PDA

View Full Version : Need Help w/ Gun Control Argument


CaliforniaLiberal
12-31-2008, 3:46 AM
Have been talking to a friend about my interest in firearms and invited her to go shooting for the first time. She's stuck in "Guns are evil, they kill children" and emailed me this article.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/12/04/AR2008120403333_pf.html

I'm asking all you all to point me in the direction of good, accurate sources of information about guns and crime in America that I can argue back with.

She doesn't even start to consider or discuss that the 2nd amendment protects one of our ultimate sources of political power and the final defense against tyranny. She still has a childlike faith in the US Government as our protector.:eek:

Thanks for any assistance

CL

Dark&Good
12-31-2008, 3:59 AM
http://www.gunreports.com/news/handguns/FBI-Firearms-Violent-Crime-Statistics_807-1.html

Dark&Good
12-31-2008, 4:04 AM
http://www.policeone.com/police-heroes/articles/1770006-Police-officer-deaths-fall-sharply-in-2008/

AaronHorrocks
12-31-2008, 7:18 AM
A pool in the backyard is ten times more likely to kill a kid under the age of 12 than an unlocked, loaded handgun in the parents bedroom.

The thing is, kids drowning in pools isn't covered by the media. Shootings are.

7x57
12-31-2008, 7:29 AM
I'm asking all you all to point me in the direction of good, accurate sources of information about guns and crime in America that I can argue back with.


My go-to sources are Howard Nemerov's "400 Years of Gun Control: Why Isn't It Working?" , guncite (http://www.guncite.com/), and gunfacts (http://www.gunfacts.info/). That doesn't mean that they're the best sources in existence (though I suspect Nemerov may be), but so far they have been the best for me.

The basic problem is that it is easy to lie with statistics, and most people will never recognize it. It's an uphill battle because it takes time to find the methodological bias in each report, and you're asking someone to believe that they've been lied to by the people they trust.

On the other hand, we do have reality on our side. :-)

7x57

Solidmch
12-31-2008, 7:36 AM
Have been talking to a friend about my interest in firearms and invited her to go shooting for the first time. She's stuck in "Guns are evil, they kill children" and emailed me this article.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/12/04/AR2008120403333_pf.html

I'm asking all you all to point me in the direction of good, accurate sources of information about guns and crime in America that I can argue back with.

She doesn't even start to consider or discuss that the 2nd amendment protects one of our ultimate sources of political power and the final defense against tyranny. She still has a childlike faith in the US Government as our protector.:eek:

Thanks for any assistance

CL

She does not trust her government, but wants them to have all the guns? Get new friends. You cannot educate the uneducatable...

alex00
12-31-2008, 7:58 AM
That article is so full of inconsistencies and bad information. It makes huge claims, that it does not back up. The article points out that nearly all crime guns started life as a legal purchase that was later stolen. I'm not sure how they draw the conclusion that states with lax gun laws are responsible for "exporting" guns when they are stolen from the owners. Nevermind the backwards quote about guns from other states "victimizing" people.

Just remind your friend that we don't have the ability to pick and choose the parts of the Constitution we want to recognize. It sounds like your friend is too blinded by her world view to recognize that it is people that are responsible for violence, and not a piece of metal and plastic. I wouldn't waste time arguing with her, you probably won't change her mind. Take her shooting, and show her that the guns don't go off unless a person is pulling the trigger. Or find a friend that doesn't have an irrational fear of objects, and is willing to destroy the Constitution to force her fear upon others.

Ironchef
12-31-2008, 7:59 AM
She does not trust her government, but wants them to have all the guns? Get new friends. You cannot educate the uneducatable...

NONONONONONONONONONOoooooo! Don't do this. We wan't gun culture restored, not lost over ignorance! If one is to be even a minimal gun rights activist, you need only to start the reeducation of your nearest friends. Fail with them, and you'll fail everywhere.

Find the "reasoning" she uses and exploit it. If she reasons that the government actually DOES keep her safe and protected from enemies foreign and domestic, that it actually has her interests as a first priority, exploit those lies and show her indisputable proof.

THEN, and only after you've shattered her gub'mint reality, speak of why those old guys long ago warned of such failure, tyrrany, self reliance and protection, and show her an inanimate "tool" for safeguarding against such things.

Another good line of reasoning is to use truth to confound lies. TRUTH ALWAYS CONFOUNDS LIES...it's an eternal law many in religion understand and it's awesome! lol Much like explained perfectly above, you can illustrate how the dangers of a loaded, baby-killing murder machine like a swimming pool will kill more children (<12 are children) than loaded, unlocked guns in the home, you will start the "reeducation" of your wayward friend.

