Falsehoods used by pro gun control DUers.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

I'll just post a few of the most common falsehoods spread here by gun control advocates.

1. The reasons that Americans own firearms are based in irrational fear, racism and sexual inadequacy.

The same people that say the fear is irrational, love to bitch about the violence in the US. You can't have it both ways, either there is no violence to be afraid of or innocent Americans are often the victims of violent crime and thus deserve to protect themselves with the tools available to them. The other points are to stupid to even address.

2. 2nd Amendment supporters want to arm everyone.

No one thinks that criminals and mentally ill people should have access to firearms. Some kids are responsible enough to use firearms in supervised situation, that decision should be left to the parents.

3. People who attempt to use firearms to defend themselves are killed with their own firearm 99% of the time. The other 1% are cold blooded murderers.

Feel free to put whatever percentages the gun grabbers happen to be using this week in this false statement. The multiple and quite regular defensive gun posts here should make this falsehood self evident.

4. 2nd Amendment supporters are gun proliferators with blood on their hands.

Obviously false to anyone with a brain.

5. Taking legally held firearms away from law abiding citizens will stop all crime and the United States would become a crimeless utopia just like Australia, Canada and England.

Not much hope for people if they buy into this one.


I guess now I need to make some blanket statement and call people ignorant. Nah I'll pass on that one. Have fun.

David

[ret5hd]

1. Strawman-aganza!!!!

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

3. If statements like these weren't used here everyday you might have a point.

[jgraz]

51. Of course, statements *like* these are made

The point is that the precise statements you're using are never made. That's the whole point of a good strawman -- you take statements that sound similar and stretch them until they're indefensible.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

58. I'm glad you think these statements are indefensible.

[jgraz]

67. But statements *like* them are entirely defensible

[beevul]

2. You forgot a few Dave.

Assault weapons belong on the battlefield.

Assault weapons are the chosen weapons of gang members and criminals.

Your gun is more likely to be taken from you and used against you than it is to be used by you defensively.

The second amendment authorizes a well regulated militia.

Well, more than a few really, but...There are just so many to choose from.

[onehandle]

4. What's the point of having a gun with all those pesky anti-murder laws out there?

Why even have a gun if they're just gonna put you away if you use it?

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

5. Self defense is legal. It's very surprising that you aren't aware of that.

[BigBluenoser]

6. I use my gun(s)...

3-4 times a week.

[spin]

7. They won't take it away if you use it for legitimate self defense...

unless, of course, you live in one of the very liberal anti-gun areas of the country.

Fortunately, I live in Florida.

[OffWithTheirHeads]

33. O.K. lets don't confuse "Liberal" with bat shit crazy.

I'm a liberal. Well, actually progressive Democratic Socialist might be a better descriptor.
I own guns.
I currently own enough guns and ammo to be described as a radical gun nut by the corporate media and I plan to buy more.

I love my guns.

The only living thing I have ever shot and killed was a Robin when I was about 11 years old. That was over 40 years ago and I felt so bad about it that I never did it again.

Liberals are not anti-gun.

Anti-gun people are anti-gun

Like that would actually prevent people who don't obey the law anyway from possessing firearms.

Liberal does not mean anti gun. But it works well as a talking point for the right wing, anti-worker, anti health care, anti social safety net corporatist. Please adjust your spin accordingly

[spin]

50. Notice that I used the term "very liberal"

I'm finding it difficult to come up with a polite name for the segment of our party who is anti-gun. "Bat shit crazy" is a little harsh.

But quite often anti-gun views are considered liberal. For example, note how Politico mentioned Obama's early views:

When Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.) was seeking state office a dozen years ago, he took unabashedly liberal positions: flatly opposed to capital punishment, in support of a federal single-payer health plan, against any restrictions on abortion, and in support of state laws to ban the manufacture, sale and even possession of handguns.
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1207/7312.html emphasis mine

I am in favor of everything expressed in the above paragraph with the exception of the gun control ideas. I consider myself a pro-gun liberal. (Some would say that's an oxymoron.)

A name for the anti-gun members of our party would be useful to separate their opinion from the growing number of Democrats who hold liberal views and in fact consider the Right to Keep And Bear Arms a liberal concept. The gun control movement is oppressive and often limits the right of self defense to the rich and the politically connected elite. It has a history of being used to squash minorities and preserve the status quo.

