Jump to content
3000AD Forums
Sign in to follow this  
Guest

40 reasons to support Gun Control

Recommended Posts

Guest

From This site

quote:

40 Reasons to Support Gun Control

(Apparently derived from the essay by Michael Z. Williamson.)

(Also known as the proof positive that Liberals are not just stupid, but insane.)

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

2:Washington DC's low murder rate of 80.6 per 100,000 is due to strict gun control, and Arlington, VA's high murder rate of 1.6 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 ÔÇö 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 and 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 spinal paralysis, a computer programmer for Y2K problems, and Sarah Brady [or Sheena Duncan, Adele Kirsten, Peter Storey, etc.] for firearms expertise.

12:The 2nd Amendment, ratified in 1791, refers to the National Guard, which was created by an act of Congress in 1903.

13:The National Guard, funded by the federal government, occupying property leased to the federal government, using weapons owned by the federal government, 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," "enumeration's 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 arms" refers to the state.

15:We don't need guns against an oppressive government, because the Constitution has internal safeguards, 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, which is why the army has millions of them.

17:Private citizens shouldn't have handguns, because they serve no military purpose, and private citizens shouldn't have "assault rifles," because they are military weapons.

18:The ready availability of guns today, with waiting periods, background checks, fingerprinting, government forms, et cetera, is responsible for recent school shootings,compared to the lack of school shootings in the 40's, 50's and 60's, which resulted from the availability of guns at hardware stores, surplus stores, gas stations, variety stores, mail order, et cetera.

19:The NRA's attempt to run a "don't touch" campaign about kids handling guns is propaganda, and 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:A 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 online 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 as president of the NRA is a shill who should be ignored, but Michael Douglas 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, who qualify with their duty weapons once or twice a year, have some special Jedi-like mastery over handguns 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, which is why the police need them but "civilians" 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:When Handgun Control, Inc., says they want to "keep guns out of the wrong hands," they don't mean you. Really.


Anybody want to argue this one? LOL

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

quote:

Originally posted by Jaguar:

15:We don't need guns against an oppressive government, because the Constitution has internal safeguards, but we should ban and seize all guns, thereby violating the 2nd, 4th, and 5th amendments to that Constitution.


I thought this one was pretty good though. So I will start with that. Okay, so you've disarmed the population. Woop, out goes the constitution because the powers that be know they can't be stopped at the point of a gun. They will have no fear to trample the population as we've seen in other countries.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yep, they did it in Australie in 89, or was it the early 90's?

Took away the guns. Jacked up the taxes 5 years later. Population started rioting against the tax increases, so the government brought out the riot police, shot some people, and put down the riots. Talk about opression.

Now THAT's the difference between the French, US and other countries demonstations where the scum goes out to say how much more benefits and entitlements they want, and Australian riot where the population went out saying ENOUGH with taking our money away to give to the leeches.

The socialists KNEW that they would have to raise taxes, and feared a revolt. Hence all the sudden gun bans and controls, and then 5 years later, tax increases. So there went the freedoms of their citizen, those who actually work to SUSTAIN the country. Try telling me they haven't been literally enslaved, or that they shouldn't be allowed to have guns. Actually try going down there and telling them that. They will beat you down with their fists.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

http://www.gunsandcrime.org/aussiegc.html

"

Tasmania had passed their Guns Act 1991, and its restrictions apparently began January 1, 1993. These restrictions included requirements that a person have a license for possession of a firearm, and that handguns be registered. After the restrictions began, use of firearms in assaults increased somewhat steadily for four years (through '96). Firearm suicide rates dropped from the peak they had reached in '92, back down to pre-92 levels, and so did overall suicide rates. The drop, then, was caused only by the '92 peak rather than the guns act. No trend can be discerned regarding homicide in the time period because the numbers were too small and variable for any reasonable level of statistical significance."

"In early '96, Australia had been having some bad social and economic problems for several years. Inflation had been very high throughout the 1980s.4 Major banks had failed in 1991.5 There had been a large influx of immigrants from Asia. Both Asians and Australian aborigines thought themselves poorly treated and had demonstrated against discrimination toward them.5

Unemployment had been very high for several years.1,4 Relative poverty, an indication of inequity within the society, was very high, exceeding that of Canada, England and New Zealand and exceeded notably by the considerably higher relative poverty in the U.S.A.6 Alcoholism, unemployment, poverty, crime, etc. were very high among aborigines. Youth unemployment was very high. The portion of households with only one parent had been increasing fast for several years.7 Productive (manufacturing and natural resource) industry had been in decline for years. [Note that several of the problems just described are generally accepted as being strongly contributing causes for most types of violence and suicide.]