I know, I was anti-gun long ago myself. I seriously believed gun manufacturers needed to close up shop and stop their flooding of urban america with illegal guns and I also assumed all the lies were true like bringing a gun into the home was more likely to kill a friendly than it would stop an intruder, and of course the gold standard lie that people are not trustworthy with guns and only cops should have them. Yes, this was what I believed foolishly through most of the 90's...then as I saw Bill Clinton and the democrats feverishly do war with guns, I began to see clearly! lol


A reasoning tool I was discussing in a thread a couple days ago was that in Antioch, it seems at least 95% of all radio calls from dispatch describe suspects of crime as wearing a black hooded sweatshirt. It's freaky how that tool of fashion is really a tool of crime. Should we then stop or ban the use of the black hoodie? "If banning guns prevents crimes, then so too will the banning of black hoodies stop crime...if we reason as the anti-gunners reason." Further, the reasoning of banning black hoodies would stop immediately because it's a first amendment protection, right? Of course, so it'd never happen. Now take the banning of guns...which is an individual right of the people, ruled on just this year (2008), to own and bear...is that reasoning applied as equally as our precious 1st amendment right to wear black hoodies, do you think? Anyway..just a point/example of reasoning. We are the ones with reality and true reasoning so it shouldn't be hard unless your friend is seriously brain dead.

BobB35
12-31-2008, 9:09 AM
Hand your friend a copy of the Government Code of California starting with Section 845 and the surrounding sections. Then follow up with a copy of Warren V. DC and a couple of other court case exempting police from protection you. Here are a couple of links you might use.

http://www.feinet.org/documents/fei_immunity_c.pdf

http://www.firearmsandliberty.com/kasler-protection.html

After reading this if your friend still thinks the police are there to protect her you have a lost cause. Hang out with this person, but they will only see the light when something happens to the. Kind of like the liberals who have an "incident" and then get CCW's.

Best of luck with you discussion, but sometimes the best course of action is to smile and walk away.

hoffmang
12-31-2008, 2:23 PM
1. The NYT article makes a classic mistake. Are there more gun crimes in states with more gun laws or are there more gun laws in states that have crime problems? (Hint, its the latter.)

2. This is a pretty thorough debunking: http://www.hoffmang.com/firearms/kates/Vol30_No2_KatesMauseronline.pdf - ask her to read the whole thing and make sure you've read it yourself first.

-Gene

nicki
12-31-2008, 2:26 PM
The facts are on our side, the problem is humans operate on emotion.

Human's are 24 times more moved by emotional arguments than logical ones, I know it makes no sense, but that is how we are wired.

We are humans, not Vulcans.

The guns don't kill people, people kill people slogan gets a yeah, right response.:thumbsup:

First, you need to be patient, you need to come off as being caring about the death and injury caused by misuse of guns.

The core of the gun control argument comes down to this.

In order to stop crime, we must take arms away from the general population and then gun crime will be significantly reduced.

Now in order for that to work, the following would have to happen.

1. All guns that exist would have to be collected, just for arguments sake, lets say that all legally owned guns, hell, we will even go further, all guns that were ever manufactured were collected. That would be the max gun control we could have.

Well, did we every try that with any other product(s) and products and what was the end result. Let's see, did alcohol prohibition work, how about our drug war.

Now, have those prohibitions worked? Did they cause more problems than they solved?

How would we stop the illegal manufature, smuggling or theft of government owned guns, in short, how would we stop a black market for illegal guns from developing because black markets do exist and we have multi national criminal organizations worldwide to prove it.

At this point, you should have destroyed the position that gun control can work at all and in fact may cause more problems than it solves.

Since she probably doesn't know what gun laws do currently exist, you could actually come out and say that you are not against reasonable gun regulations for legitimate public safety concerns.

Of course you define what is reasonable. Many people who are unaware of what gun laws we do have could actually believe that most of us support reasonable gun control laws even though the reality is we would be supporting substantial repeals of most gun laws.

First step for you would be just to take her out to shoot.

Be patient, you have to deprogram her.

The real core value you need to discuss with her is her right to make choices in her life versus government dictating to her how she should live her life.

By the way, replace the term "gun control" with "victim disarmanent".

This way you can say, I don't have issues with "Gun Regulations" for legitimate public safety concerns, my issue is I don't like the government imposing "Victim Disarmanent" policies on me, then telling me to rely on 911.

Remember, when seconds count, the police will be there in minutes.

Hope this helps.

Nicki

gravedigger
12-31-2008, 2:46 PM
I see your problem. you are trying to use logic and reason with a LIBERAL. Give up. You have better things to do with your time.

