Hi-Point Firearms Forums banner
1 - 1 of 1 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,755 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
I found gold on a site that is about to go down due to inactivity... the pics are mostly gone, and a few of the links are dead, BUT it is still very informative and can be used to arm yourself in a conversation with someone attacking your freedoms, liberties, and most of all your rights.

Deceit is central to the "gun control" movement
Ammo for the Gun Rights Debate

Most of the platforms of 'gun control' proponents are based on deceit, specious arguments, logical fallacies, and emotional hype. This must be exposed. Judgements should be based on on facts, not on emotional and especially not on intentionally deceptive rhetoric. Those employing such should be viewed with extra suspicion: If the facts decisively favored a given side, that side should not need to resort to lies to make its case. The "gun control" talking points are mostly lies or deceptions. Those who are gun-phobic or who are prejudiced about gun owners have a right to their bigotry ... but this does not justify the use of deception to accomplish their mission of destroying other's right to self-defense.

The first thing to do when trying to talk to an anti is to ask them, what, if anything, will cause them to abandon their support for gun control? What evidence would they accept that it is misguided? Naturally, convincing someone of something that won't change their mind anyway is a wasted effort.

* If they think the Second Amendment protects the right of states to arm their National Guards, would they drop their support for gun control if you could convince them that the National Guard is a federal force, or that Second Amendment regards an individual, civil right?
* If they think the Second Amendment may have been appropriate when it was written but is now obsolete, would they drop their support for gun control if you could convince them that tyrants still exist today or that governments continue to kill far more people than armed criminals do?
* If they think gun control is needed because guns cause crime, or because guns are killing our children, would they drop their support for it if you could convince them that they stop more crimes than they cause, that crime in America is highest where gun control is strictest, or that guns are a negligible cause of child death compared to other household items?
* If they think that people don't need guns because the police are there to protect them, would they abandon their support for gun control if you could convince them that the police have no legal duty to protect any individual?
* If they think having a gun around the home places a family at greater risk of being murdered with it than protected by it, would they abandon their support for gun control if you could convince them that the "study" which drew this conclusion is based on fallacy and that the opposite is true?
* If they think that guns are bad because America has many guns and many gun deaths compared with other countries, would they abandon their support for gun control if you could convince them that these comparisons are flawed, by ignoring rates before the other contries disarmed, or by neglecting current trends in crime rates?
* If they think that guns are evil, bad, and horrible devices which just jump up and kill people, and you find out that they have no experience with them at all, would they abandon their support for gun control if you offered to take them to a range to see for themselves a real gun that can shoot holes in a piece of paper, without jumping off the table and without killing anybody?
* If they think gun control is needed because there is so much public support for it, or so many stories for it on the news or in the papers, would they abandon their support for it if you could convince them that most people are not informed about the issue and are acting on emotions, and that the news media has abandoned objectivity and has demonstrably taken sides in the gun control debate?
* If they think gun control is needed because the arguments favoring it seem so convincing - would they abandon their support for it if you could convince them that most of those arguments are based on deception, partial truths, misleading studies, logical fallacies, methodological flaws, hypocrisy, and deliberate misuse of words?

* Lastly, if they tell you that there is nothing whatsoever that you could possibly demonstrate, that would change their mind about gun control - then remind them they are taking a dogmatic, bigoted, and even essentially religious position about guns, gun owners, and gun control that has no place being legislated in a free society: Their beliefs are their right, but they have no right to inflict these beliefs on others under color of law.
* Even if they are unwilling to accept any new evidence that could cause them to question their beliefs, they may already hold self-contradictory positions, which, if found and pointed out, would also serve the purpose. (See: "What you have to believe, in order to believe in 'gun control.'")

"He who will not reason, is a bigot; he who cannot, is a fool; and he who dares not, is a slave." -- Byron

This research is free to copy, free to forward. Comments arewelcome. Permission is hereby granted to use any part of it or all of it for any pro-rights purposes, and especially for pro-gun webpages or letters to the editor. The page is long - sorry about that. Download it and read it at your leisure later! [email protected] Here are my PGP keys.

"No one has the right to destroy another person's belief by demanding empirical evidence." -- Ann Landers, Director, Handgun Control, Inc. [Evidently, she thinks freedom of speech does not apply to asking questions.]

"We didn't spend enough money, and we didn't tell enough lies." [WRT the reasons Washington Safety First and Handgun Control Incorporated lost the WA State I-676 handgun control initiative] --Charles W. `The Needle' Pluckhahn; aka: "CWP" < [email protected] >

Laws that forbid the carrying of arms... disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes... Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man.
--- Jefferson's "Commonplace Book," 1774-1776, quoting from On Crimes and Punishment, by criminologist Cesare Beccaria, 1764

Here is a typical "gun control" 'FACT':

The New England Journal of Medicine reported that a gun in the home is 43 times more likely to cause the death of a family member or a friend than a criminal. The study concluded:

"The home can be a dangerous place. We noted 43 suicides, criminal homicides, or accidental gunshot deaths involving a gun kept in the home for every case of homicide for self-protection. In light of these findings, it may be reasonably asked whether keeping firearms in the home increases a family's protection or places it in greater danger."

"Torture data long enough, and it will confess to anything." -anon http://www.smith-house.org/books/Larry_Smith/quotes.html

"But since Kellermann and Reay considered only cases resulting indeath, which Gary Kleck's research indicates are a tiny percentage of defensive gun uses, this conclusion does not follow. As the researchers themselves conceded, "Mortality studies such as ours do not include cases in which burglars or intruders are wounded or frightened away by the use or display of a firearm. Cases in which would-be intruders may have purposely avoided a house known to be armed are also not identified." By leaving out such cases, Kellermann and Reay excluded almost all of the lives saved, injuries avoided, and property protected by keeping a gun in the home. Yet advocates of 'gun control' continue to use this study as the basis for claims such as, "A gun in the home is 43 times as likely to kill a family member as to be used in self-defense."
From: http://www.reason.com/9704/fe.cdc.html
http://www.azstarnet.com/~sandman/doctors.htm

This "fact" is typical of the misleading propaganda produced by the "gun control" lobby. The methodology is flawed, and the results misleading and deceptive despite the technicality that the numbers themselves are "correct." (They are as correct as "I did not have sex with that woman, Miss Lewinsky.")