It's a shame that the Republican party has embraced the Right to Keep And Bear Arms as a Republican ideal, while the Democratic party that does support the rights of the average citizen has all too often advocated draconian gun control. Commonsense would indicate that the party that supports the big corporations and "Trickle-down economics" would definitely favor strict gun control as a method to control the feudal serfs needed to slave at low paying jobs.

[Caliman73]

65. Most of the people who post in the Gun forum are somewhere on the spectrum

between moderate to left of liberal. Those of us who support the ownership and legal use of firearms are often called on our "liberal" or Democratic credentials because of our stance on firearms. I know that Liberals are not anti-gun because I am a Liberal. The problem is when other liberals support Carolyn McCarthy, Nancy Pelosi, Diane Feinstein, and other Democratic party members who seek to further restrict ownership and call those of us who oppose further restrictions, shills for the right.

I do not approve of the name calling either, but if you spend any time on this forum you will see what I am talking about.

[tularetom]

8. I favor no restrictions on gun ownership but when you post a silly list like this

You diminish your own arguments against gun control.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

24. So you've never seen any statements similar to those?

This post was in response to a truly silly post.

David

[tularetom]

28. Oh I've seen them and I agree they are silly.

But a lot of them were posted by people who are scared shitless the government is going to try to take their guns away. In an effort to scare gun owners who don't share their fears..

BTW how bout a link to that truly silly post?

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

30. Huh?

Are you saying that scared pro gunners are here saying they have small penises to scare other gun owners into buying weapons? I'm truly confused at this point. Here's the link Falsehoods used by a few pro-gun DUers http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=118&topic_id=231725&mesg_id=231725

[tularetom]

34. Why are you fixated on penises?

All I'm saying is those statements are silly. I've never seen them posted by any serious advocate of gun control. Maybe a few dumshits.

But in spite of that, there does seem to be a large element of fear in the posts of people who are always trying to scare me into thinking somebody is trying to take my guns away.

I'm not buying it. And you shouldn't worry about it either. Stop being afraid of "gun grabbers" and enjoy using your guns.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

36. That is the charge of the gun grabbers and an example of a falsehood.

Who is scared of them? I just like discussing gun policy with people who disagree with me. I really like it when it pisses them off, especially since I've got the Constitution on my side. I wish I could shoot more, just not to be right now though. I haven't seen many people here encouraging people to go buy guns. I think Obama is far to smart to try and limit gun ownership.

David

[grantcart]

9. the ratio is not 99:1 (and I know of no one that uses that ratio)

But no one can deny that the carnage of death gun related deaths in the US is staggering. You can argue that additional laws will not make a difference, but you cannot argue that the current situation is anything but alarming. The posting of a few self defense stories does not amelieroate a tremendous loss of life at a much higher rate than other countries;




Particularly difficult to accept is the tremendous loss of life to teenagers and children, who simply should not have access to guns, again a minority of people who do not follow commonsense safety rules cast a long shadow, but 8 children shot a day is a harrowing number:

n a single year, 3,012 children and teens were killed by gunfire in the United States, according to the latest national data released in 2002. That is one child every three hours; eight children every day; and more than 50 children every week. And every year, at least 4 to 5 times as many kids and teens suffer from non-fatal firearm injuries. (Children's Defense Fund and National Center for Health Statistics)

http://www.neahin.org/programs/schoolsafety/gunsafety/statistics.htm



But sadly its not just homicides, and many of them are homicides within families where the lethal efficiency of guns makes a hot headed argument too easily ended in a fatal outcome, its also suicides where gun availability has given the US a very substantial lead over other countries.

http://everything2.com/title/Comparative%2520statistics%2520for%2520gun%2520ownership%252C%2520homicide%2520and%2520suicide%2520rates




As somebody who has lived several decades outside of the US in countries where gun violence is literally non existent, no one suggests that crime does not exist, but you live in a completely different sense of physical safety, knowing that a drunken argument or family disagreement next door is not going to end up with a fatal outcome.


It is foolish to try and pass more laws. The argument that the current laws are not sufficiently enforced seems right so most of the gun control advocates that this strawman is aimed at would agree that stringent enforcement should preceed more laws.