Rivers
12-31-2008, 3:32 PM
Try this link: http://www.customessaymeister.com/customessays/Ethics%20and%20Law/1676.htm

From this link:

A good example of firearm deterrence comes from a rape experiment done in Orlando. Orlando offered a training course to women on hand-gun self defense, which was taken by 6,000 women("Firearms" 64). A year after the program began, the rape rate in Orlando dropped almost ninety percent("Firearms" 64). The police force went on strike in Albuquerque, New Mexico; during this time, the crime rate decreased because frightened citizens armed themselves and protected their homes and businesses("Firearms" 69).
Criminals "had no stomach at all for facing indignant citizens protecting their own property with the same
force the criminals used to steal it("Firearms" 69).
Handgun ownership averts thousands of victim injuries and deaths that would not have been avoidable given the tactical advantages that criminals have over unarmed citizens(Lee 7).

Who would you rather have protecting you? In Chicago in a typical year, more criminals are shot by store owners and other armed citizens than by the entire police force("Firearms" 69). In April 1984 three terrorists attacked a cafe in Jerusalem with automatic weapons, intending to kill everyone in sight; they were able to claim only one victim before they were shot by a handgun-armed Israelis(Lee 3).

In 1980, between 1,500-3,000 felons were legally killed by armed civilians in self-defense or for related-legally justified reasons; and additional 8,700-16,600 criminals were legally wounded under the same circumstances. If these figures are accurate, then civilians kill and injure far more felons annually than do police officers, i.e., criminals have more to fear from armed victims than from the police("Firearms" 63).

Tarn_Helm
12-31-2008, 3:59 PM
NONONONONONONONONONOoooooo! Don't do this. We wan't gun culture restored, not lost over ignorance! If one is to be even a minimal gun rights activist, you need only to start the reeducation of your nearest friends. Fail with them, and you'll fail everywhere.

Find the "reasoning" she uses and exploit it. . . . We are the ones with reality and true reasoning so it shouldn't be hard unless your friend is seriously brain dead.

+1

This approach requires us all to become informed, stay informed, and to proceed with patience, understanding, and intelligence--not Rambo-like impulsiveness or Dirty Harry-esque unwillingness to talk.

If we all are good for nothing but smart-alecky oneliners that fit on bumper stickers, then the human right to self-defense so ardently, eloquently, patiently, and LENGTHILY argued for by our 18th century forebears will evaporate during the Obama term(s).

If we are too lazy to exercise our 1st amendment rights, then we will be forced--by THREAT OF FORCE--to exercise our 2nd amendment rights, and that is NOT what we want.

We want to avoid lapsing into a disarmed dystopia brought on by our own lack of patience, intelligence, maturity, and/or integrity.

Keep talking to her.

Buy and watch, with her too, a good documentary on the topic: http://www.secondamendmentdocumentary.com/

Tell her how Michael Bellisles, a "liberal" anti-gun historian tried to falsify the important and beneficial role played by the firearm in American history, and how he lost his Bancroft prize and his professorship at Emory University for it: http://www.guncite.com/gun_control_bellesiles.html

Clue her in to the disinformation tactics used by the anti-gun crowd.

Stay on task.

Keep up the good work.

I myself turned an ardent anti-gun Hollywood liberal into pro-gun NRA member who is now looking to buy a first gun.

DO NOT GIVE UP.
:rockon:

sac550
12-31-2008, 4:12 PM
Have been talking to a friend about my interest in firearms and invited her to go shooting for the first time. She's stuck in "Guns are evil, they kill children" and emailed me this article.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/12/04/AR2008120403333_pf.html

I'm asking all you all to point me in the direction of good, accurate sources of information about guns and crime in America that I can argue back with.

She doesn't even start to consider or discuss that the 2nd amendment protects one of our ultimate sources of political power and the final defense against tyranny. She still has a childlike faith in the US Government as our protector.:eek:

Thanks for any assistance

CL

Don't hang out with people that think guns are the devil. Tell her more people are killed in car accidents every year, but I bet she doesn't want cars outlawed. Tell her to look at DC or every city or country that has restricted guns and look how their crime went sky high.

Tell her more kids are killed by drowning in the home then are killed by guns. Yet, everyone has a bathtub and many have pools.

Then by the great book that liberals hate, "more guns less crime" by Lott.

CaliforniaLiberal
12-31-2008, 6:14 PM
Man you guys are great. Where else online or anywhere could I get this kind of response in a few hours. I sure am in the right place.