The public was naturally unhappy with the state of affairs, which they naturally blamed on their government. A federal (commonwealth) election was called for, so the February 1996 police council meeting was postponed.3 A new federal government was formed, headed by John Howard. An issue to distract the public from real issues, and serve as a unifying force, would certainly be helpful at this point.

In January, 1996 seven people were shot dead in a Brisbane, Queensland suburb. Then, on 28 April 1996, 32 people were shot to death, 19 were seriously injured, and three others were otherwise killed near Port Arthur, Tasmania. The public was immediately whipped into a gun control frenzy by the press, the medical community, the Australian branches of the international gun control cartel, the commonwealth government (including their "institute of criminology") and others. Although polls done prior to the massacre indicated that the public was satisfied with the amount of "gun control" they already had, a major newspaper did a poll just a few days after the massacre (while all minds were "clear") and, not surprisingly, found high levels of support for extreme gun control measures. This poll would be used forever by the commonwealth government and other gun controllers to claim that Australians supported the new gun laws to come.

Within ten days after the massacre, the research staff of the commonwealth's parliamentary library finished a report about the "gun problem" for the enlightenment and guidance of the gun-ignorant representatives (ministers) to parliament. Or, was the report just waiting for addition of a release date when the massacre occurred? This report3 had some valid and useful information about history and options for forcing uniform gun control. It also had much misinformation and blattantly biased statements about "military-style" firearms, their lethality and evidence suggesting that increased firearms possession might cause increased violenceÔÇöspecifically, a study by Martin Killias for the U.N. Interregional Crime (and Justice) Research Institute (UNICRI).

Within another three days, the police ministers held an emergency "special" meeting on 10 May 1996 (attended by at least one gun control proponent from New Zealand) and approved a gun ban program. The program was virtually ready and waiting at the time of the meeting although it may have been adjusted some. Additional resolutions were added in meetings on July 17 and November 15. The state parliaments would have to pass some laws in order to fully implement all the agreed changes, but some changes were made immediately. For example, the Tasmanian police minister thought that the existing Tasmanian Guns Act 1991 gave him authority to require registration of certain semiautomatic centerfire firearms, so he issued an order to do so on May 7, 1996 (even before the 10 May APMC meeting).

The new laws would virtually ban private possession of pump-action shotguns and all semiautomatic firearms (even of .22 rimfire caliber) and provide for the government to pay people over the course of a year (up through September, 1997) to turn in such firearms for destruction. The money for this was to come from a 1-year increase in the "medicare" tax (this particular tax partly to solidify the public acceptance of guns being a "public health" issue). The laws would provide for a person to possess a non-military semiautomatic long gun, or pump action shotgun, for professional use only if the authorities could be convinced that the person had a "genuine need." A "genuine reason" (to the authorities' mind) was required for a person to have a lesser firearm. And protection of life was not to be a valid reason for having a firearm.

The official Australian buyback web site history page says that the agreement was the result of "detailed preparation and extensive consultation (i.e., conspiracy) over many years." A representative of the Australian Press Council was a participant in a February, 1997 symposium [.pdf file] of gun control advocates, convened by the Dept. of Public Health and Family Services, to plan "public health approaches to firearm violence." Does anyone doubt that the Australian press was already prepared to keep the public convinced of the need for gun control when the Port Arthur massacre occurred ten months before?

There was objection by people (basically gun owners) who were concerned about losing their right to have firearms, but resistance was divided. Many gun owners and their representatives made statements accepting some of the restrictions and the basic concept that their governments could or should restrict based upon someone's idea of what need people might have for one kind of firearm or another. A huge demonstration (150,000) occurred in Melbourne. At least one other large (8000+) demonstration occurred in Brisbane, Queensland on June 29, 1996, but the media basically ignored these other demonstrations.

Most politicians caved in quickly to the media onslaught. The AIC and the media worked on maintaining high support for the new gun laws. On November 4, 1996 the AIC released "Violent Deaths and Firearms in Australia: Data & Trends." About 70 percent of this 96-page report (RPP04) is about firearm deaths. The rest is about Australian homicide over the years. On the same day the AIC also issued a media release entitled "Lax firearm laws mean more deaths."

