAHAHAHAHA
Who cares if they work. The voters will buy it.
Anyone supporting RKBA needs to quit thinking these people are stupid or that they don’t know what they’re talking about. They absolutely do. And you ignore them at your own peril.
We need to think like they do (with regard to our rights). We need to fight like they do. We need to appeal to emotions like they do. Or not.
One thing is clear, though: we are fighting a rearguard battle at this point.
It’s the wording that’s so important. They say that “direct gun violence like that of shootings related to gangs and robberies would be lessened.” They didn’t talk about the amount of violence in general. Without guns, stabbings, golf-clubbings, baseball-battings, etc. will increase dramatically. Funny that they never use the statistics from England on their violent crime rate…
“Both direct and indirect drug abuse would be greatly reduced with drug control laws. With the non-existent ability to acquire a drug, direct drug abuse like that related to crack houses and ecstasy parties would be lessened. Moreover, indirect abuse like recreational use that occurs when teens have access to drugs in the home would also be greatly reduced as well.”
Um… so how has that all been working out?
Let us see, gangs in Chicago, using illegal guns, selling illegal drugs and making lots of money in the process, what can we deduce using logic and facts.
The people who support the war on guns and those who support the war on drugs are equally delusional.
Yup, that’s working really well in Mexico isn’t it? Geeez.
Stupid, there’s just no cure.
The only thing worse than stupidity is WILLFUL stupidity.
I particularly love the elision from “direct and indirect violence” to “gun violence”.
I don’t see a link in the related articles for the cons of gun control. It’s amazing how biased some sources are sometimes.
They do have this gem about the pros and cons of the NRA though;
http://www.ehow.com/list_6810482_nra-pros-cons.html
This big difference in the NRA pros/cons is they at least don’t state unsubstantiated assumptions and opinions as facts. They say things like “detractors argue that…” The quote from the pros about gun control just simply states violence would be less, which is absolute not fact.
Meh, they may use a disclaimer for the con remarks, but then they also finish their conclusion about the NRA with this absolute statement;
“Overall statistics show fewer guns lead to fewer gun deaths, but many individual instances can be shown in which individuals successfully defended themselves against aggression or crime by using firearms.”
My favorite pet peeve: how leftists always treat the US Constitution like its some ancient Mayan scroll from the year 3000BC , unable to be interpreted without an army of scholars and groupthink committees.
unless you want to eliminate the 1st amendment and push for a Christian religion or the 8th amendment when it is time to execute an admitted and convicted child rapist and murderer . . . then the constitution is sacrosanct.
Yes, they do want to eliminate those restrictions. Any other questions?
Gun control must be like one of those stupid “magic eye” pictures (remember those?)
You either cross your eyes and contort your vision to make a picture out of a sea of nonsense, or, you lie through your teeth and say “oh, yeah! it’s a…tiger, right?”
I never could see those damn things.
Me either! I was never convinced anyone else could, either.
Evidence in support of his position is non existent.
Evidence to the contrary is legion.
Here’s how it works, you have and idea, a concept, in your mind. You compare that idea to to reality. You then change your idea so that it conforms to reality.
Why do so many people get this backwards?
“With the non-existent ability to acquire a gun …”
Citizen disarmament advocates always assume such a goal is possible regardless of the fact that the following means their goal is by definition impossible:
(1) Criminals successfully smuggle 100s of tons of contraband into the country every year.
(2) Dishonest authorities accept bribes every day which enable criminals to operate with impunity.
(3) Criminals manufacture contraband domestically.
(4) Almost anyone can make a crude yet effective single shot gun from $10 of supplies readily available at any good hardware store.
So their first premise is demonstrably impossible. Is there any point in paying any attention to the rest of their rambling?
+1
Yep. Gun control laws make it impossible for law-abiding people to obtain a gun. Criminals have plenty of resources, from buying one off the black market to just smuggling or stealing one. People seem to forget that laws only work when they are enforceable and people agree to abide by them…
+1 🙂
+2
You beat me to it. Alcohol didn’t go anywhere during prohibition. Cocaine, heroine, marijuana etc hasn’t gone anywhere during the War on (some) Drugs. But rest assured, if we ban guns, then they will all magically disappear and there will be no more homicides with firearms.
Arbitrarily making something illegal doesn’t make it vanish. Every time I realize the person I’m talking to is operating on that assumption I want to just grab them and shake them while yelling “If making something illegal made it vanish, then there would be no crime!!!”
+1,000
+3.5
TTAG can be a starting point for the boycott and eventual discontinuation of the term “gun control”.