Hoffmang, I'm still wading through "WOULD BANNING FIREARMS REDUCE MURDER AND SUICIDE? A REVIEW OF INTERNATIONAL AND SOME DOMESTIC EVIDENCE" I haven't had to focus so much attention on what I was reading since taking Anatomy and Physiology. I'll finish it, just have to chew awhile.

I especially love all you guys that are focussed on converting anti-gun folk with patience and reason. I agree, it's a cause we must all commit ourselves to. If we all introduced just four non-shooters to firearms every year we could easily turn the political tide and not have to put so much time and energy into fighting for our rights in the courts. Yes we can!!

Thanks for all the responses.

CL

N6ATF
12-31-2008, 8:03 PM
A pool in the backyard is ten times more likely to kill a kid under the age of 12 than an unlocked, loaded handgun in the parents bedroom.

The thing is, kids drowning in pools isn't covered by the media. Shootings are.

Drownings used to be. Now the media has moved on to a new thing to scare people about. The fad will be over with soon enough, and then she can join the sheeple in being scared of a new thing by the media.

Invisible_Dave
12-31-2008, 8:27 PM
I'm no expert however my experence has been exposing people who think guns are evil to guns helps. I like to explain that a gun is a tool for protection no other then a wrench is a tool to remove bolts and an oven is a tool to cook dinner. When the perspective changes to very a firearm as a tool instead of an evil item that maliciously acts on its own accord then the true discussion can begin.

dawson8r
12-31-2008, 9:40 PM
I like to point those on the fence and those slightly on the other side of the fence to this site:

http://www.a-human-right.com

They have some great images that hit pretty hard, especially those that show women pointing guns in a squared off defensive stance with captions like "What part of NO do you not understand?". Informative AND entertaining.

IllTemperedCur
01-01-2009, 10:42 AM
CL, your friend exhibits one of the more irritating and irrational characteristics of the anti community. Anthropomorphizing guns, i.e., assigning human characteristics to inanimate objects. In EVERY instance where a gun has menaced, injured or killed a person, it requires the intervention of a human hand. Put a gun in a box, and it won't spontaneously jump out and rob a 7-11.

The anti-rational practice of anthropomorphizing is a weak point that can be addressed, particularly since liberals claim to value rationality.

7x57
01-01-2009, 12:53 PM
Buy and watch, with her too, a good documentary on the topic: http://www.secondamendmentdocumentary.com/


I want to second this DVD, and should have listed it in my post. Some people simply do not respond to the printed word, and many people are more likely to watch than read. The one technical flaw is that the sound is bad on some interviews. It is always intelligible, but the first time through I wondered if the voice had been deliberately masked on a couple of interviews, until I realized how pointless that would be without disguising the face.

The content, however, is top-notch, and we watched it with dinner over a couple of evenings. At the end, my wife said "that almost makes me want to get a gun." :-)


I myself turned an ardent anti-gun Hollywood liberal into pro-gun NRA member who is now looking to buy a first gun.


The dirty little secret of modern liberals is that much of their agenda would be regarded as inexcusably reactionary in the eighteenth century, and much of the modern conservative agenda is eighteenth century liberalism. The RKBA is for the victim, the powerless, and the ordinary citizen, and the modern attempt to say otherwise is an enormous contradiction. Sometimes, this is exploitable, if you are talking to someone who can and will think. That's why I always promote Nemerov's book: he eventually had to choose between the *real* interests of the powerless and his ideology, and because he's a smart honest man his ideals won over his education.


DO NOT GIVE UP.


As frustrating as it is, that is the only answer. The legal fight is important, but it has to be backed up by the "hearts and minds" fight. The fight isn't won without both. One value of Calguns for me is that one can let off a little steam and frustration that one cannot afford to do with the fence-sitters and persuadable.

7x57

DDT
01-01-2009, 1:24 PM
The RKBA is for the victim, the powerless, and the ordinary citizen, and the modern attempt to say otherwise is an enormous contradiction.


Great quote.

Solidmch
01-01-2009, 1:24 PM
I see your problem. you are trying to use logic and reason with a LIBERAL. Give up. You have better things to do with your time.

I agree

Tarn_Helm
01-01-2009, 4:53 PM
Have been talking to a friend about my interest in firearms and invited her to go shooting for the first time. She's stuck in "Guns are evil, they kill children" . . . Thanks for any assistance CL

Here is another little link, looks at other countries: http://www.nraila.org/Issues/FactSheets/Read.aspx?ID=78

As specific questions/objections pop up in her conversations with you, if you cannot answer them on the spot, then REMEMBER them and post them here.

Many of us are willing and able to hand you the answer to the question.

