PDA

View Full Version : Awful NYT editorial, need responses


spyderco monkey
04-09-2009, 3:06 PM
Another one, this one with a whole gaggle of responses.

http://egan.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/04/08/the-guns-of-spring/#comment-39075

Please respond in a polite and persuasive manner; don't get angry or regurgitate the same basic arguments over and over about "the constitution," because these people don't care about that line of reasoning.

Here's my response:
I know this a very heated emotional argument, but people really need to look to the facts, and not their emotions.

For one thing, how many people here have even shot a gun? A pistol? An "assault rifle?" Because, if your not actually familiar and competent in the use of Arms, objectively, your really don't know what you're talking about.

For example, non-shooters making soaring speeches on the evils of guns should be taken about as seriously as a middle aged man, who can't get pregnant, advocating the evils of abortion. I'm pro-gun and pro-choice, and I find both equally infuriating.

The fact of the matter is that very few people really know what they’re talking about. While the word "assault weapon" might sound scary, in reality, you have more to fear from ham sandwiches. And yes, I do intend to back my argument up with facts.

Roughly 2,800 people die each year from chocking on food, the majority of them children, vastly more people than have been killed by “assault weapons.” Now, if it’s “for the children,” why don’t we make a law that all food must be blended ala Gerber? The obvious answer is that it would be totally unenforceable, and really lame for people who enjoy eating food.

The same is true for “assault weapons.” There are well over 10 million of them in the United States, with 99% of them in the hands of law-abiding citizens. Just like a foodie would be appalled at eating baby food for “the good of society,” please imagine how Law abiding gun owners feel about having our $1000+ investments being “Gerberized” with magazine capacity restrictions and outright bans, leaving us with Guns that are really pretty lame and boring to shoot. Single shot rifles and shotguns, while fine for killing animals, are pretty boring when shooting bottles and cans at the shooting range, as anyone who shoots regularly will tell you.

Because, despite all the rhetoric on both sides about the constitution, hunting, self defense, and all that, the real truth of the matter is the vast majority of guns are used for pure, unadulterated fun. While the notion may seem alien to those who don’t shoot, shooting guns at bottles, cans, pieces of fruit, and old washing machines is extremely satisfying and enjoyable, and, when the basic 4 rules of firearm safety are observed, totally safe. Semi-automatic firearms make this waaaay more enjoyable, since you can spend your time actually shooting, and not stuffing cartridges into your gun, which is extremely tiring. Very few people that I know who have spent more than an hour at a shooting range didn’t enjoy it, but every one of them disliked having to reload cartridges into their magazines.

This is our hobby, and we view restrictions on it with the same amount of alarm that many car owners would if the government banned the sale of sports cars in order to reduce the prevalence of speeding. Having gotten a few speeding tickets in a mini van, I can tell you how effective that would be. The same is true for any other ban, form prohibition to the current “war on drugs.”

Please, before rushing out to ban things, I suggest you give them a try first. Because, if you don’t, your much like a virgin advocating celibacy; you don’t know what the **** your talking about.

Take care,
Mark

Alphahookups
04-09-2009, 3:20 PM
Man, that article sickens me.

yellowfin
04-09-2009, 3:23 PM
The article and a lot of the responses make me too angry and exasperated to politely comment on it. There's only so much air freshener you can spray into an outhouse.

racer_X_123
04-09-2009, 3:35 PM
70% of 17000 is 11900 people murdered by guns each year... What about the statistics of vehicle accidents... oh yeah 40000 people each year. WHY NOT BAN CARS!!!

Sending a letter to all the anti's right now

Racefiend
04-09-2009, 4:01 PM
I like how all of them only look at one side of the coin. On the surface, banning guns sounds good. After all, if it saves 1 life (the usual argument) then it's a positive outcome. But how many lives would be lost by not having a gun for defense? The DOJ, in 1994, estimated guns are used defensivley 1.5 million times a year. Even if only 1% of the events would have ended up as a murder, that's still 15,000 lives saved. You're already above the 11,900 killed by guns.

On a side note, comments have been disabled for the article :(

redline
04-09-2009, 5:33 PM
Man, that article sickens me.

Most of the responses are just as sickening (if not more so).