Here's something else. Just came across it, might be interesting:

http://www.anu.edu.au/people/Roger.Clarke/DV/OzCard.html

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

te only one I see with a flawd premise is 32. I was under the impression for limiting magazine size was to increase the chances the bad guy would have to reload before the cop does.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So, they couldn't control the people with this scheme

http://www.uow.edu.au/arts/sts/research/su...ce/Schweik.html

"While the government pressed ahead resolutely, popular opinion moved against the Australia Card. Civil liberties groups took strong stands against it, and civil liberties arguments became more and more prominent. Members of the public began writing letters. Newspapers were inundated with letters. It was by far the biggest issue in the country, with 80 to 90 percent of correspondents opposed to the card. There were numerous petitions to parliament against the scheme, with a greater total number of signatories on this issue than any other in Australia's history. The media, which at first had generally favoured the card, gradually became more opposed.

In September 1987, as the government moved towards passing the Australia Card Bill, popular opposition escalated. The Australian Privacy Foundation was set up. Among its founding members were prominent personalities such as pop star Peter Garrett and cricketer Greg Chappell. There were rallies in several parts of the country, bringing together unlikely allies, including civil libertarians, left-wing trade unionists and conservative bankers and industrialists. There were demonstrations in several cities. In Western Australia, an anti-card rally attracted tens of thousands, the largest number since protests against the Vietnam war. Many individuals, in their letters to newspapers, announced their intention to refuse to cooperate with the scheme.

All this pressure began to cause cracks in the government's ranks. Many Labor parliamentarians privately pressured the Prime Minister to withdraw the legislation. "

---So since they couldn't pass one form of control, they have decided to at least take away the guns so that in a decade or two, the population would be easier to conrol, and would not be able to resist the abusive laws if they were to be intsituted regarldless of oposition.

Notice the time frame, first the card. Then when people were protesting, and threatening with disobedience and public uprisings, they scraped the card and switched over to gun control. Interesting.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

quote:

Originally posted by Eclipse:

te only one I see with a flawd premise is 32. I was under the impression for limiting magazine size was to increase the chances the bad guy would have to reload before the cop does.

So lets see. At minimum 2 cops against a bad guy (if there were more, there would be at least half a dozen squad cars). Both of those cops having primary guns, and back up pistols. A bad guy and a cop having the same ammount of bullets (lets say 10 in primary, and 5 in back up for simplicitys sake), that would equal to 10 bullets on a bad guy, and 30 bullets on the cops side. So, even if it was 1 cop. Who would reload first?

Now lets see. A guy with a gun, and a criminal with a gun. That would be about equal right?

Now lets see. Cops with guns, and massive protestors with guns.

So would the law be designed to protect you against a bad guy? Doubtfull, as not only the chances of an ordinary citizen having a gun are much lower, but the restriction on bullet ammount would apply to a regular joe too.

A cop against a bad guy? Doubtfull, as police officers not only patrol in pairs, but also recieve back up in dangerous situations, and always report in when stepping out of the car to inerviene on a possible crime.

Or to increase the chances of success of putting down an armed uprising, or at least to even out the odds? Not only would police have more guns (an armed person in the protest would most likely carry only 1 gun, police would have their primary, back up, and a rifle/shotgun in the car, so while police would be out numbered, obviously, they however, would have more guns per person, and more shots per gun, giving them a distinct advantage), but police would also have specialized guns (with bans on "assault weapons" *that don't apply to law infocment", the chances of an ordinary citizen having such a weapon are minimal).

BUT, the biggest question we have to ask is, WHAT WOULD PROMT SUCH A RESPONSE FROM THE PUBLIC AS TO TAKE UP GUNS AGAINST THEIR GOVERNMENT? And WHY is the government obviously , passing laws and preparing for a possibility of such a response?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Soback, Down boy, down!

Where did I ever say that I agreed with the limit on magazine size? My comment was merely on the basis of what was written in Jags post. It is my opinion that what was written is trying to force irony where there was none.

There was no need to turn your response into an evil government conspiracy rant.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's not an evil government conspiracy rant.

I explaned the reason that I think they made it illegal to have "large" magazines.

I have disproved their excuse for "the bad guy having to reload before the cop" bs, for as you can see, any way you try it, the cops will still have more shots than the bad guy.

I have put forth my idea of why they banned "large" magazines.

If you have another reason that you can put forth and give a coherent reason for it, in more than just one sentence, go ahead, because then I would like to know.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

quote:

Originally posted by Aperson:

You are of course assuming that all laws that go into effect are thought out logically and that none are knee jerk reactions.