With any luck, our response times will be short.

Keep up the good work.

Sometimes a single fact or short essay can be very persuasive.

Point out to her what "shall-issue CCW" is.

Point out that over the last 20+ years, the number of states permitting shall-issue CCW has gone from 10 to 40, with NO attendant increase in crime in the newly shall-issue states.

Click at this site where it says "Progress in Right-to-Carry" (if the address I supply here does not take you there automatically):
http://www.gun-nuttery.com/rtc.php

You can gently point out that it should amaze her--if her beliefs and forebodings are rightly guided--that 80% of the country has gone shall-issue since 1986, with only positive consequences (if any).

Also, here is a great essay by a blogger called "the munchkin wrangler": "why the gun is civilization."
http://munchkinwrangler.wordpress.com/2007/03/23/why-the-gun-is-civilization/

Favorite line: "[A gun] doesn’t limit the actions of those who would interact with me through reason, only the actions of those who would do so by force. It removes force from the equation . . . and that’s why carrying a gun is a civilized act."
:clap:

rayra
01-01-2009, 5:34 PM
NONONONONONONONONONOoooooo! Don't do this. We wan't gun culture restored, not lost over ignorance! If one is to be even a minimal gun rights activist, you need only to start the reeducation of your nearest friends. Fail with them, and you'll fail everywhere..


We won't there by undoing the deliberate indoctrination of individual liberal zombies one at a time. It will require intercession at the level of the socialists that are busy spreading the lying memes demonizing firearms, amongst our school systems and media congloms.

jacques
01-01-2009, 5:50 PM
1. The NYT article makes a classic mistake. Are there more gun crimes in states with more gun laws or are there more gun laws in states that have crime problems? (Hint, its the latter.)

2. This is a pretty thorough debunking: http://www.hoffmang.com/firearms/kates/Vol30_No2_KatesMauseronline.pdf - ask her to read the whole thing and make sure you've read it yourself first.

-Gene
I wonder why those Fijian Women are so depressed. :confused:

jacques
01-01-2009, 5:52 PM
......
She doesn't even start to consider or discuss that the 2nd amendment protects one of our ultimate sources of political power and the final defense against tyranny. She still has a childlike faith in the US Government as our protector.:eek:

Thanks for any assistance

CL

This is how my mother is. Very difficult to reason with someone who will not accept that the 2nd is a right. They have gone through their whole lives living in a bubble.

otalps
01-01-2009, 5:54 PM
This site has a very good collection of news articles from around the country where a firearm was used for self defense.

http://www.claytoncramer.com/gundefenseblog/blogger.html

As to the original article you posted what would you expect from Bloomberg and his cronies? Lying sack of criminal ****.

DocSkinner
01-01-2009, 6:03 PM
Also try two books - if she won't read them, you can and the summarize for her:

More Guns, Less Crime

http://www.amazon.com/More-Guns-Less-Crime-Understanding/dp/0226493644/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1230865259&sr=1-1

The Bias against Guns

http://www.amazon.com/Bias-Against-Guns-Everything-Control/dp/0895261146/ref=sr_1_4?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1230865259&sr=1-4


Both by J.R. Lott - They both also show the flaws in how some 'scientific' research has been conducted to show guns=bad.

and another interesting one that deals with the "typical gun owner":

Shooters By Abigail A. Kohn.

DocSkinner
01-01-2009, 6:07 PM
We won't there by undoing the deliberate indoctrination of individual liberal zombies one at a time. It will require intercession at the level of the socialists that are busy spreading the lying memes demonizing firearms, amongst our school systems and media congloms.

Funny - often feel the same way when so many gun types talk about this Christian nation of ours, and how we have top "go back" to that, even though it never existed. Funny that - conservatives and liberals both tend to go reason blind on particular issues, so should everyone just stop explaining the truth, and allow myths to continue?


And you don't have to change their mind immediately - you just plant seeds and then foster them along.

ldivinag
01-02-2009, 1:06 PM
A pool in the backyard is ten times more likely to kill a kid under the age of 12 than an unlocked, loaded handgun in the parents bedroom.

The thing is, kids drowning in pools isn't covered by the media. Shootings are.


the reference to this "statistic" is here:

http://www.freakonomicsbook.com/thebook/ch5.html

have her read the last line.


Consider the parents of an eight-year-old girl named, say, Molly. Her two best friends, Amy and Imani, each live nearby. Molly's parents know that Amy's parents keep a gun in their house, so they have forbidden Molly to play there. Instead, Molly spends a lot of time at Imani's house, which has a swimming pool in the backyard. Molly's parents feel good about having made such a smart choice to protect their daughter.