[MichaelHarris]

10. There's always the ones

they hope you don't see:

Galveston girl killed in shooting

GALVESTON – A 12-year-old girl died Sunday morning after she was shot at a Galveston home, police said. Police believe the girl was shot by a sibling. http://galvestondailynews.com/story.lasso?ewcd=4077ff5c6bdde006

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

13. Accidental gun deaths while very rare are tragic and should be studied to see how to prevent them.

[druidity33]

11. i wonder if you'll get a response... nt

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

15. Of course he will. He actually wrote a substantive non insulting post.

[Cheap_Trick]

16. Just the sound of crickets, I'm sure. n/t

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

22. You had already been proven wrong when you commented.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

12. You didn't read the statement very well.

In regards to your points. Youth violence is definitely a problem. Statistics would indicate that people not following common sense safety rules isn't the problem. It homicides and suicides predominately among teenagers. Accidental gun deaths have been dropping for quite some time. Clearly the United States is a very violent place. Legal gun ownership is not the problem in and of itself.

David

[X_Digger]

14. Sadly, the last sentence isn't true..

.. we do see it quite often, that we need more laws. Any attempt to advocate enforcing the 22,000 laws already on the books is met with scorn.

[spag68]

17. guns

There is not much use trying logic on these gun people. The proliferation of illegal weapons in this country is obvious to any one that actually reads newspapers, but they don't want to hear it. I grew up in W Pa. and hunted myself in the fifties, but that has nothing to do with the automatic weapons these nuts seem to want. I never knew any one that hunted with a handgun or an AK 47. Try hunting with a bow and arrow if you feel the need to protect your manhood, but don't give that crap about guns, you really sound like an idiot. Wherever you are move to Texas, you can do all the fun gun things you want to there. All most of us want is to register these weapons, and at least make an effort to keep them out of the hands of loonies and criminals. Is that too much to ask?

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

20. You and the NRA agree.

All they want is the government to enforce the laws that keep guns out of the hands of loonies and criminals.

[TheWraith]

44. For the umpteenth time, nobody is talking about automatic weapons.

The idea that you can easily buy automatic weapons in the US is a complete fiction. "Assault weapons" are not automatic in the least--they're no different in action than the semi-autos that you probably used back in the 1950s.

[gorfle]

53. On machine guns and hunting.

The proliferation of illegal weapons in this country is obvious to any one that actually reads newspapers, but they don't want to hear it.

What sort of illegal weapons are you referring to?

I grew up in W Pa. and hunted myself in the fifties, but that has nothing to do with the automatic weapons these nuts seem to want.

Are you talking about fully-automatic weapons? I think most people are satisfied with the current restrictions on those.

I never knew any one that hunted with a handgun or an AK 47.

Many people hunt with handguns and AK-47s today. Both types of firearms propel a bullet at a target suitable for different kinds of game, just like other firearms did back in the fifties.

Try hunting with a bow and arrow if you feel the need to protect your manhood, but don't give that crap about guns, you really sound like an idiot.

How is hunting related to "protecting your manhood"?

Wherever you are move to Texas, you can do all the fun gun things you want to there. All most of us want is to register these weapons, and at least make an effort to keep them out of the hands of loonies and criminals. Is that too much to ask?

Most of us want to keep firearms out of the hands of loonies and criminals. But I won't tolerate registration.

[oneshooter]

54. Please describe what a

"illegal weapons" are. I own a few firearms, ranging from an original Brown Bess musket to a AR-50. Non are illegal where I live (Texas).

"automatic weapons these nuts seem to want" Are you referring to semi- automatic weapons or fully automatic weapons?

I have never hunted with a AK, however I do hunt with an AR-15 and a M1 Garand. I also hunt with a open sight 44 Magnum Ruger SA, a late style English Longbow,and a Boar Spear.

Why do you want me to register my collection? And who do you want them registered with? The State, the Feds, local police?

"and at least make an effort to keep them out of the hands of loonies and criminals. Is that too much to ask?"

No of course not. All of my collection is housed in 6 large safes, fireproof, bolted to a concrete floor, with a alarm system. Is that enough of an effort for you?

Oneshooter
Livin in Texas

[Callisto32]

66. I have a great uncle that hunts white tails every year with a .44 Mag. S&W revolver

And another uncle who has taken the same game almost every year since he was 18 (he is now 45) with a beautiful old Colt Python (that is a .357 for those that don't know.) To say that people don't hunt with handguns, because you don't know people who do, is a dangerous comment to make. Actually, the 7.62x39 cartridge fired by the actual 47 has similar ballistics to the celebrated old deer-getter the .30 Winchester. There are variants based upon the AK's design that fire other cartridges, of course, and I don't think a fully automatic rifle is the best thing ever for hunting, as it is really just a way to turn money into noise. However, a semi-auto in 7.62x39 would be on my short list of deer-hunting rifles in pa, if they were legal to hunt with here.