That's the problem, the government wants those gun restrictions, but knows it can't get them, and then when something Heinous happens, such as columbine, where they broke about 30 different laws BTW, the government rolls with the panic to put more gun restrictions in place while the emotions are high.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It has been widely publicized that Klebold and Harris played DOOM and other violent videogames prior to their attack. It has even been speculated that they played them just prior to the attack in order to "work themselves up into a violent frenzy". They also copied very closely the scene in "Basketball Diaries", and were have known to listen to ultra-violent rap music often.

So, I guess in the name of consistency, if we are going to restrict guns because of Columbine, then logically we have to restrict all of the violent media, including videogames. Maybe even ban them all.

See how slippery this slope is? The guns did not carry themselves into school and start emptying clips into classmates - the evil bastards Klebold and Harris did. If guns were not available, they could have just as easily used the pipe bombs they had been making, causing just as many if not more casualties. Never make the mistake of blaming anyone or anything other than the perpetrators of the crime.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

quote:

I have disproved their excuse for "the bad guy having to reload before the cop" bs, for as you can see, any way you try it, the cops will still have more shots than the bad guy.


What if there are more bad guys than cops, then the bad guys will have more shots than the cops

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But what if the bad guys have full body armor, and everyone else have guns with 9mm ammo. and the bad guys have a MG3 that fires 18-22 bullets per second.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

quote:

Originally posted by Prez:

Not if all the citizens around are also armed, and therefore ready to provide the cops with the necessary back-up!

Unfortunatly that would require that most people are willing to help in such cicumstances instead of "looking the other way". Sadly studies have backed up that people tend to do the latter.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

quote:

But what if the bad guys have full body armor, and everyone else have guns with 9mm ammo. and the bad guys have a MG3 that fires 18-22 bullets per second.

Then I guess it's time to stay indoors, or become a bad guy and get properly equipped! LOL!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

quote:


Originally posted by Aapen Post:

But what if the bad guys have full body armor, and everyone else have guns with 9mm ammo. and the bad guys have a MG3 that fires 18-22 bullets per second.


Get a scope and aim for the head.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

quote:

Originally posted by Aapen Post:

But what if the bad guys have full body armor, and everyone else have guns with 9mm ammo. and the bad guys have a MG3 that fires 18-22 bullets per second.

First off, this happens in like .0001% of all cases, so it is a ridiculous possibility.

BUT, if they did, a 30-06 with a scope would work quite nicely, one shot to the head, end of criminal.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

quote:

Originally posted by Aapen Post:

I dont think the cops would allow them to help.

You obviously live in Europe.

And you are wrong, BTW, just an FYI...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

quote:

You obviously live in Europe.


True, and the cops don't carry guns in my country when they are on patrol. Why do you think they do that? becouse they don't need them to carry out there daily work.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

ROFL, That is THE MOST ludicrous and funnies thing I have ever heard.

That's it, I know where we can deport all US criminals to for re-education and re-introduction into society. Maybe they will learn to be more tolerant and live a peacefull way of life. As a matter of fact, lets start a fund where private citizens can donate money to subsidize deportation of US criminals to Norway, it's a win/win situation. Norway reforms the criminals for us, we don't have to keep them here, crime rates in US drop, and it seems like there's no crime in Norway, as is evidenced by the lack of firearms on their police officers, seems like their criminal system reforms them to 100% law abiding citizens.

I guess everyone in this world has their candy land, even the armed thugs. Too bad that US thugs don't know where to fly to on their vacation, we should point them in the right direction, they will never want to come back. LOL

As a matter of fact, their system works so great, lets deport all the leeches there too. We'll pay them $1000 a head to their all mighty oil fund. Just thought of it too - Europeans hate pollution, keep yelling about the electric car, less gasoline usage, alternative fuels energy. Where do you think your oil fund will end up if you actually get what you want? ROFL. Imagine the chain reaction, this is kinda ironic that US consumption of oil is what allows them to make money in their oil fund, yet at the same time they complain about US consuming so much oil. If we switch to electic cars, they will be yelling and begging for us to switch back to gasoline when their oil fund takes an enormous dive. Oh yea, now it makes sence, THAT'S why Europe made sure after Katrina that the flow of fuel into US does not stop. US economy falters, US fuel consumption falters, their economy collapses.

[ 11-15-2005, 10:30 PM: Message edited by: Soback ]

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

quote:

Originally posted by Race Bannon IV:

You guys dont even need a dissenting opinion to rant...I love it!

LOL, you need to post more, I've missed you around here....

But that is why I have been harassing you on the threads... LOL

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×