But according to the data, their choice isn't smart at all. In a given year, there is one drowning of a child for every 11,000 residential pools in the United States. (In a country with 6 million pools, this means that roughly 550 children under the age of ten drown each year.) Meanwhile, there is 1 child killed by a gun for every 1 million-plus guns. (In a country with an estimated 200 million guns, this means that roughly 175 children under ten die each year from guns.) The likelihood of death by pool (1 in 11,000) versus death by gun (1 in 1 million-plus) isn't even close: Molly is roughly 100 times more likely to die in a swimming accident at Imani's house than in gunplay at Amy's.

Librarian
01-02-2009, 1:43 PM
And the Freakonomics information is a bit dated.

WISQARS (http://webappa.cdc.gov/sasweb/ncipc/mortrate10_sy.html) says there were 143 deaths of children 0-10 associated with firearms in 2005, and the number of guns is well over 200 million.

(There were 738 drownings in that age group, but no information on how many were in privately owned swimming pools. National Center for Injury Prevention and Control provides the Top 10 causes for that age group for 2005 here (http://webappa.cdc.gov/cgi-bin/broker.exe?_service=v8prod&_server=app-v-ehip-wisq.cdc.gov&_port=5082&_sessionid=310wZ6t0L52&_program=wisqars.details10.sas&_service=&type=U&prtfmt=STANDARD&age1=1&age2=10&agegp=1-10&deaths=2911&_debug=0&lcdfmt=custom&ethnicty=0&ranking=10&deathtle=Death). Long article about drowning here (http://www.cdc.gov/ncipc/factsheets/drown.htm).)

AaronHorrocks
01-02-2009, 2:06 PM
That sure is an intersting twist in "statistics".

But we all know that when there's a gun in the house, there's most likely more than one. So that 1 to 100 can really be factored down.

JDay
01-03-2009, 3:46 AM
I wish this were a real interview.

General Cosgrove was interviewed on the radio recently.
You'll love his reply to the lady who interviewed him concerning guns and children. Regardless of how you feel about gun laws you gotta love this! This is one of the best comeback lines of all time. It is a portion of an ABC interview between a female broadcaster and General Cosgrove who was about to sponsor a Boy Scout Troop visiting his military headquarters.


FEMALE INTERVIEWER:
So, General Cosgrove, what things are you going to teach these young boys when they visit your base?

GENERAL COSGROVE:
We're going to teach them climbing, canoeing, archery and shooting.


FEMALE INTERVIEWER:
Shooting! That's a bit irresponsible, isn't it?

GENERAL COSGROVE:
I don't see why, they'll be properly supervised on the rifle range.

FEMALE INTERVIEWER:
Don't you admit that this is a terribly dangerous activity to be teaching children?

GENERAL COSGROVE:
I don't see how. We will be teaching them proper rifle discipline before they even touch a firearm.

FEMALE INTERVIEWER:
But you're equipping them to become violent killers.

GENERAL COSGROVE:
Well, Ma'am, you're equipped to be a prostitute but you're not one, are you?

The radio went silent and the interview ended

DocSkinner
01-05-2009, 4:28 PM
That sure is an intersting twist in "statistics".

But we all know that when there's a gun in the house, there's most likely more than one. So that 1 to 100 can really be factored down.

Not really - "a gun in the house" applies whether there is 1 or 100 guns in the house. In either case a gun is in the house. The likely hood of improper storage/handling if gun(s) are present is the factor, not the number present. Most of the unsafe situations I have seen or heard of are the person that casually bought "a gun" and enough ammo to load it for protection and that is the extent of their shooting involvement.

(assuming anyone with enough money to have 100 guns would also then have the money for a HUGE gun safe! COME ON lotto!)

Colt
01-05-2009, 6:06 PM
She still has a childlike faith in the US Government as our protector.:eek:

Thanks for any assistance

CL

Then send her to the government's own web site, at the Centers for Disease Control and prevention www.cdc.gov.

They keep and publish morbitiy and mortality data for the United States. Look for National Vital Statistics Reports. For the last year available (2006), CDC indicates:

Homicide: 0.7% of all deaths
Suicide: 1.3% of all deaths

Those figures include non-firearm deaths and firearm deaths.

Injuries caused 4.4% of all deaths that year. 18.8% of injuries were firearm related (0.5% unintentional, 10.6% suicide, 7.3% homicide, 0.2% undetermined) therefore 0.83% of all deaths were firearm related (.044 x .188).

Twice as many people died from diabetes in 2006 as died from guns. Over 50% of all deaths in '06 were from heart disease and cancer. 44,000 Americans died in motor vehicle accidents.