Suicides are included. Accounting for some 55% of guns deaths nationwide, they account for fully 37 of the 43 deaths from "guns in the home," or 87% of the total! Blaming the guns for these deaths is dubious, because people can, will, and do kill themselves without guns. Curiously, when it comes to suicide, we don't see many comparisons with all those countries that so wisely keep guns out of people's hands -- maybe because old gun-crazy America wouldn't look so bad by comparison. http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2000/03/13/guns/print.html In 1996, the suicide rate per 100,000 people was 11.8 in the U.S., 13.4 in Canada, 17.9 in Japan, 20.9 in France and 25 in Finland. Japan is essentially gun-free.

Furthermore, self-defense doesn't require killing. It makes no more sense to measure the effectiveness of guns in private hands by counting the number of dead bodies they produce as it does to measure the effectiveness of a police force solely by their annual body count.

Given this, do you still accept the 43-to-1 "fact?" Even the study's authors have backed off their claim. (It became 22 times more likely: Kellermannn A.L. Injuries and Deaths Due to Firearms in the Home Journal of Trauma, vol. 45, no. 2, 1998, pp. 263-267. http://www.jointogether.org/gv/action/tools/facts/reader.jtml?Object_ID=257007 It then became "In homes with guns, the homicide of a household member is almost three times more likely to occur than in homes without guns.) Nevertheless, some "gun control" groups still report it as fact. For example, SLAM!theNRA does so on it's "firearms facts" page, by stating: "Guns kept in the home for self-protection are 43 times more likely to kill someone you know than to kill in self-defense." (From: http://www.slamthenra.com/) They make a call to action based in part on this fraud!

Besides those who simply repeat the frauds "without ill intent," which SLAM!theNRA could barely claim, there are other groups such as the Violence Policy Center, which continue to perpetrate new frauds in the same vein despite being called on them. They cannot claim "ignorance" or that "they got the information from other sources." Anyone who sort of vaguely supports the notion that guns are bad and should be controlled, should be educated on the deliberate deceptions perpetrated by the VPC and other such groups, and pressed to explain why they do it, and why anything those groups support should be accepted given their deceit.

Incidentally, by use of the same methodology, one can come up with other equally misleading, but pro-rights stats. The question is, how come we only hear about "43 times more likely" and never these?

* A gun is 25 times more likely to be used to defend against criminal threat than to kill anybody.
* A gun is 245 times more likely to be used by a non-criminal to defend against criminal threat than to commit criminal homicide.
* A gun is 55 times more likely to be used to defend against criminal threat than to kill another person intentionally.
* A gun is 50 times more likely to be used to defend against criminal threat than to be used in suicide.
* A gun is over 500 times more likely to be used to defend against criminal threat than to accidentally or unintentionally kill anybody.

Explanations of these numbers, and a further discussion of the 43-to-1 statistic, are from: http://www.goal.org/articles/coveystats.html More on 43-to-1: http://www.nationalreview.com/kopel/kopel013101.shtml

Summary of Bad-Faith Arguments, Deceptions, and Distortions

The Stentorian: Attacking the lies of "gun control" proponents.
http://www.stentorian.com/2ndamend/

The "43-times more likely" abuse of statistics is typical of the lies put forth by the gun prohibition lobby. Well, maybe they're not lies. Maybe, as Clinton would say, they are "legally accurate ... but do not volunteer information." Remember that? "I did not have sex with that woman, Miss Lewinsky." ... "That depends on what 'is' is."

But this abuse is not nearly the only offense against honesty coming from the gun prohibition lobby; Other arguments they make are equally deceptive or fraudulent. Some are made in bad faith: In answer to a certain problem, a certain solution is seriously proposed that cannot possibly fix the problem. Another kind of fraud is the deliberately deceptive (mis)use of words, and a third type is the use of fraudulent methodology employed in order to exaggerate the harm, or minimize the benefit, of guns. (43-to-1 fits in this section.) A fourth is the simple use of bogus arguments, illogical or rhetorical. A fifth section is governmental misinterpretations. Since the State acts with the force of law, their bad-faith arguments deserve a special section.

1. Bad Faith Arguments and Blatant Hypocrisy Solutions advanced to "solve" a problem that can't possibly be solved in the proposed way.

Licensing and registration

In response to the workplace shooting at a Xerox building in Hawaii, Clinton and others called for national gun registration and owner licensing. But in Hawaii, this is already law, and the licensed shooter used his registered gun to commit the massacre. http://www.cnn.com/US/9911/03/honolulu.shooting.01/ Similarly, the Melrose Park, IL shooter at Navistar, Inc, was a convicted child molestor and yet had a firearms permit which, nevertheless, did not prompt authorities to confiscate his guns (let alone put him immediately in prison). http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A36499-2001Feb7.html Criminals are exempt from having to undergo licensing and registration! - since gun ownership is prohibited to criminals, and since registering constitutes admission of ownership, the Fifth Amendment protection against self-incrimination "provides a full defense" to prosecution! http://www.shadeslanding.com/firearms/cramer.haynes.html) In other words, Licensing and registration only applies to law-abiding citizens! Here is a list of arguments against, and rebuttals to arguments for, licensing and registration: http://spot.colorado.edu/~tiemann/registration.html

"Closing" the "gun show loophole"