SKSer
04-09-2009, 7:17 PM
Reading comments on these discussions can get so frustrating. How hard is it to understand that we have a unique freedom, and the most important reason for this unique freedom. How many Holocaust victims would have given anything for these "assault weapons meant to only do one thing, kill lots of people". How ignorant are these people to think that this cant happen in todays society. Lets look at the most recent tragic event where there were people who wished they had "assault weapons meant to only do one thing, kill lots of people", the hurricane Katrina incident, how many police just went AWOL on that situation, how many women and children were helplessly raped, or people killed in that sports center they had everybody loaded in. Last time I checked I lived in a city of roughly 450,000 , im guessing we have about 200 sheriff or so, if that even, thats 1 sheriff to every 2250 people. In a SHTF scenario am I really going to count on that one guy. In all reality, that 1 sheriff would more than likely bugg out. Most of the anti's responding to this are more then likely upper middle class people that live in gated communities and have never been confronted with any type of situation in which they needed a firearm.

you prepare for an earth quake, hoping one never hits
you buy a warranty for your car hoping you never have to use it
the same goes for a firearm and never having to fire it at any one

If the SHTF or any scenario comes about where my wife and kids are looking to me for there protection and safety, I know what im grabbin. What are these anti's going to grab? A frying pan? Maybe they can throw their mocha latte in the bad guys face, or slap them in the face with there flip flop.

Alphahookups
04-09-2009, 7:35 PM
Most of the responses are just as sickening (if not more so).

Yeah, that was part of it too. I read through the first 3 or so pages of responses and they were probably 99% against guns...everyone pissing me off more and more with every word.

I can't believe how shortsighted these people are. :(

KylaGWolf
04-09-2009, 11:23 PM
Ok that article is just sad even more sad are the comments that are with it. I can understand people being upset over the recent shootings. Hell I was upset over them. I never like when innocents are killed by scum bags no matter what the method. Thing they don't realize that by making more gun laws they make it even harder for the "law abiding citizens" to protect. Make it easier for the dirtbags to do more. I hate being negative but I can see the anti's jumping up and down going oh look we told you so now do something in a very loud voice.

dwa
04-09-2009, 11:25 PM
they assume that removing guns from crime involving guns would prevent the crime. not to mention most of those statistics could be challenged.

vladbutsky
04-10-2009, 10:40 AM
Here is statistics from 2005
http://www.nsc.org/research/odds.aspx

All External Causes of Mortality 176,406
- Deaths Due to Unintentional (Accidental) Injuries 117,809
- Transport Accidents 48,441
- Nontransport Unintentional (Accidental) Injuries 69,368
- - Falls 19,656
- - Accidental drowning and submersion 3,582
- - Exposure to smoke, fire and flames 3,197
- - Exposure to forces of nature 2,179
- - Accidental poisoning by and exposure to noxious substances 23,618
- Intentional self-harm 32,637
- - Intentional self-harm by firearm 17,002
- Assault 18,124
- - Assault by firearm 12,352
- - Assault by sharp object 2,097

RandyD
04-10-2009, 11:30 AM
Gun control advocates are very different people than us. They are emotional and rely on their feelings to guide them. Facts to not matter to them, because they are driven by their feelings. This explains why they personalize firearms as the killers and why they characterize firearms as being evil. Their desire to completely ban firearms is understandable. They do not possess, own or use firearms so firearms have no value to them. They "feel" that the idea of banning firearms has no adverse consequences to them. However, they are rational enough to realize that the police and military need firearms and in a few cases, they realize that the personal body guards they use to protect them also need firearms. Further, they typically self-award themselves the title of being an intellectual, and to them using a firearm is contrary to being an intellectual. To them only the lower forms of life own, posses and use firearms. This also explains why they are out of step with the police and the military. Any responses to their drivel in the editorial pages has to appeal to their mindset, and quite frankly, I think that is an impossible task because you are not dealing with a rational person.

Flogger23m
04-10-2009, 11:32 AM
Man, that article sickens me.



That sums it up very well for me.