I'd say bad eating habits, sedentary lifestyle and stupidity are a lot more dangerous than firearms.

Don't take my word for it - go look it up. In God We Trust (all others must supply data).

gravedigger
01-26-2009, 8:57 PM
GENERAL COSGROVE:
Well, Ma'am, you're equipped to be a prostitute but you're not one, are you?

Oh Gosh! I'm definitely going to remember to use THAT response at my first opportunity!

dgey
01-26-2009, 11:43 PM
How about the front page of this website...! there are articles and urls that speak on this very topic... use calguns... you gotta do more than just surf this site... there's plenty of info if you look... look under ENTER THE FORUMS.
firearms links / and resources... SCROLL DOWN THE PAGE...!!!:confused: :eek:

Hank
01-27-2009, 2:55 PM
Have been talking to a friend about my interest in firearms and invited her to go shooting for the first time. She's stuck in "Guns are evil, they kill children" and emailed me this article.

I'm asking all you all to point me in the direction of good, accurate sources of information about guns and crime in America that I can argue back with.
CL

There are many sources as to why gun control kills innocent people amongst many other harms. You could research the many nations that have instituted gun control and then massacred a great many of their own people... or use this...possibly one reason at a time to prevent information overload.

http://www.kc3.com/editorial/40reasons.htm

40 Reasons For Gun Control
Significant portions of this article are excerpted from Michael Z. Williamson's excellent and witty piece, "It's amazing what one has to believe to believe in gun control"

1. Banning guns works, which is why New York, DC, & Chicago cops need guns.

2. Washington DC's low murder rate of 69 per 100,000 is due to strict gun control, and Indianapolis' high murder rate of 9 per 100,000 is due to the lack of gun control.

3. Statistics showing high murder rates justify gun control but statistics showing increasing murder rates after gun control are "just statistics."

4. The Brady Bill and the Assault Weapons Ban, both of which went into effect in 1994 are responsible for the decrease in violent crime rates, which have been declining since 1991.

5. We must get rid of guns because a deranged lunatic may go on a shooting spree at any time and anyone who would own a gun out of fear of such a lunatic is paranoid.

6. The more helpless you are the safer you are from criminals.

7. An intruder will be incapacitated by tear gas or oven spray, but if shot with a .357 Magnum will get angry and kill you.

8. A woman raped and strangled is morally superior to a woman with a smoking gun and a dead rapist at her feet.

9. When confronted by violent criminals, you should "put up no defense -- give them what they want, or run" (Handgun Control Inc. Chairman Pete Shields, Guns Don't Die - People Do, 1981, p.125).

10. The New England Journal of Medicine is filled with expert advice about guns; just like Guns & Ammo has some excellent treatises on heart surgery.

11. One should consult an automotive engineer for safer seatbelts, a civil engineer for a better bridge, a surgeon for internal medicine, a computer programmer for hard drive problems, and Sarah Brady for firearms expertise.

12. The 2nd Amendment, ratified in 1787, refers to the National Guard, which was created 130 years later, in 1917.

13. The National Guard, federally funded, with bases on federal land, using federally-owned weapons, vehicles, buildings and uniforms, punishing trespassers under federal law, is a "state" militia.

14. These phrases: "right of the people peaceably to assemble," "right of the people to be secure in their homes," "enumerations herein of certain rights shall not be construed to disparage others retained by the people," and "The powers not delegated herein are reserved to the states respectively, and to the people" all refer to individuals, but "the right of the people to keep and bear arm" refers to the state.

15. "The Constitution is strong and will never change." But we should ban and seize all guns thereby violating the 2nd, 4th, and 5th Amendments to that Constitution.

16. Rifles and handguns aren't necessary to national defense! Of course, the army has hundreds of thousands of them.

17. Private citizens shouldn't have handguns, because they aren't "military weapons", but private citizens shouldn't have "assault rifles", because they are military weapons.

18. In spite of waiting periods, background checks, finger printing, government forms, etc., guns today are too readily available, which is responsible for recent school shootings. In the 1940's, 1950's and1960's, anyone could buy guns at hardware stores, army surplus stores, gas stations, variety stores, Sears mail order, no waiting, no background check, no fingerprints, no government forms and there were no school shootings.

19. The NRA's attempt to run a "don't touch" campaign about kids handling guns is propaganda, but the anti-gun lobby's attempt to run a "don't touch" campaign is responsible social activity.

20. Guns are so complex that special training is necessary to use them properly, and so simple to use that they make murder easy.

