PDA

View Full Version : Good Article


Spotted Owl
05-06-2005, 10:51 AM
One of the more balanced articles I've seen recently:

http://www.reason.com/0505/fe.ak.straight.shtml

Spotted Owl
05-06-2005, 10:51 AM
One of the more balanced articles I've seen recently:

http://www.reason.com/0505/fe.ak.straight.shtml

imported_1911_sfca
05-06-2005, 3:22 PM
I read the whole thing, and it is an excellent article / series of opinion pieces really.

However, I didn't learn anything from it. Most of what is said is common sense to anyone who knows about or uses guns. I would love, however, for this to be required reading for gun grabbers in California.

MadMex
05-07-2005, 6:40 AM
When debating banning / control with anti’s I use an analogy to illustrate their lunacy. I start by discussing our mutual dislike for drunk drivers. It’s surprising how many people’s lives, including mine, have been negatively affected by a drunk driver. I then ask if it would be appropriate to take away everyone’s vehicles (theirs, mine, and the drunkard’s) to prevent drunk driving. The obvious answer is no. I explain that I am also against illegal ownership and use of firearms, as well as any sort of crime, regardless if weapons are used. However, persecuting law abiding firearm owners through bans or additional regulation is analogous to taking away everyone’s vehicles to solve drunk driving.

Charliegone
05-07-2005, 3:34 PM
Hehe not everyone is logical though. This one time this guy I was talking to said, "if gun ownership violates another right than guns should be banned." I told him what right is that? He said "to feel safe." I nearly cracked up and said "WHAT?" I said there is no right to feel safe, just of self-defense. That can be your "safe" I told him, but still he insisted only the police and military should have guns because they are the "best" qualified. Of course even with all the data and evidence I presented him he STILL was saying guns are bad. I even tried that anaolgy with the car, but still.. Some people are just brainwashed far beyond our help!

RRangel
05-07-2005, 9:38 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">A good example is private gun sales, which are largely unregulated. This creates a serious problem, since there is strong evidence that guns used in crime are purchased through informal, third-party channels. Criminologists such as Joseph F. Sheley of California State University at Sacramento and James D. Wright of the University of Central Florida have documented the ways in which crime guns move quickly through a community by means of informal transactions, a problem that should be addressed by harshly penalizing people who engage in nonprofessional gun transfers and circumvent legal dealers. Straw purchasing—in which a person with a clean background purchases a gun through legal means, then turns around and sells it illegally to a prohibited buyer such as a convicted felon—is a related example of a serious gun crime. Massive amounts of guns can move quickly and easily into the black market through consistent straw purchasing, which should be heavily penalized on both the supply and demand sides. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Gun show loophole anyone? I think not. Next!

What happened to innocent until proven guilty in this country? If they're doing straw purchases bust them for such. Don't take away the ability of persons to sell their private property in the US, which has already been done in California.

05-08-2005, 9:24 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by MadMex:
When debating banning / control with anti’s I use an analogy to illustrate their lunacy. I start by discussing our mutual dislike for drunk drivers. It’s surprising how many people’s lives, including mine, have been negatively affected by a drunk driver. I then ask if it would be appropriate to take away everyone’s vehicles (theirs, mine, and the drunkard’s) to prevent drunk driving. The obvious answer is no. I explain that I am also against illegal ownership and use of firearms, as well as any sort of crime, regardless if weapons are used. However, persecuting law abiding firearm owners through bans or additional regulation is analogous to taking away everyone’s vehicles to solve drunk driving. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

That's a good analogy. I'll have to remember it for the next time I'm talking with an anti.

05-09-2005, 8:15 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by MadMex:
When debating banning / control with anti’s I use an analogy to illustrate their lunacy. I start by discussing our mutual dislike for drunk drivers. It’s surprising how many people’s lives, including mine, have been negatively affected by a drunk driver. I then ask if it would be appropriate to take away everyone’s vehicles (theirs, mine, and the drunkard’s) to prevent drunk driving. The obvious answer is no. I explain that I am also against illegal ownership and use of firearms, as well as any sort of crime, regardless if weapons are used. However, persecuting law abiding firearm owners through bans or additional regulation is analogous to taking away everyone’s vehicles to solve drunk driving. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

In a nutshell, it's called "treating the symptom while ignoring the problem".

It's bad policy but one that unfortunately is extended into a number of other "hot" issues well beyond that of just guns and gun rights. Look around and you're bound to see numerous examples of it.