* In response to the Columbine shootings, Clinton and others call for background checks at gun shows, "because" shooters Harris andKlebold were supplied weapons bought from a gun show by straw-purchase buyer Robyn Anderson, who didn't take any background check. But there are two lies here: First, Harris and Klebold didn't buy their guns at a gun show, they bought them from Robyn Anderson. Close the Robyn Anderson loophole, if anything! Second, Anderson had a clean record, and would have passed any check.
* If you look up "loophole" in the dictionary, you will find that it isn't one: a "loophole" means a possibility for circumventing the intent of a law while obeying the letter of the law. If the legislators had intended background checks for all gun transfers, but people at gun shows somehow mananged to find a way to sell guns without these checks by a creative interpretation of the law, that would be a loophole. On the other hand, if the legislators specifically decided not to include gun shows within the scope of the Brady law, and private sellers at shows accordingly didn't conduct the background checks, that isn't a "loophole." (This argument courtesy of Mike Humer.) Thus, the "gun show loophole" used in the customary way is really "gun prohibitionist's incessant mission creep." It would seem that the background checks for FFLs was sold to voters or to Congress with the disclaimer that "Don't worry, these checks only apply to FFL sales. They don't affect gun shows and private sales at all ... people will still be able to trasact freely once guns leave the original dealer." - And then we are told about the dangerous "gun show loophole." In fact...
* ... now in Colorado that the "gun-show loophole" is closed, there will still be the "private seller loophole" that allows people not at gun shows to sell guns without performing background checks. This "private sale/newspaper ad loophole" will be the next one mentioned - and in just as deceptive and misleading way as the "gun-show loophole" has been. (Prediction comes true: "Leaders of gun control groups from Illinois and 15 other states today called on the nation's newspapers to stop carrying classified advertisements for guns, saying such ads let criminals obtain firearms without undergoing federally mandated background checks." http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/fr/561835/posts)
* Actually, it isn't a "loophole" anyway: the gun prohibition lobby would have you believe that current law allows criminals to purchase guns at gun shows But this is false! Criminals are never "allowed" to purchase guns - they are absolutely prohibited from doing so, whether at a store, gun show, from a newspaper ad, or for that matter from the black market. The "gun show loophole" is tantamount to the "street corner loophole," which allows people to stand on street corners without a background check, to buy and sell heroin - it simply isn't legal. There is no loophole here whatsoever, there areonly unenforced laws.
* The gun prohibition lobby claims that this loophole was created by the Firearms Owner Protection Act of 1986, which for the first time allowed private sellers to sell guns at gun shows, without performing background checks. They have it exactly backwards: Until 1986, FFL holders were prohibited to transact at gun shows - only private sellers were allowed to sell at gun shows. But Presto! As soon as FFLs were allowed to sell at gun shows, suddenly it's a "loophole" that private dealers do not have to conduct background checks.
* If you are opposed to registration, but support "background" (registration) checks, you are misinformed about the true nature of the checks: they are registration, because they include make, model, and serial number of the purchased firearm(s), which have no bearing on the background of the checkee. See below.
* "Closing" is exactly wrong: Firearms laws are the same at gun shows as everywhere else: dealers are required to perform (unconstitutional) checks, no matter where they set up business, and private citizens are not, whether at a gun show or not. However, the ballot initiative in Colorado, Amendment 22, creates a loophole because now, a private seller would have to provide for background checks at "gun show" sales but not for non-gun-show sales. Presumably the "newpaper ad" or "private sale" loophole will be the next target to be closed in the future. Then, there will be full government monitoring and registration of all firearms transfers - a feat even King George was not able to secure in his day. http://www.i2i.org/SuptDocs/Backgrounders/gunshows.htm Next, there is that pesky freedom loophole.
* Now in Colorado, private sellers who sell guns at gun shows must pay sales tax on their sales, even though it is private property they are selling. (Gotcha! This wasn't talked about by the supporters of Amendment 22 at all!!) Furthermore:
* ... those who attempt to sell to someone who turns out to be a prohibited person must go through a background check themselves in order to get their own gun back, because once the gun is in possession of an FFL to transfer (register) the gun to the prospective buyer, the gun can't be "just given" to anyone, including the seller. The only way to transfer a gun from an FFL to someone is via the check, including returning it to the seller, when the sale is denied. Gotcha again! This too was not discussed when the ballot initiative was being discussed. However, laws always have unintended consequences. Maybe they're intended - but that would be paranoid to think so, right?
* Given that that Maryland has already "closed" the gun show "loophole," the movement there to ban gun shows altogether indicates that the gun show "loophole" is a merely smokescreen. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A19618-2001Feb2.html http://www.washtimes.com/op-ed/ed-house-2001221182052.htm

The Brady Law: Background Checks and Waiting Periods

The Brady Bill was named in honor of Reagan's press secretary, James Brady, who was shot in the head, by mentally unstable attempted presidential assassin John W. Hinckley, Jr. The stated purpose of the "Brady" check and its mandatory waiting period was to keep people like Hinckley from being able to get guns, but under the provisions of the Brady bill, Hinckley would not have been denied, and he bought the gun he used more than the waiting period length prior to his assassination attempt. Thus, neither provision would have stopped the shooting.

Trigger locks

* When a 6-year-old shooter killed 6 year-old Kayla Rolland at an elementary school near Flint, Michigan, Clinton and others stated how much this shows how badly we need trigger-lock laws. But the gun was stolen, and traded to a crack dealer for drugs - at the house of the 6-year-old shooter. Can a serious case be made that crack whores will obey trigger-lock laws? What about felony drug laws? http://www.cnn.com/2000/US/03/06/gun.locks/
* All but 2 of 32 brands of trigger locks could be opened without a key. In light of this failure rate, could it be that trigger lock proposals are a result of knee-jerk hysteria rather than carefully implemented policy? http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A35373-2001Feb6.html
* Anti-gun Maryland governor P. Glendening wanted to demo how easy a locked gun can be to open - but he required the assitance of a nearby police officer to do it.

Despite the fact that he would have been killed if this had been a defensive situation in which he needed the gun, "the next day, Parris Glendening's henchmen in the General Assembly abandoned Senate rules and brought to the floor the administration proposal to ban sale of all handguns which do not have these types of mechanical gadgets built in." http://www.direct-action.org/Gunlock/demo.html

"Stricter" penalties

Because LA Police-Chief Bernard Parks's granddaughter Lori Gonzalez was killed in a gang-related shooting, the police chief has called for tighter restrictions on guns, and harsher penalties to be made available to people who commit crimes with guns. http://www.FreeRepublic.com/forum/a39415e6d22ce.htm But the shooter is already eligible for the death penalty - and prosecutors haven't even decided whether they will seek it. http://www.cnn.com/2000/US/06/09/chief.grand/ How much stricter than the death penalty can we imagine going? Being Rosie O'Donut's live-in slave?

"Tighter" Handgun Regulations

In response to the spree shooting at the DC Zoo in which a handgun was used, the Violence Policy Center called for a ban on handguns. But handguns are already effectively banned in Washington DC - which even the Violence Policy Center already admits! ("Although the District of Columbia has had a ban on handgun sale and possession since 1976, Washington residents are held hostage by the lax gun laws of surrounding jurisdictions." - Josh Sugarmann. In that case, how come the gun death rates in these adjoining places, where the gun laws are lax, aren't even higher?)

Concealed carry

Gore, some PTAs and others http://www.cnn.com/US/9910/19/utah.schools.guns/index.html are calling for a ban of carrying concealed weapons in schools and churches. This argument is even a rallying cry to defeat G.W. Bush, who signed legislation allowing it. http://www.bushandguns.com/pages/churches.html But it is not the carry-permit holders who are committing the mass shootings in these locations.