[TheWraith]

43. Actually it's NOT alarming.

As your own graph shows, the murder rate in the US has been dropping steadily for many years--it's now only 2/3rds of what it was in 1993.

Further, the large majority of those 3,012 "children" are teenagers involved in gangs. That's bad to be sure, and needs to be fixed. But it's not the same as an 8 year old getting killed.

And while we have a number of suicides in the US, our suicide rate is still half that of Japan, where there are basically no guns.

The alarmism about guns and violence is frankly unwarranted. Most of the ills attributed to them really belong elsewhere, such as poverty, gangs, etcetera. But nobody likes to talk about the REAL problems, so it's much easier to blame guns. Everybody forgets that Switzerland has about 600,000 fully automatic machine guns sitting in people's homes, and they don't have daily bloodbaths.

"lived several decades outside of the US in countries where gun violence is literally non existent"

Tell that to Britain, where the criminals have turned to other weapons, and they're now talking about banning all forms of knives including most kitchen knives. That sense of security is a fiction.

[druidity33]

46. i don't see links in your post.

"Further, the large majority of those 3,012 "children" are teenagers involved in gangs. That's bad to be sure, and needs to be fixed. But it's not the same as an 8 year old getting killed."


You're gonna need to back that up...

And,
Banning kitchen knives in Britain?

So we'll all turn into ravening knife wielders if we enforce gunlaws?

:eyes:

[Tejas]

61. Prove him wrong, humiliate him, show him who's smarter!

Really, should be easy to find 2 or 3 thousand articles reporting on "children" shot to death? I mean, it just stands to reason that maybe even 10,000 "children" were shot to death in the last month!

Wait a sec, bet MH has TONS of links you could use!


:rofl:

[gorfle]

52. It's really not that alarming.

But no one can deny that the carnage of death gun related deaths in the US is staggering. You can argue that additional laws will not make a difference, but you cannot argue that the current situation is anything but alarming. The posting of a few self defense stories does not amelieroate a tremendous loss of life at a much higher rate than other countries;


There are, on average, about 10,000 firearm homicides annually in the United States.

I would love to know how many of these homicides are tied to drug and/or gang crimes. My guess would be over 50%.

Your neahin.org citation above includes persons up to aged 19 as "children". This means a 17-year old gang-banger is a child, according to them.

Firearm suicides do not concern me. People who are bent on killing themselves will find a way.

[Euromutt]

59. Let's put this in perspective

But no one can deny that the carnage of death gun related deaths in the US is staggering.

The number of people who die annually in motor vehicle collisions is over three times the number of people who die in firearm homicides and unintentional shootings.

According to the CDC's WISQARS database (http://webappa.cdc.gov/sasweb/ncipc/mortrate10_sy.html), in 2006, 12,791 people died from firearm homicides. Another 642 died from unintentional shootings. By contrast, motor vehicle traffic resulted in 43,664 unintentional fatalities. There also 38 MV homicides, but that's a drop in a bucket by comparison.

Particularly difficult to accept is the tremendous loss of life to teenagers and children, who simply should not have access to guns, again a minority of people who do not follow commonsense safety rules cast a long shadow, but 8 children shot a day is a harrowing number:

The number of people age 0-19 killed unintentionally in motor vehicle traffic in 2006 was 6,642; over 18 a day.

Again according to WISQARS, in 2006, the number of people ages 0-14 killed by firearms (all intentions) was 409 (285 homicides, 62 suicides, 54 unintentional, 7 undetermined, and 1 legal intervention).

The bulk of gun deaths in the group falls in the age group 15-19: 2,809 (1,940 homicides, 701 suicides, 100 unintentional, 35 undetermined, and 33 legal interventions)
The problem is that once you get into this age group, you're looking at the demographic most likely to be involved in violent crime, especially drug/gang-related violent crime. Tellingly, of those 1,904 gun homicide victims aged 15-19, 1,013 (52%) were black males. Similarly, of the 2,887 18-24 year-olds who died in firearm homicides, 1,678 (58%) were black males. Offender patterns are very similar:


To be blunt, troubled teens getting hold of dad's gun is a small fraction of the problem here. The bulk of these homicides are committed by people--predominantly young, low-income, urban black males--who have access to firearms illegally, because they are involved with drug gangs. And also as a result of that involvement, they've become brutalized by the SOP of using homicide as a way of settling business, which spreads to settling interpersonal conflicts as well.