If we could just have a think tank/national discussion/motivating presidential speech on how to regulate (ban) the law of inertia, we could eliminate “gun crime”. Oh wait …
Heck, we don’t even need zip guns. The cost of CNC-converted mills and 3D printers is dropping drastically. It doesn’t take a genius to be able to produce a mediocre firearm with today’s technology.
I think you’ll find that the people who are pro-disarmament are, for the most part, people who are just base consumers. They have no idea how to produce an item. They just go down to the store and buy what they need. They assume if it’s not at the store or at Amazon then you can’t possibly get it, and since they have no idea where it came from or how it works, it’s just some black box of evil.
I’d guess there aren’t many machinists out there who are for disarmament.
The cost of the equipment would hardly matter, the profit in being able to offer the prohibited good (in this case a gun) would massively offset start up costs. If the machine is $30,000 but each gun sells for $1000 a single weeks production makes the business highly profitable.
This is why drug prohibition doesn’t work. When a kilo of cocaine is worth only $100 in Bogotá but $100,000 in Miami there is simply nothing in the world that could ever stop it’s importation. If you summarily executed drug smugglers the cartels would still never run out, they would just up the violence to avoid capture. Eventually the US would resemble Mexico in violence and crime. Just like we want to prevail over those who wish to ban guns, we’d better hope those who want drugs win the drug war, since if the government ‘wins’ it, we end up in a dystopian police state where our every word, action and possession and our very liberty have been controlled.
The underlying issue is ones position on both the necessity and the value of personal accountability. Liberals don’t think one needs to be accountable for oneself or that most people are even capable of it.
Most of you likely thing a soft drink ban is just silly, but it illustrates the point. People can’t be responsible and thus will drink too much soda, become obese and die early. Thus we have to stop them for their own good.
I’d say most of us think thusly; If a person wishes to consume mass quantities of soda and that eventually kills them that’s their business.
It’s the same with drugs, if you want to smoke crack, go for it. Frankly the number of crack addicts would likely level off if it were legalized since a good many would rapidly die in the presence of cheap, readily available product.
Guns present the same sort of thing but with a twist or two. For so long as people want or need them they will be available through some venue. Some people will inevitably harm others but there is much evidence to suggest they would via other means, and since it’s truly impossible to deny people access to guns, any law attempting to do so is unenforceable to begin with (just like drug prohibition).
The idea that the government should decide what it’s citizens can and can’t have is anathema to freedom. It’s so toxic and so open to abuse and corruption that government prohibition of virtually everything should it’s self be unlawful. I think the standard should be so high for prohibition the number of prohibited items should fit , type written, on a single sheet of paper and would include very little beyond nuclear, chemical and biological weapons.
Yeah, gang violence and unintended effects.
One of the unintended effects of gun-control (assuming it is even partially effective in reducing weapons) will be increased smuggling of weapons from Mexico into the United States.
And those weapons will be the full-auto military grade weapons that the drug cartels procure from the European/Mid-east black markets and from corrupt South American government sources.
Or they obtained them from our own government through “botched stings” or through our donations to law enforcement officers who have defected to the cartels.
It all makes sense. No guns no gun deaths or violence. Too bad that isn’t a possibility according to our Constitution.
I read a piece on economics that showed a correlation between economic progress in one country and other countries emulating the social and political trends of that economic leader. Looks like China’s the leader. All hail the Peoples Republic of the United States or move to the sovereign country of Texas.
He’s got a point. Think how well we have done with child drug abuse by making drugs illegal and raising the drinking age. There has been a solid drop in teen drug use and alcohol abuse given the illegality of drugs and the age restriction on alcohol purchases [a whole lot of sarcasm in that paragraph].
Remember, these are the same people who believe that you can save money by spending more.
It is literally true that the fewer guns there are, the less gun violence there will be. England, for example, has very few GUN deaths. But this in no way means that there will be less violence, and again Jolly Old England is the apt example: its rate of violent crime is five times higher than in the united States. Funny how these people “overlook” this afact. To me, I don’t care if he has a gun, a knife, or a tire iron–it’s gonna hurt either way, and all are potentially fatal.
Fewer gun deaths? Probably. Fewer deaths by violence? Most probably not; in fact, violent crime will likely increase if the people are defenseless. Doh.
So all we have to do is ban guns and nobody will ever die? Sign me up!
No no, you’re missing the big picture, Ralphie Boy. I think we should ban murder instead. It’s so simple, really. If only killing people was against the law, no one would ever get killed by any means! I’ve gotta write to my congressman and- no, wait, I’ll get a bunch of six-year-olds to do it! Congress has to ban murder if a bunch of six-year-olds ask for it; they’re never wrong about anything!
Your reading Socialist propaganda quit posting it RF!!! Bullcrap meter shooting up again!!
You DID realize he was being sarcastic…. RIGHT?
Comments are closed.