Arrest rate of Washington, DC police officers: 19 per 1000
Arrest rate of St. Louis police officers: 13 per 1000
Arrest rate of New York City police officers: 3 per 1000
Arrest rate of Florida concealed handgun permit holders: 0.9 per 1000
(Source: "D.C. Police Paying for Hiring Binge" Washington Post 8/28/94; Memorandum by James T. Moore, Commissioner of Florida's Department of Law Enforcement, to office of the Governor, dated 3/15/95.)

Texas Concealed Handgun Carriers: Law-abiding Public Benefactors
http://www.ncpa.org/ba/ba324/ba324.html

When Florida passed shall-issue concealed carry, opponents said it would turn the Sunshine State into the "Gunshine State." It didn't happen. When Virginia passed shall-issue concealed carry, opponents said it would turn Virginia into "Virginia City." It didn't happen. When Texas passed shall-issue concealed carry, opponents said it would return Texas to the days of the Wild West. Didn't happen.

Quotes of Concealed carry converts:

* "I lobbied against the law in 1993 and 1995 because I thought it would lead to wholesale armed conflict. That hasn't happened. All the horror stories I thought would come to pass didn't happen. No bogeyman. I think it's worked out well, and that says good things about the citizens who have permits. I'm a convert." - Glenn White, president of the Dallas Police Association: http://detnews.com/EDITPAGE/0101/14/comment2/comment2.htm
* "I'm detecting that I'm eating a lot of crow on this issue. It isn't something I necessarily like to do, but I am doing it on this." - Harris County [Texas] District Attorney John Holmes http://www.moccw.org/leforccw.html
* "Some of the public safety concerns which we imagined or anticipated a couple of years ago, to our pleasant surprise, have been unfounded or mitigated." -- Fairfax County VA Police Major Bill Brown, The Alexandria Journal, 7/9/97.
* "I was wrong. But I'm glad to say I was wrong." -- Arlington County VA Police Detective Paul Larson, previously an opponent of Right to Carry, The Alexandria Journal, 7/9/97.
* "The concerns I had - with more guns on the street, folks may be more apt to square off against one another with weapons - we haven't experienced that." -- Charlotte-Mecklenburg NC Police Chief Dennis Nowicki, The News and Observer, 11/24/97.

Other relevant quotes:

Florida
# "From a law enforcement perspective, the licensing process has not resulted in problems in the community from people arming themselves with concealed weapons." -- Commissioner James T. Moore, Florida Department of Law Enforcement, Memo to the Governor, 3/15/95.
# "To set the record straight... The process is working... The statistics show a majority of concealed firearms or firearm licensees are honest, law-abiding citizens exercising their right to be armed for the purpose of lawful self defense." -- Sandra B. Mortham, Florida Secretary of State.

Texas:
# "As we have seen in other states and had predicted would occur in Texas, all the fears of the naysayers have not come to fruition. A lot of critics argued that the law-abiding citizens couldn't be trusted... But the facts do speak for themselves. None of these horror stories have materialized." -- Sheriff David Williams, Tarrant County, TX, Fort Worth Telegram, 7/17/96.

Virginia:
# "Virginia has not turned into Dodge City. We have not seen a problem." -- Virginia Public Safety Secretary Jerry Kilgore, The Fredricksburg Freelance Star, 2/2/96.

USA-Wide
# "Allowing citizens to carry concealed firearms deters violent crimes and it appears to produce no increase in accidental deaths. If those states which did not have right to carry concealed gun provisions had adopted them in 1992, approximately 1,570 murders, 4,177 rapes and over 60,000 aggravated assaults would have been avoided yearly." -- Professor John R. Lott, Jr., and David B. Mustard, University of Chicago.
# "The facts are in and the record is clear: Right to Carry gives law enforcement, their families and our communities real protection from violent criminals." -- James J. Fotis, Executive Director, Law Enforcement Alliance of America.

Source: http://www.moccw.org/leforccw.html

(But in one sense, maybe they're right: only three (3) people died at the famous shootout at the OK Corral - and the reason it's famous is because, for the Wild West, that was a big number. http://www.linecamp.com/museums/ame.../ok_corral_gun_fight/ok_corral_gun_fight.html ) Yet, they continue to fight against the introduction of CCW everywhere else. Where is the difference between a difference of opinion, and a record of being 100% wrong, every time - and still expecting to be taken serioulsy? Even astrologers and psychics sometimes have a prediction come true! But opponents of shall-issue conceal carry continue to say letting guns on the streets will result in mass death and destruction.

"By getting rid of the guns, we will reduce crime!"

Many gun prohibitionists claim to seek reduced crime rates (specifically, 'gun-violence' rates).
But:

* They propose to turn thousands of people into new, paper criminals by banning certain types of weapons or magazines which they already own. For example, mere possession of a banned so-called 'assault weapon' is considered a violent felony in California. Here is the story of one such "criminal" http://www.guntruths.com/Puckett/why_i_will_not_obey_california.htm There are proposals to make possession of certain types of ammo and gun accessories (such as full-capacity magazines), as well as some types of guns, strictly prohibited. I confess: I have a 25 round magazine for a 22 rimfire rifle. Would it "reduce crime" by banning this item, turning me into a criminal, without my taking any action?
* Fun Fact: Those who pass such laws will instantly be creating not just criminals, but armed criminals by the thousands, or more! At the stroke of a pen!! Canada has just manufactured 400,000 armed criminals. How that for reducing crime? http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A25796-2001Jan5.html
Even California officials admit little compliance with their latest registration scheme:

"No one knows exactly how many of these types of guns are in private hands, but we estimate the number is far higher than what has been registered," said state Attorney General Bill Lockyer, a Democrat.
http://www.washtimes.com/national/default-2001122225211.htm

"Well, what do you think [laws] are for? We want them to be broken. There is no way to rule innocent men. The only power any government has is the power to crack down on criminals. Well, when there aren't enough criminals, one makes them. One declares so many things to be a crime that it becomes impossible for men to live without breaking laws. [...] just pass the kind of laws that can neither be observed nor enforced nor objectively interpreted - and you create a nation of law-breakers ... that's the game." -- Ayn Rand, Atlas Shrugged p. 411

* Some people value their freedom more than the law, and will violently resist confiscation - and this is already well known. http://www.henrybowman.com/Articles/artADeclarationOfDisobedience.htm http://www.tysknews.com/Depts/2nd_Amend/dear_peace_officer.htm Continuing on the path to civilian disarmament in light of this knowledge means they do not want to "reduce violence" - they wish to provoke it. There are people willing to kill to keep their weapons and the freedom. Are the gun prohibitionists willing to die, or to kill in the name of "reducing gun violence" in order to disarm these people? (Some antis will claim that, no, they don't want to kill people to take away their guns. But frankly, it's out of their hands; once a law is enacted that criminalizes firearms or accessories, the matter of law enforcement is out of their hands. If the police then want to no-knock suspected owners of these things at 3 AM using a dozen ninja-suited thugs in riot gear and jackboots in the fine tradition of the drug war then that's what they will do, the docile intentions of some gun prohibitionists notwithstanding.)