The problem, in short, is the "War on Drugs," and its disrupting effect on inner-city populations, by providing a lucrative income to an impoverished underclass with little chance at social mobility, and then incarcerating them for going that route.

[MUAD_DIB]

18. It would appear that you are being disingenuous with your motives,

and you should always back up your claims with a link.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

19. Anyone who has been here any amount of time has seen statements like these.

[MUAD_DIB]

21. Thanks for the anecdotal information.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

23. You are welcome.

Gun grabbers don't believe the statistics anyway, why bother?

David

[MUAD_DIB]

25. Well, if you are going to be fatalistic then, as you say, "why bother" posting?

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

26. Just a little response to the earlier falsehoods post.

[MUAD_DIB]

27. And my response still stands. If you are going to make a statement then

at least back it up with some evidence.

If you don't then your motives, combined with your posting history, smacks of being disingenuous.


Thanks

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

32. Here's a link. Look at jgraz's post #29. Perfect example.

[MUAD_DIB]

35. No link in post. On edit...

Do you have anything (a link) that was not from this post, and frankly he/she has a point.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

37. If he has a point and you don't want to be disingenuous then surely you have a link?

Surely you have a link to me suggesting that everyone who is legally allowed should be armed? I'll wait for you to get to me with it.

David

[MUAD_DIB]

38. jgraz has a point with you seemingly setting

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=118&topic_id=232028&mesg_id=232082

up a straw dog argument.

Here's the link.


Since you aren't going to give me anything more than anecdotal evidence I guess that you have only one motive. Guns for the sake of guns.


To quote Somerset Maugham

Art for art's sake makes no more sense than gin for gin's sake.

You can replace gin with gun and you might get my drift.



Now if you really want to reply with something more than anecdotal information then great, If you do not then don't bother.


Remember. This is your thread. Learn how to back your argument up with more than just posturing.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

39. His response is a perfect example of number 2. There is no need for a link to that one.

[MUAD_DIB]

40. Well, it's your post. Dig in your heels all you want.

It still doesn't help validate your OP. It's just anecdotal at best. Disingenuous at worst.


Good Night.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

41. Be patient these things take time.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x4398164


http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=118x209569#209731 post #36


http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=118x132296#132389


http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=118x224856 almost all of them are in this thread


http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=118x215451#215465 post #12


http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=118x215349#215365 post #53


http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=118&topic_id=218136&mesg_id=218136 a lot of them here also


Here are a bunch on gun proliferation


If one were to want to "stop active killers" -it might pay to look at a policy that actually worked

as in, a country that adopted a responsible firearms policy and has had no mass shootings in the 12 years since.

I know, that's not really what you want to do- more fun to play Johm Wayne and pretend that advocating gun proliferation doesn't leave blood on your hands.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.ph...


You most certainly ARE responsible

Edited on Thu May-07-09 03:33 PM by depakid
for the consequences of policies you advocate.

But like most- you will never admit it- even to yourself.

Yet another resason why I tend to see the issue in terms of cowardice.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.ph...


Support for gun proliferation is nothing less than promotion of mass shootings

Edited on Tue May-12-09 08:11 PM by depakid
and family killings.

They're the inevitable and undeniable consequences of the policies.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.ph...


And neither do gun-promulgaters like yourself! Thanks for underscoring that.

Free weapons for all!, or whatever the NRA is telling you to think.


http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.ph...


"even if this is true, so what?"

t means gun proliferation is a BAD DEAL -and the cowardly types that support it "for self defense" or other irrational reasons are responsible for thousands of unnecessary tragedies.

and

Bottom line is that people who support gun proliferation tend to live in fear

which does indeed make thenm cowardly types.

And speaking of statistics, people who keep guns in their household are many times more likely to be involoved in a violent rime or a tragedy- or have members of their household involved in tragedies- than those who don't. So purchasing one out of fear or the "need to proitect yourself or your family," in most instances endangers them further!

