There are so many things wrong with this I don’t even know where to start.
There’s a basic problem in application here. The only way guns could have prevented 9/11 is if passengers on planes were allowed to carry guns, which I hope everyone will agree is a terrifying idea.
Aside from the cartoon itself making absolutely no logical sense, it is also advancing a terrible argument. People have a very interesting perspective on what to be frightened of. I am not seeking to minimize the tragedy of September 11, 2001 in the slightest, but it is something that happened once, and which the intervening ten years have shown is highly unlikely to happen again. Meanwhile, people are being killed by guns every day, every week, every month, every year. But no one cares about that compared to a sensational event that happened once.
Do you know how long it takes for the same number of people who died on the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001 to die in gun-related crimes? 35 days. Nearly every month, the same number of Americans who died on September 11, 2001 are being shot and killed not by terrorists, but by other Americans.
Guns don’t kill people… oh, wait. Yeah, they definitely do.
That’s the strength of the gun lobby. The conversation after the Tuscon shooting was the most amazing to me. There was never much talk by the bulk of the media or Congress about putting more restrictions on gun laws even after a Congressperson was shot. A lot of the criticism went straight to the failure of his school and/or parents instead of the ridiculous nature of our gun laws. Considering the typical amount of murders you mention, I am not sure what exactly has to happen to get Congress to at least put reasonable restrictions on guns, especially the automatics and semi-automatics.
Very, very well said.
More people die in this country in auto accidents then with guns, do you want to ban vehicles also? 2nd amendment says I have the right to keep and bear arms and as a responsible gun owner who carries concealed I do just that
I think we might be the victim of a misunderstanding here, because no one here said all guns should be banned, which your comment suggests you believe to have been stated. It’s a common misconception in discussions about gun control
.
And actually no, the second amendment doesn’t actually say that. It says you have a right to do so if you’re part of a well-regulated militia. The word “regulated” is actually right in the amendment, so it seems a little silly to me to use it as the sole basis to argue against regulations. There might be plenty of good reasons to argue against gun regulations (I don’t think there are; other people I respect think there are), but this is most definitely not one of them.
That’s not what the courts have ruled when that argument about militias was tried. so I can and will continue to keep and bear arms, now about banning those killer automobiles lol
It seems like you’re intentionally ignoring my points (like the fact that no one is actually talking about banning all firearms), so I don’t see anything productive coming out of this discussion.
Relax, you shouldn’t be so sensative if someone disagrees with you. Life is too short
There’s actually no way for you to tell whether or not I’m relaxed based on textual communication (I am, thank you for your concern), though it is a quite common tactic for someone trying to minimize what someone else is saying. There’s nothing emotional about what I’m saying, so I’m not sure where you’re getting the implication of sensitivity from
.
Might I suggest stopping by my blog and reading my new post on reasons why I oppose gun control. It might provide another perspective.
I glanced at it earlier, and I’ve heard variations of all of those arguments before. Like I already said, several people in my life whom I respect a great deal disagree with me on this issue, and I don’t have a problem with it, but it doesn’t change my view or the rationale behind it.
I really have no issue with anyone not wanting to carry or use a firearm however when others tell me that I can’t carry one, then I have an issue with it. I’m not saying that you are making that statement but many do. If a person is a law abiding citizen they should have the right to decide for themselves if they want to carry a concealed firearm with proper training of course.
And the problem I have is that a lot of people think “gun control” means taking away everyone’s guns. It doesn’t. What happens is people try to suggest really sensible laws like, “Hey, maybe you should only be able to buy one handgun a month? Is that cool? No? Okay, never mind.” Because the NRA hears “gun” and “law” in the same sentence, and goes ballistic.
Here in CT there was an amendment to ban all mags which held 11 rounds or more which was soundly defeated. I could never understand why I and others who enjoy guns could be considered law abiding citizens when we had 10 rounds in our mags but we would be considered violent criminals with 11 rounds in the mag, just never made sense. It’s legislation like that I find unrealistic. Gun control only hampers law abiding citizens, as criminals won’t follow those laws anyway.