"We need to hold gun makers responsible for negligent marketing of guns to criminals, who then use them in crimes."

Lately it has been popular to sue gun makers for "the cost of gun violence" and "selling guns to criminals" by suing them for damages when one of their products is used in a crime. For example, an article Gun Maker Glock Sued, Sellers, Sued Over Pizza Hut Shooting "Civil suits like this are a very important supplement to our laws because they give gun sellers a very important financial incentive to act responsibly," said Dennis Henigan, who directs the Center [To Prevent Handgun Violence]'s legal action project. http://www.freerepublic.com/forum/a3a67463e3e1a.htm But the gun used in this crime was first sold to a police department as admitted in the same article. Thus, selling guns to police departments is evidently the sort of negligent, irresponsible behavior on Glock's part that these lawsuits are supposed to put a stop to.

By the way, such lawsuits violate the separation of powers. In America, policy is to be written by legislators, and interpreted by the courts, but the tobacco litigation already completed and the gun litigation currently is an attempt to create public policy in the courts not in the legislature where it belongs.

"Clinton is only trying to make our country safer by getting violent criminals off the streets!"

* The Brady registration checks make it a felony to lie on the form, and it is a felony for prohibited persons to even try to buy a firearm. Clinton and Reno like to say how some 400,000 criminals were denied purchases. How many have been jailed? Fewer than 1,000.
* If he wanted to get violent criminals off the streets, why did Clinton pardon violent terrorists who made bombs, and shot people? See those FALN criminals (that Clinton pardoned) making a bomb here. http://www.mediaresearch.org/news/cyberalert/1999/cyb19990920.html Many were murderers, too. (After all making a bomb isn't violent - using a bomb is. The White House admitted as much.)
* The lack of Federal prosecution as regards attempts by restricted persons (felons, mentally unstable, etc) to purchase guns has been detailed in a report produced by the US Government Accounting Office (Report [GGD-96-22] Gun Control: Implementation of the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act ). This report, which SUPPORTS what the NRA has stated regarding the matter, can be accessed at US Gov't Printing Office Web-Site http://www.access.gpo.gov/su_docs/aces/aces160.shtml) enter (GGD-96-22) in the Report Number search field.
* Check out the criminals Clinton pardoned in his last hours of office, and see if you can still say with a straight face that his goal is to get violent people off the street.

Blatant Hypocrisy: Examples

# "We must do more to reach out to our children and teach them to resolve conflicts with words, not weapons. ... Violence is wrong." - President Clinton, speaking of the Columbine massacre, while the US military was bombing Yugoslavia on his orders.

# Million Moms For Vigilante Shootings, in Washington DC where handguns are banned.

One Million Mom March member, Barbara Graham (Lipscomb, Martin), joined the MMM because her son was killed "by a gun." But the MMM fell short and she took the law into her own hands by shooting (with a handgun of course) the man, Kikko Smith, she thought killed her son. Police seized four guns, including a TEC-9 sub-machine gun, from her house. [Horrors! An arsenal!! And did she pay her $200 tax on the machine gun? And were they all registered as required by law in Washington DC?] http://washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A40501-2000Jul13.html http://www.frontpagemag.com/archives/guest_column/metaksa/metaksa09-28-00p.htm

By the way, the man she shot is paralyzed for life - and didn't kill her son. And other Million Moms are backing her at the trial(!) [For possessing illegal and even banned guns in Washington, DC? For shooting someone who she thought killed her son? For helping to reduce gun violence? Just what do the Million Moms support? Censorship and vandalism? Illegal lobbying by a tax-exempt organization?] http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A37911-2001Jan23.html

She's been convicted (but this story conveniently neglects to remind the reader of her Million Mom affiliation): http://washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A15185-2001Feb1.html

# Don't point any fingers ... except at guns!

In response to a school shooting (at Carter G. Woodson Middle School in Central City, in New Orleans, 26 Sept 2000) in which two youths shot each other with the same gun, the Mayor advises that no fingers be pointed. Then he does so:

I hope the community doesn't fall into the blame cycle that we love to engage in when we have a problem -- to blame the school system, or point a finger at all the parents, or ask what the police did or did not do," [Mayor Marc] Morial said. "We have a very serious underlying problem: Children have too easy access to weapons.

Without a gun, this would have been a fight between a 13- and 15-year-old, a little pushing and shoving on the playground," he said.
http://www.nola.com/t-p/metro/index.ssf?/t-p/frontpage/338820291-0927national01.html

# Let's ignore drunk drivers and focus on guns... says a drunk driver.

This week, figures supplied by Mothers Against Drunk Driving said drunken drivers killed 15,935 in 1998. Handgun Control, a Washington group that pushes gun control, said there were 12,102 homicides by firearms in 1998.

Neither figure is heartening, but the drunks are outdoing the gunslingers when it comes to deadly violence.

And that brings us back to ["First Monday" march organizer Helen] Ruch and a final surprise.

Noting her view that it's not fair for children to feel unsafe because of guns, I asked her Thursday if she thinks it's also unfair that they feel unsafe because of the far more serious dangers from drunken drivers.

"What does that have to do with anything?" she replied.

I told her it has to do with her drunken driving charge.

"I have no comment," she said.

That's OK, because Lehigh County Court records commented plenty.

They say Ruch was charged with public drunkenness (later dropped), driving under the influence, and improper "emerging onto roadway" in 1996. "Driver was given sobriety tests of balance and walking and failed all tests. Effects of alcohol were extreme," said an Allentown police report. The report said her breath test registered 0.162.