21. A handgun, with up to 4 controls, is far too complex for the typical adult to learn to use, as opposed to an automobile that only has 20.

22. Women are just as intelligent and capable as men but a woman with a gun is "an accident waiting to happen" and gun makers' advertisements aimed at women are "preying on their fears."

23. Ordinary people in the presence of guns turn into slaughtering butchers but revert to normal when the weapon is removed.

24. Guns cause violence, which is why there are so many mass killings at gun shows.

25. A majority of the population supports gun control, just like a majority of the population supported owning slaves.

26. Any self-loading small arm can legitimately be considered to be a "weapon of mass destruction" or an "assault weapon."

27. Most people can't be trusted, so we should have laws against guns, which most people will abide by because they can be trusted.

28. The right of Internet pornographers to exist cannot be questioned because it is constitutionally protected by the Bill of Rights, but the use of handguns for self defense is not really protected by the Bill of Rights.

29. Free speech entitles one to own newspapers, transmitters, computers, and typewriters, but self-defense only justifies bare hands.

30. The ACLU is good because it uncompromisingly defends certain parts of the Constitution, and the NRA is bad, because it defends other parts of the Constitution.

31. Charlton Heston, a movie actor as president of the NRA is a cheap lunatic who should be ignored, but Michael Douglas, a movie actor as a representative of Handgun Control, Inc. is an ambassador for peace who is entitled to an audience at the UN arms control summit.

32. Police operate with backup within groups, which is why they need larger capacity pistol magazines than do "civilians" who must face criminals alone and therefore need less ammunition.

33. We should ban "Saturday Night Specials" and other inexpensive guns because it's not fair that poor people have access to guns too.

34. Police officers have some special Jedi-like mastery over hand guns that private citizens can never hope to obtain.

35. Private citizens don't need a gun for self-protection because the police are there to protect them even though the Supreme Court says the police are not responsible for their protection.

36. Citizens don't need to carry a gun for personal protection but police chiefs, who are desk-bound administrators who work in a building filled with cops, need a gun.

37. "Assault weapons" have no purpose other than to kill large numbers of people. The police need assault weapons. You do not.

38. When Microsoft pressures its distributors to give Microsoft preferential promotion, that's bad; but when the Federal government pressures cities to buy guns only from Smith & Wesson, that's good.

39. Trigger locks do not interfere with the ability to use a gun for defensive purposes, which is why you see police officers with one on their duty weapon.

40. Handgun Control, Inc. says they want to "keep guns out of the wrong hands." Guess what? You have the wrong hands.

Wizard99
01-27-2009, 4:43 PM
That Whashington Post article is like saying that Whashington and Oregon export more water to other states than Arizona.
Of course states with less onerous firearms laws have a larger number of guns that cross state lines than places like DC. There are more guns shops in Viginia than in DC. A more interesting statistic would be the number of guns that cross state lines and are used in crimes versus the number of guns that are sold in that state.

Scarecrow Repair
01-27-2009, 5:20 PM
This is sort of a sidestep, but you need to investigate the Deacons for Defense and Justice. They were Louisiana blacks who got tired of the KKK-infested city, county, and state governments denying their rights, armed themselves, and ultimately forced massive changes, including the federal intervention which broke the back of the KKK run systems.

Search amazon for "deacons for defense". The first two links are to a TV movie and a history book. The book is by a professor and full of scholarly notes but still very readable. The movie is a composite. Many of the scenes are not true in detail but they are true in spirit.

The Deacons are a wonderful paradox for those who favor civil rights but think guns evil. I suggest buying this movie. It's only $10. Not the best movie ever made, but good enough. Ask this friend to sit down and watch it with you. I suspect the reaction will be all sorts of denial -- must be a lie, didn't happen, that's old stuff -- but it was only 45 years ago, and 100 years after the civil war.

The book is a slow read, but fascinating, and if your friend thinks the movie is full of lies or exaggerations, the book will show otherwise. In fact, the book shows much worse, because it just kept on and on and on, and the movie have to be hours longer to show that.

Anyone who pretends to have any honesty will have to admit that guns have uses, real world 2A uses, from watching the movie or reading the book. Most people who know anything about the MLK era will not have heard of the Deacons (among other things, they patrolled the camps at night during the Selma - Mobile march), so you have to be prepared for denial, but google has good links, and the book is hard to deny but also longer to read than the movie is to watch.

Colt
01-27-2009, 5:27 PM
You might also engage her in a spirited discussion of the First Amendment. Ask her if she thinks it should be modified or abrogated in any way. I'm guessing she says no. Then point out to her that the Second Amendment is one of the reasons no one has messed with the First Amendment...