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.ph...


You can save your outrage over my inability to divine which gun owners are murders and which aren't. You don't have to agree with me or even respect my views. You've got a gun.

Evidently enough women don't die from gun violence to suit you. Your plan to put firearms in the hands of every woman across America will take care of that. None of us nasty feminists to worry about then.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.ph...


No, it's "fear of attacks" that gunnuts are using to destroy our society.

They try to limit the rights of communities to defend themselves through gun control, and to limit the rights of the rest of us to walk the streets without the fear of nutcases toting guns.


http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.ph...


It's too bad that other gun owners are the ones walking in and shooting innocent people.

Maybe you should convince them to only shoot snakes too. Cause frankly, their actions really are making you personally(a gun nut) look bad.


http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.ph...


This is typical gun lobby obfuscation
Posted by depakid on Fri Apr-03-09 01:48 AM
Let's make it simple:

This is a hunting rifle- its purpose is to take deer (hopefully in season)

This is an assault rifle- its purpose is to wreak havoc on human populations:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.ph...


I'll get you some more later.

[MUAD_DIB]

49. Thanks. I'll read up and give you a reply later.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

42. How is it anecdotal the OP is about falsehoods they put out there?

He just did my work for me by putting another one here.

David

[jgraz]

29. My favorite part...

2. 2nd Amendment supporters want to arm everyone.

No one thinks that criminals and mentally ill people should have access to firearms. Some kids are responsible enough to use firearms in supervised situation, that decision should be left to the parents.

So... you don't want to arm everyone. Just every non-criminal and anyone who isn't certifiably batshit.

Oh, and some children. If they're supervised. But that's up to their parents.


Dave, the whole point of erecting a blatant strawman is so you can knock it down. :rofl:

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

31. Thanks for posting another example.

I don't want to arm anyone. I want law abiding Americans to be able to defend themselves if necessary. If they choose a legal firearm to do that with then I have no problem with it. And yes I have no problem with parents taking their children shooting or hunting.

David

[druidity33]

47. like this?

http://wbztv.com/local/boy.shot.with.2.849254.html


Eight year old with an Uzi.


That sentence says all i want to say.

[benEzra]

55. And you realize that Uzi was as tightly controlled as a howitzer, yes?

And that the gun-control debate in 2009 has nothing whatsoever to do with automatic weapons? Nothing, zilch, nada?

[druidity33]

56. really?

Then maybe he would've survived if the instructor had let him use a Howitzer instead of the Uzi.

I was of course responding to the OP who said he has no problems taking children shooting and that most of the children killed are gang members. I could of course find another example of a child killed by a legal firearm, but i don't suppose that would matter to you either.

But whatever. Feel free to not be appalled by the dead 8 year old because Uzis are so "tightly controlled".


:eyes:

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

57. Accidental gun deaths in children have been dropping, despite your anecdote.

I believe charges were filed in this case.

David

[benEzra]

60. A single child killed in a machinegun accident in 75 years

does not an "epidemic" make. Extreme rarity does not make such an accident less tragic, but this was a case of gross negligence, not something endemic to supervised target shooting; the police chief who ran that outfit had no business letting a small child shoot a gun that light (Micro Uzi) with that level of recoil. That is a tough gun for an experienced adult to control, never mind a child.

Yes, I will take my child shooting, though not a Micro Uzi. She has mastered the BB gun and will start on a .22 soon, will move up to a .223 when she is a little bigger, and will be perfectly safe doing so.

Yes, criminal gun violence is a problem, although things are headed in the right direction (the accident rate and the murder rate are both roughly half of what they were even 30 years ago). But demonizing the lawful and responsible doesn't do a damn thing to address the problems of which you speak, as those stem almost exclusively from the actions of the unlawful and irresponsible.

[jgraz]

48. But you didn't say that

If you had said you didn't want to arm anyone, you would have at least gotten credit for knocking down your own strawman.

[proteus_lives]

45. They love their falsehoods.

Somewhere a Brady Campaign member is getting these lies tattooed on their ass.

[iverglas]

62. blizzards of really stupid straw

posted by people who refuse to engage in civil discourse. The world is just full of 'em, ain't it?

[votingupstart]

63. i think you and the OP actually agree - nt

[iverglas]

64. since I was referring to the poster of the opening post

I doubt that.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

69. You are correct.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

68. Here you sit a perfect example.