The records say that in 1997, Ruch agreed to enter the Accelerated Rehabilitative Disposition program. Typically, when ARD is successfully completed, DUI records can be expunged.
http://www.mcall.com/html/columns/cpc/b_pg001_e15surprises.htm Mirrors: http://www.google.com/search?q=cach...surprises.htm+lehigh+ruch+drunk+driving&hl=en

# Rosie O'Donnel

"I honestly think - and I am not an expert on the amendments - I think the only people in this nation who should be allowed to own guns are police officers. I don't care if you want to hunt, I don't care if you think it's your right. I say 'sorry'. It is 1999, we have had enough as a nation. You are not allowed to own a gun and if you do own a gun, I think you should go to prison." - Rosie O'Donnel, 21 Apr 1999.

"There have been times, yes, when there has been -- only since April 21, when I became a vocal gun control advocate - there have been times when I have had armed people at my house, not inside my house, outside my house, to make sure that no one who's not supposed to get in the house, get in the house." - Rosie O'Donnel http://homes.acmecity.com/rosie/happy/365/rosie.html http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewCulture.asp?Page=\Culture\archive\CUL20000601b.html

(Image courtesy of Ironwill )

Governmental Hypocrisy:

All gun control laws are passed by our elected representatives, and signed by the the President. These laws disarm us, say, in national parks, in certain cities, or if we own certain types of firearms. However, these laws are crafted by people protected by armed guards (at the Capitol buildings), guards who have short-barrelled ("sawed-off"), silenced and fully-automatic rifles - each characteristic of which is a felony for us to own without special permission. Some who even hire or have assigned, personal bodyguards. Clinton always had a cadre of such bodyguards, armed with machine guns, and under the watchful eye of snipers posted atop buildings everywhere, all the time when he travels. In fact, after retirement presidents continue to enjoy 24 hour, 365 days/year Secret Service protection for years, no matter how many gun control laws disarming us he has signed. His daughter Chelsea has been assigned Secret Service protection for the duration of her Stanford education, another executive order by her dad. This is, of course, despite the "gun-free" schools act that ensure the rest of us can't use self-defense.

"We've got to do more to stop gun violence."

(These arguments address only the failure of gun prohibitions to reduce violent crime rates. This does not imply that even if such prohibitions did reduce crime, I would support them, since there is a value to having freedom even in the face of increased danger. These arguments are only to refute or rebut the argument that "we should 'do more' to reduce gun violence" - since even on its face what has been done so far isn't working.)

In Schools:

* The "gun-free" schools act was not passed until the mid-1990's. Yet most high-profile school shootings have happened after its passage than ever before. So we have to do more? If anything, it shows that the act should be repealed for being a proven failure.
* Part of the fault here lies with the media, for making school shootings such high profile cases in the first place. Copycat shootings wouldn't happen if nobody hears about anything they could then copy. So one part of doing more to stop school shootings is stopping their coverage to deny copycats the knowledge of anything to copy.
* Also, the media creates an incentive for future school shooters who wish their 15 minutes of fame. An attention-seeking misfit can be assured of national coverage, headlines, photos on the front pages of newspapers, his nmae being known to the whole country etc, if he were to complete a school shooting. Another way to do more is to deny fame to those who would do this. But this means getting the media to overcome its fondness for sensationalistic school shootings. (Recall that newspapers are business concerns, and that "If it bleeds, it leads." To the extent that school shootings sell papers, and that photos of grieving survivors win accolades and Pulitzer prizes http://www.pulitzer.org/year/2000/breaking-news-photography/ it is in the business interest of newspapers to have as many school shootings as possible. Harsh? If the shoe fits...
* There were already police at the Carter G. Johnson Middle School (see above) as a result of a fight some weeks ago, and there were already metal detectors through which students had to pass. Yet, a gun passed through the fence and used by two people to shoot each other means that we need to do more? (Close the fence loophole!! Only steel-reinforced concrete walls, topped with concertina wire should be permitted to enclose our precious youth while they are at school. Right?)
* Police showed up at Columbine only 4 minutes after the first 911 call, but didn't enter until nearly all the killing was done, some 40 minutes later. Doing more by way of dropping police response from 4 minutes to 1 minute won't do much good if it takes 40 more minutes to enter the building. (Note that it takes only a few seconds to fire six or ten shots, and only a few more seconds to reload whether a revolver or a semi-automatic. If the police aren't there in 1 second, more people are at risk of dying.)
* Metal detectors wouldn't have worked in Columbine, since the gunmen shot their way into the school in the first place, and could have overpowered any security guard manning the detector anyway. http://www.20ishparents.com/archives/dad2.shtml Nevertheless they are proposed for use in schools.
* Guns are now flatly prohibited at schools, unlike ever before, yet school shootings continue to happen. What next? Body cavity seraches, electric fences around schools, with moats and live crocodiles? Telescreens installed in every hall, classroom, and drinking fountain to make sure no action goes unnoticed by Big Brother?
* Here's a 16-year-old kid, who removes his coat before being dropped off at school, but there was a gun in the pocket and the granny finds it and turns him in. Seems like he was going out of his way to comply with the gun-free schools act ... but the is not good enough. http://www.newsnet5.com/news/stories/news-46338620010215-190225.html

In Cities and States:

Washington DC, Los Angeles, Baltimore, Chicago, and until recently, New York City, have among the strictest "gun control" laws anywhere and the highest rates of violent crime anywhere. In Washington DC, the "murder capital of the US," the gun laws came first and then the murder rate started to climb.

What will it take to admit the failure of "gun control?"