DDT
04-10-2009, 1:04 PM
Here is statistics from 2005
http://www.nsc.org/research/odds.aspx

All External Causes of Mortality 176,406
- Deaths Due to Unintentional (Accidental) Injuries 117,809
- Transport Accidents 48,441
- Nontransport Unintentional (Accidental) Injuries 69,368
- - Falls 19,656
- - Accidental drowning and submersion 3,582
- - Exposure to smoke, fire and flames 3,197
- - Exposure to forces of nature 2,179
- - Accidental poisoning by and exposure to noxious substances 23,618
- Intentional self-harm 32,637
- - Intentional self-harm by firearm 17,002
- Assault 18,124
- - Assault by firearm 12,352
- - Assault by sharp object 2,097

It would seem the "right to die" folks should be pitching in some cash to the 2A fight.

It also seems that being responsible for a little over 10% of all accidental deaths is high. I think the best way to resolve this is to make firearms safety a cornerstone of all our Health Ed classes in school. As we have found with SEX abstinence is not the solution we need to reach responsible firearms handling to kids in school at a very early age.


Dream Sequence...

...Now Timmy, this is called a slide. It is like a covering for the barrel of the gun. When daddy uses his gun it makes him happy, that is very normal. You will see that sometimes it feels really good to touch your slide. This is normal too. Pulling your slide back will cock the gun while it also inserts a round into the chamber. You have to be very careful when you do this but again, it is perfectly normal. It is always best to have someone with you while using your gun. It is OK if you like to shoot with boys or girls, we don't want to make you feel bad about who you pick to share with......

valleyguy
04-10-2009, 1:08 PM
Another one, this one with a whole gaggle of responses.

http://egan.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/04/08/the-guns-of-spring/#comment-39075

Please respond in a polite and persuasive manner; don't get angry or regurgitate the same basic arguments over and over about "the constitution," because these people don't care about that line of reasoning.

Here's my response:
I know this a very heated emotional argument, but people really need to look to the facts, and not their emotions.

For one thing, how many people here have even shot a gun? A pistol? An "assault rifle?" Because, if your not actually familiar and competent in the use of Arms, objectively, your really don't know what you're talking about.

For example, non-shooters making soaring speeches on the evils of guns should be taken about as seriously as a middle aged man, who can't get pregnant, advocating the evils of abortion. I'm pro-gun and pro-choice, and I find both equally infuriating.

The fact of the matter is that very few people really know what they’re talking about. While the word "assault weapon" might sound scary, in reality, you have more to fear from ham sandwiches. And yes, I do intend to back my argument up with facts.

Roughly 2,800 people die each year from chocking on food, the majority of them children, vastly more people than have been killed by “assault weapons.” Now, if it’s “for the children,” why don’t we make a law that all food must be blended ala Gerber? The obvious answer is that it would be totally unenforceable, and really lame for people who enjoy eating food.

The same is true for “assault weapons.” There are well over 10 million of them in the United States, with 99% of them in the hands of law-abiding citizens. Just like a foodie would be appalled at eating baby food for “the good of society,” please imagine how Law abiding gun owners feel about having our $1000+ investments being “Gerberized” with magazine capacity restrictions and outright bans, leaving us with Guns that are really pretty lame and boring to shoot. Single shot rifles and shotguns, while fine for killing animals, are pretty boring when shooting bottles and cans at the shooting range, as anyone who shoots regularly will tell you.

Because, despite all the rhetoric on both sides about the constitution, hunting, self defense, and all that, the real truth of the matter is the vast majority of guns are used for pure, unadulterated fun. While the notion may seem alien to those who don’t shoot, shooting guns at bottles, cans, pieces of fruit, and old washing machines is extremely satisfying and enjoyable, and, when the basic 4 rules of firearm safety are observed, totally safe. Semi-automatic firearms make this waaaay more enjoyable, since you can spend your time actually shooting, and not stuffing cartridges into your gun, which is extremely tiring. Very few people that I know who have spent more than an hour at a shooting range didn’t enjoy it, but every one of them disliked having to reload cartridges into their magazines.

This is our hobby, and we view restrictions on it with the same amount of alarm that many car owners would if the government banned the sale of sports cars in order to reduce the prevalence of speeding. Having gotten a few speeding tickets in a mini van, I can tell you how effective that would be. The same is true for any other ban, form prohibition to the current “war on drugs.”

Please, before rushing out to ban things, I suggest you give them a try first. Because, if you don’t, your much like a virgin advocating celibacy; you don’t know what the **** your talking about.

Take care,
Mark

Heck, that was a pretty awesome response. Well done! :thumbsup: