Anti-gun bs in local paper

[dukeboy_318]

Found this on the Republics website. Enjoy

The Republic - Firearm ban will end shooting massacres

 

[Andre46996]

Link no worky..

 

[hemicharger]

What did you find? There is nothing in your post.

 

[femurphy77]

Try this one.

The Republic - Firearm ban will end shooting massacres

 

[femurphy77]

Some of the comments are very well written. Actually makes it sound like some gunowners might have actually gotten more than a third grade education.


(Sarcastic comment above, for help in identifying it pm me)

 

[Kirk Freeman]

So, will you respond?

 

[Richard Whitefeather]

This jerk is typical of all leftists. Make up the stats as you go along. How about we just ban all automobiles, more people die because of them than anything else.

The idiot that wrote those lies needs to pull his head out of the rose colored pickle jar and grow up. Or better yet keep it there and maybe he'll suffocate and we'll be one less leftist.

 

[Bendrx]

This jerk is typical of all leftists. Make up the stats as you go along. How about we just ban all automobiles, more people die because of them than anything else.

The purpose of a car is it point it at a direction and run over whatever is in it's path! This guy ("news" writer) shouldn't be too upset, his full autos are pretty scarce so a lack of imagination by our Founders shouldn't be an issue to him. Once he told me to stop reading I started to just skim through it. The nation isn't obsesed, it's Hollywood and the media that are obsessed. I do believe many, many many folks, even percentage wise don't ever think about a gun any given day, or week or even month (except when the media or Hollywood bring them up.)

 

[Marc]

i love the name of the paper and find it ironic that someone who for gun control writes for it

 

[Ash]

Our paper is a joke.
They give out free ones sometimes at Rural King here in Columbus.
I tell the guy "No thanks, I don't own a bird". He stands there with a confused look on his face.

Good one Marc. The Republic

 

[revsaxon]

That was not only complete bs, it was poorly written bs. I may not agree with your point, but if you say it well, I will respect you for it. Spewing some math and calling it proof isnt making a point well. In a country of over 360million, 30,000 of anything is .0083%. More people die from heart attacks every year than gun violence, but im willing to bet he isn't calling to melt down every McDonalds in America. If we ban everything thats leads to death .0083% of the time its used... is anything left?

 

[88GT]

Let me get this straight: firearms are responsible for 30K+ deaths so we should ban firearms?

I suppose, then, that because automobiles kill more, we should be banning them as well.

 

[Robert Richardson]

He is just another "useful idiot".

 

[rockhopper46038]

More people die from heart attacks every year than gun violence, but im willing to bet he isn't calling to melt down every McDonalds in America.

Don't bet on it. His Left- wing whacko brethren out in San Francisco are advocating exactly that...

 

[Sticky]

Do they ever mention how many of the "30k" fall into the category of "legal intervention by law enforcement"? That sounds suspiciously like legal shooting of violent criminals who are resisting or attacking in some way.

 

[88GT]

I felt compelled to write a response, something I normally do not do. (That whole arguing with fools admonition and all.)

Dear Mr. Sciano,

I take issue with your statement and the entire premise of your article that the prohibition on something will result in said something, and all related negative consequences, becoming a thing of the past.

Murder has been "banned" since the beginning of time. We still have murder in nearly every civilization on earth. Certain drugs are banned. We still have rampant drug use and trafficking. Where prostitution is banned, women (and some men!) still walk the streets seeking to exchange their bodies for something.

If banning something stopped it, we wouldn't have crime.

And let's assume for the sake of debate, that your argument could be debated on the merits of mathematics alone. You claim 30,000 deaths from firearm-related incidents. Regardless of the category of death, 30,000 of a population of over 300,000,000 is less than 1/100th of one percent of the total resident population. Less than 0.01%. More people die in automobile collisions. Where is the demand to ban cars? More people die from heart disease? When can I expect your campaign to ban McDonalds, Hersheys, and Coca Cola? More people die from a lot of things. Do you support the prohibition of all of those things? The individual that has so little regard for the life of another that he would choose to take it doesn't give a damn about a law that says he can't do it with a gun. Criminals, by definition, don't follow the law. The only people your proposed ban would affect are the very ones you don't have to worry about. I can't remember the last time a convicted felon or suspect ever said, "Well, Your Honor, I had to use a knife to kill my neighbor because guns were banned."

There are real-world examples. Britain, Canada, and Australia have effectively banned firearms in total. And what do we see? Crimes with guns.

But perhaps more importantly--important because the real world applications trump bean-counting and philosophical discussion nearly every day of the week--firearms are used FAR MORE OFTEN to prevent crime and bodily harm than to cause it. The follow link details a comprehensive study of the defensive gun use (DGU) in the United States (GunCite-Gun Control-How Often Are Guns Used in Self-Defense?). Even the most conservative number puts the DGU rate at THREE times that of your death rate, which, incidentally is inflated with accidents, suicides, and non-crime related deaths specifically to pad the numbers. The upper end cites approximately 2,000,000 DGU incidents per year. Shall we do the math for that one? (Hint: It's 67 times the death rate you blame on firearms.)

There are many, many other facets to this discussion. But it boils down to this: you have chosen to ignore that people are responsible for their actions, that in none of the 30,000 examples you trot out could the firearm have discharged without a person (mis)handling it. The tool is NEVER the cause. Pencils don't make errors on tests. Spoons don't cause weight gain. Cell phones don't cause auto accidents. People do. Sure we could ban guns. But we'd still have crimes with guns. We'd still have murders. We'd still have accidents, suicides, and legal intervention by law enforcement (you wouldn't take their firearms away, would you?)

For the hundreds of thousands to millions of people who used a firearm to protect themselves, please reconsider your stance.

Sincerely,
88GT

 

[femurphy77]

OH THAT'S RIGHT 88GT. . . . .CONFUSE THE DISCUSSION WITH FACTS!!! We all see how you are now!

 

[John Galt]

Molon Labe!

 

[Blackhawk2001]

Good job! Nice reply. I'd rep you but it won't let me do it.

 

[Richard Whitefeather]

88GT,

Nice letter! Thankyou!