Found this article via Joan, and it was too good not to shred:
The NRA’s first reason: Increasing the number of gun owners will make us safer.
But the higher the number of people who have guns, the more likely it is gun violence will occur. To believe everyone who has a gun will never use it the wrong way is not reasonable. In addition, anyone in a home where one of these gun owners lives has access to that weapon, as happened in the Connecticut school massacre.
Ok first up A) ignoring entirely using guns to STOP crimes (we’lll get to that later) and B) Not looking at the man behind the curtain, which is areas with liberal gun ownership and little to no crime, and areas with heavy gun control laws which are some of the most dangerous places in the country.
Also this is kinda like the anti-rights abuse of the Ten Commandments. The antis frequently list Commandment #6 as “Thou Shall Not kill”, ignoring all the verses in the bible where God commands his followers to kill, or prescribes death as a punishment for a crime. No the sin is Murder, and the people who we want armed are LAW ABIDING CITIZENS. The problems in this country are not people owning guns, its criminals, who sometimes illegally own guns, and other times don’t and still MURDER.
Second: Banning military-type weapons or large ammo clips will not make any difference.
There are important reasons the military chose the weapons it uses. It wants guns that are better for killing people. It also likely wants guns that are light and easy to carry and able to hold a larger amount of ammunition. Spreading guns designed to kill people throughout our population does not make sense. Inevitably they will be used to kill. Making large ammo-magazine clips available assures those bent on murder can fire many more bullets at a time.
Is it too much to ask responsible gun owners to use smaller clips to give the rest of us a chance to intervene with a shooter?
Again, ignoring self defense. Also ignoring shootings like Virginia Tech which is currently the #1 mass shooting in the nation, where all but two magazines held more than 10. Also while Whitman’s M1 Carbine had a “High Capacity Magazine” he never used it, and caused the #2 mass shooting using just a bolt-action rifle, a revolver, and a shotgun.
Of course they need to ignore self-defense because spree killers choose the time and place of their attack, and come kitted up for mass murder, while defenders simple go armed every day in hopes they’ll never need it. I don’t go lugging a backpack full of magazines like these killers do, I generally just have what’s in the gun, and a few spares. This laws obviously doesn’t hurt them, but it sure hurts me, hence why I’m not put into his argument.
Third: Background checks do not work.
Certainly background checks cannot stop all gun violence. Existing laws must be strictly enforced. But without expanded and more-thorough background checks, legally purchased guns will continue to easily end up in the hands of those who murder others. We have seen that happen too often. In particular, background checks must do more to identify potentially dangerous or violent mental illness. It needs to be much more than only checking to see if a person has had treatment for mental illness. Most mentally ill people never receive treatment.
If wishes were horses… He paints a flowery picture, but notice there’s no specifics on what “Mental illness” is, nor how somebody never treated by professionals can be adjudicated “mentally ill”. Yeah if somebody goes on a spree killing, they’re likely crazy, but how do you stop that? Since you’re talking a lot of crap in this article, can I safely assume you are willing to call anybody who keeps and bears arms “Mentally ill”?
Fourth: If gun access is restricted, only criminals will have guns.
The opposite would seem truer. Making guns easier to purchase actually means more criminals have easier access to guns and access to more powerful guns. Anyone can find someone to buy whatever weapon they desire if their own record is not clean. Also, they can steal guns or buy stolen weapons. At least 60 handguns were stolen from Twin Cities gun sellers last year, according to news reports. So greater access to all types of weapons means criminals will be better armed as well.
Except not, and we’ve proven it. Just look at the best petri dish in America, Washington DC, which is one of the most dangerous cities in America, yet gun ownership has been effectively banned…even after Heller V DC. They note that criminals probably get their guns from more liberal Virginia…except Virginia isn’t very dangerous at all. You know what state IS dangerous, Maryland…and how’s the gun laws there? Funny how that works. Even if that was true (and it isn’t) one must wonder why the arms traffickers are so well behaved when they’re in the more liberal states, and further, why TRAVEL? Why not uproot and live in the state where they can buy guns so easily?
Oh yeah, there’s that ugly fact of citizens shooting criminals committing crimes.
Finally: Owning a gun is the best way to protect yourself and others from gun violence.
To think the good guy always will win in a shootout is quite unrealistic. At best the good guy has a 50:50 chance, and the odds go down if the assailant has a powerful, rapid-fire weapon, gets it out first, and has a large ammunition clip. Even with a weapon, most of us would certainly rather not end up in a shoot-out situation in the first place. Public policy on guns needs to view a shootout as a least-desirable outcome.
The ability of guns to actually make us safer is quite limited. Preventing incidents from happening is a much more sensible approach. We currently lack a strong emphasis on improving prevention.
There he finally touches on self defense…and he does it by making up facts to fit his opinion. No research needed, no facts cited. You people who carry for self defense are just deluded and you should give up your guns right now because he said so!
This is what passes for intelligence in the anti-rights camp!