* Will it take the slaughter of 100,000,000 people by their own governments after passing "gun control?" Too late - it's already happened.
* Will it take the incineration of a peaceful religious sect comprising 83 men, women and children, in the name of "gun control?" Too late, it's already happened.
* Will it take the deaths of innocent people as a result of law-enforcement raids, at the wrong addresses? Too late, it's already happened.
* Studies have shown that waiting periods and background checks have been been associated with an increase in rape rates in America. http://www.senate.gov/~rpc/releases/1999/gc083100.htm How many more women need to be raped in the name of "gun control" before support for these policies wanes? A study by anti-gun authors writing in JAMA were unable to show that the Bracy Act reduced overall homicide or suicide rates. http://jama.ama-assn.org/issues/v284n5/abs/joc91749.html
o Waiting period story 1: Catherine Latta In September 1990, a mail carrier named Catherine Latta of Charlotte, North Carolina, went to the police to obtain permission to buy a handgun. Her ex-boyfriend had previously robbed her, assaulted her several times, and raped her The clerk at the sheriff's office informed her the gun permit would take two to four weeks. "I told her I'd be dead by then," Ms. Latta later recalled. That afternoon' she went to a bad part of town, and bought an illegal $20 semiautomatic pistol on the street. Five hours later, her ex-boyfriend attacked her outside her house, and she shot him dead. The county prosecutor decided not to prosecute Ms. Latta for either the self-defense homicide, or the illegal gun. http://www.afn.org/~afn01182/waiting.html
o Story 2: Bonnie Elmasri On March 5, 1991 Bonnie Elmasri called a firearms instructor, worried that her husband-who was subject to a restraining order to stay away from her-had been threatening her and her children. When she asked the instructor about getting a handgun, the instructor explained that Wisconsin has a 48-hour waiting period. Ms. Elmasri and her two children were murdered by her husband twenty-four hours later.
* How many more voodoo cures will it require that don't work before we admit that the witch doctor does not fix the problem? If one aspirin didn't cure your headache, you might try two, or three. But what if you had already taken 10 aspirins, and the politicians implored you to do more? How far down a dead-end pathway does one have to go before admitting that the path is wrong and going back?

o What if there were a disease that killed people, though not more people than car accidents do, and there were also a government-mandated drug for "treating" this disease, except that the places where the government dose of this drug is highest, had the highest death rate from the disease, namely cities?
o And what if the government response, repeated by the gun prohibitionists, is that the high death rate of this disease compared to other countries, shows why we should give all Americans this drug instead of just those in the cities? (Other countries than America give a large dose of it, but have lost millions of people to outbreaks in the past, though the people alive today tend to show lower death rates from it, but Switzerland gives a very low dose and has a very low death rate.)
o And what if these same people say, well, the reason the death rate is high where the dose is high, but low elsewhere in America, is because people from the countryside who haven't had a large dose of it can come to the cities and spread the disease - so this "proves" how a large, uniform dose is needed for everybody? The dose, they say, should be increased in the cities, and then made uniform throughout the land.
o Do you think the FDA would approve this drug? Would they approve mandating it to all Americans, based on what is presented here? In case you missed it, the disease is violence and the government-mandated drug is disaramament laws, their severity being the dose.

What, if anything, does it take to finally prove that "gun control" is a failure? If there is nothing that will suffice, then the "gun control" position is essentially a dogma, being out of the rational sphere. In which case, our First Amendment right to be free from government-imposed religion should make it go away.

2. Deceptive Use of Words

"How strangely will the Tools of a Tyrant pervert the plain Meaning of Words!" -- Samuel Adams (1722-1803), letter to John Pitts, January 21, 1776

"That depends on what the meaning of 'is' is." Then-President Bill Clinton, under oath, at his deposition for the Paula Jones lawsuit.

"Assault Weapons"

This term was coined in Nazi Germany to describe their new compact full-auto carbines, but then this term was borrowed by a gun-hater to intentionally mislead and deceive the public, namely, Josh Sugarmann of the Violence Policy Center, who applies it to firearms which are not full-auto:

"['Assault weapons'] menacing looks, coupled with the public's confusion over fully-automatic machine guns versus semi-automatic assault weapons --anything that looks like a machine gun is assumed to be a machine gun-- can only increase the chance of public support for restrictions on these weapons." --Josh Sugarmann, executive director of New Right Watch, and spokesman for the National Coalition to Ban Handguns, "Assault Weapons and Accessories in America," policy report of New Right Watch and the Education Fund to End Handgun Violence, September 1988

You can't get more decpetive than that - deliberate and admitted use of the public's confusion in order to advance an agenda. (N.B.: The Violence Policy Center is an "educational" tax-exempt organization. Do you think intentional deception should be grounds to revoke their tax-free status?)

Note: The BATF calls semi-auto firearms "assault rifles" not "assault weapons" - they can't even bother to mislead as HCI does. They simply contradict the DOD. http://www.atf.treas.gov/firearms/assault/index.htm

"The Centers for Disease Control reports that American children under 15 are 12 times more likely to die from gun violence than their peers in 25 other industrialized nations combined."

Source: http://www.pednurse.org/violence_statement.htm Rates of Homicide, Suicide, and Firearm-Related Death Among Childrenã26 Industrialized Countries, MMWR (Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report), Vol. 46, No. 5, February 7, 1997, pp. 101-105. Key Statistics: The overall firearm-related death rate among U.S. children aged less than 15 was nearly 12 times higher than among children in the other 25 industrialized countries combined. The firearm-related homicide rate in the United States was nearly 16 times higher than that in all of the other industrialized countries combined. [Emphasis added] http://www.vpc.org/studies/wherfvgn.htm

The word "combined" suggests aggregate, as if, even if you add up the rates of all those other countries, the US still has such a higher rate. But this is misleading, which is made clear by example. If two cups of coffee each have a temperature of 150 degrees, the temperature of the two "combined" is still 150, not 300. If the murder rate in country A is 3 per 100,000 per year and in country B is also 3 in the same units, the rate in the countries, "combined" is also 3, not 6 - you don't add these either. The stat could be fairly represented as, the rate is 12 times higher than the average of the other 25 countries. But that doesn't have as much sway, and it isn't what they say. When anti-rights types use this statistic, listen for the pause before, and emphasis they place on, the word "combined." It is quite possible that they themselves don't realize that they don't understand what they're talking about. Ask them to clarify what it would mean for rates from various countries to be "combined." (Ask them what the combined temperatures of two cups of coffee would be!)

"Common Sense" controls

Gun control advocates claim they merely seek "common sense" or "reasonable" restrictions. "Responsible" gun "safety." If the gun control arguments are convincing, what about other, similar ones?

For example, would you support laws requiring people to chew their food before they swallow it? After all, it's just common sense - and many people each year die from choking on their food. With such a law, survivors of food-chokings could be prosecuted!! Think of all the lives that would save!! On a similar note, how about these other causes?
M.I.L.T.: Mothers Insisting on Licensed Tools.
Sensible Fire Safety Now! - my speech to the Boulder City Council Firearms Hearing, in response to their proposed firearms ordinances. http://www.washtimes.com/op-ed/ed-house-2001221182052.htm
Doctors. http://www.mercola.com/2000/jul/30/doctors_death.htm
98% of felons use this!
The killer among us.
The Pen is Mightier than the Sword.
Waiting periods for publishing - while the Government checks your facts.
Easy Access to Unregulated Weapon is Killing our Children http://www.keepandbeararms.com/newsarchives/XcNewsPlus.asp?cmd=view&articleid=1292
If these aren't convincing, why is "gun control" convincing?

Maddening examples of "gun safety" at work:

* http://www.keepandbeararms.org/russell_laing.htm
* A shooting park in Burro Canyon atop a land fill is closed due to environmental damage since railroad ties used there have creosote "leaking toxins" into this "forest" - even though the same stuff is on the telephone poles and railroad tracks which also traverse national forests. http://www.keepandbeararms.com/newsarchives/XcNewsPlus.asp?cmd=view&articleid=1293
* Canada advises a non gun-owning hunter, who wishes to borrow but not own, guns, to get the incorrect gun license to do this - and then advises her to just simply break the law when they learn it was the wrong advice. "I'm not usually of the opinion that the gun registry is a conspiracy to strip gun owners of their firearms, but if that were the government's intention, counselling people to lie and then confiscating their guns as punishment would be one way of achieving such a goal."

Futhermore, are these good examples of common sense?

"OLDSMAR -- A fifth-grader was taken from Oldsmar Elementary School in handcuffs Wednesday after a teacher found drawings he had made of weapons, school officials said.

"The 11-year-old, who is not being named because of his age, was not charged with a crime. ... "The children were in no danger at all. It involved no real weapons."

"... The boy was handcuffed by campus police for his safety and not because the student was violent or out of control, said school district spokesman Ron Stone.

"The typical procedure involves immediately notifying a campus police officer or a school resource officer, counselors and the student's parents to "assess the threat and work with the child," she said. [But the threat was already assessed above: The children were in no danger al all.]

"... The classmates who turned in the student after seeing his drawings should be commended because that was the right thing to do, Schmitt said.

"We just need to get it through kids' heads that there are certain things you don't say and there are certain things you don't draw," he said. [... because these things are thought crimes and the thought police will not tolerate them.] http://www.sptimes.com/News/051101/news_pf/TampaBay/Student_removed_from_.shtml

* Third-grader suspended for gun key chain. http://www.greenbaynewschron.com/page.html?article=104279
* Cobb school calls wallet chain a weapon, suspends [sixth grade] girl, 11 http://stacks.ajc.com/cgi-bin/display.cgi?id=3a60d67241dd7Mpqaweb1P11010&doc=results.html - story on 9-28-2000, by Yolanda Rodriguez.
* [Different]Michigan third grader suspended for having gun toy http://www.nandotimes.com/noframes/story/0,2107,500299211-500477675-503265666-0,00.html

"The NRA is unwilling to compromise"

Compromise means each side gives a little up to gain something else. But that's not what the gun prohibition lobbyists mean when they use it: If a robber broke into your house and wanted to steal your cash, jewelry, TV, and computer, it isn't a "compromise" if you negotiated with him to take only the cash and computer - that's still theft. It is surrender. It is capitulation. Yet, this is the misleading and deceptive sense with which the "gun control" forces use the word. They want to violate all gun rights, a bit at a time - and they complain to a willing mass media that the NRA fights them tooth and nail and is unwilling to "compromise" and settle for "only" half the rights violated. Anyone who uses this word in this context, or quotes such a use in a news story without criticism, is perpetrating a fraud.

(Even so, the NRA has been too willing to surrender: The NRA brought us the Brady Registration checks, the "cop-killer" ammunition ban, and other such prohibitionist legislation.)

Examples of real compromise would be, you can ban cheap "junk guns" if you also provide subsidies so that poor people can afford high-quality, but expensive, handguns that they wouldn't have otherwise been able to afford, or if you mandate magazine capacity limits in exchange for Vermont carry everywhere. That's compromise (even though both examples infringe rights). N.B. To learn about Vermont carry, here's a gun prohibition lobby site's map of CCW rights, courtesy of the CSGV. http://www.efsgv.org/content/coalition/coal_ccw.html

"We are not going to break new ground by being cautious," said [Nick] Pacheco, a former [Los Angeles] deputy district attorney. "If we have to tailor it down, that's fine. But we need to start out aggressively. If we don't then we aren't going to have any middle ground to fall back on." LA Daily News, 6 Mar 2001.

"You've got to draw the line somewhere!" For example: "Nobody needs a 50 caliber rifle." (See immediately below.)

Once upon a time, a congressman learned about .50 caliber target rifles. "Those guns are too big!" the congressman said, and so he introduced a bill in the Congress to outlaw them. But soon he found out that some people owned tiny little guns. "Those guns are too small!" the lawmaker warned, and he introduced another bill to outlaw them, too. http://www.claremont.org/publications/wheeler001031.cfm

This wouldn't be a case of drawing the line, that was already done in 1934. This would be a case of moving the line. In 1934, so-called "sawed-off" shotguns and rifles, guns greater than 50 caliber with rifled barrels (with certain exceptions), silencers, and machine guns were banned from ordinary civilian possession. (National Firearms Act of 1934 - and never mind that silencers aren't firearms.) Current bills to ban the so-called 50 cal. "sniper" rifles, which can be lethal at 2,000 yards, are proposed on the basis of "you've got to draw the line somewhere." But this is a case of moving the line, not drawing it in the first place as they deceptively assert.

If this bill passes, what's next? Once the precedent is set for moving the line, where will it stop? 338-378 Weatherby magnum, which are lethal at 1500 yards? Who needs that kind of firepower? 300 Winchester magnum, which are lethal at 1000 yards? Why would you ever want to kill someone that far away? 308 Winchester, which are lethal at 600 yards? 22 long rifle, which are lethal 200 yards? Who needs to kill anybody at that kind of distance? Pellet guns, which are lethal at 50 yards? Who needs that kind of firepower? A cast-iron skillet, which is lethal at 1 yard? I mean, you've got to draw the line somewhere!

The line is already drawn - and noone who wants to move it mentions where they will finally stop.

"Kids"

Gunfire is widely charged with killing 13 kids a day, though the latest statistics have revised that number down to 10. But this number includes people age 0-19, including legal adults 18-19. Most of the number is made up of 17-19 year old gan
 
1 - 1 of 1 Posts
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top