I’ve heard the argument that gun control only hurts law abiding citizens before, and I feel it relies on a fundamental misunderstanding of how “illegally purchasing” weapons works. When a gun is bought “illegally,” it generally means it was purchased legally and then re-sold illegally, meaning that at the point of original purchase it would be in compliance with existing regulations.
Illegal weapons are often purchased on the black market and are easily obtained. They are referred to as unpapered as they are smuggled in or otherwise obtained without leaving a paper trail. If only criminals have guns it puts my family and myself at risk so I personally advocate obtaining responsible gun training, owning as many weapons legally as you want and carrying concealed at all times. Plus going to the range for a target shooting session with pistols, rifles or shotguns is a lot of fun
Smuggling is actually not a significant source of gun trafficking. Here are some actual common methods criminals use to obtain guns: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/guns/procon/guns.html
Straw purchases are one method but there are many others. Bottom line is simply this. Law abiding American citizens should decide for themselves whethe ror not owning or carrying a gun is right for them, they should not have it decided by other parties for them. Thank you for a very interesting debate. Have a nice evening and feel free to comment over at my blog if you would like. Even though I disagree with you it does make for an interesting discussion
Likewise
.
Before I address this I would just preface everything by saying I was born and grew up in a house with three guns (shotgun, rifle, and six shooter) and was firing one by the age of probably 6. I saw responsible gun ownership firsthand and have no problem with it which is why I phrased what I said in the comment as “reasonable restrictions on guns” and not banning. That said…
Using cars as a justification is not really reasonable for two reasons. The first is the intent of the products created. The intent of say, an SUV, is to transport people. The intent of, say an M-16 is warfare and to kill people. Both of these arguments could be expanded (a race car isn’t intended for transport, a handgun typically would be purchased for defense and not offense) but you get the idea. When a car kills someone, it’s an accident the vast majority of the time. When a gun kills someone, the likelihood it’s an accident is far lower. I’m not going to guess the percentages but it’s just common sense.
The second reason is the way the two things are regulated. When a car becomes dangerous, it’s recalled or the government regulates the most dangerous aspect in some way (seat belts, emissions, speed limits, “hey, don’t drive into my living room” laws, etc.). There are tons of laws regulating cars in ways most people understand and see as reasonable. Guns, particularly the most dangerous ones intended for mass murder, have little regulation by comparison and there is really no reason for that in a civilized society. The idea it is necessary to own an AK-47 for defensive purposes or to need a 30 round clip for a situation is simply not reasonable. Even for the people who have experienced an attack, I’m pretty sure a couple bullets fired would have stopped whatever the situation was. The idea more would be needed is just the movie fantasy producing too much fear in people thinking that might happen when it pretty much never will.
Another common misconception that goes without argument often is the idea that, if certain reasonable regulations were put in place on say automatic weapons, only criminals have them as if to suggest all criminals would have them. This argument defies the basic laws of supply and demand, however. If M-16s, for example, were banned in the U.S. their supply of new products drops to close to nothing and therefore the supply on the black market drops. This means the price goes up dramatically and only a small number of criminals would be able to afford the purchase after a certain amount of time. In most cases of an attack, the criminals would have similar firepower to any armed citizen. The difference now is those automatics are easier to purchase, cheaper to purchase for criminals because of their supply, and have a higher likelihood of showing up in crimes. Reasonable restrictions or an outright ban on those most powerful weapons would actually even the playing field much more for the average law-abiding, gun-owning citizen.
Oh, and I’m very relaxed now just in case you were going to go there. In fact, it’s bedtime for me.
Yeah, the “only criminals will be able to get guns” argument makes me really twitchy, because it requires a lack of education about how illegally acquired guns are actually acquired. And the kinds of laws the NRA opposes are really mind-blowing. I was actually about to write a separate post about his, but here’s a perfect example. Most guns that are acquired illegally were bought legally in the first place, and then illegally resold. When the police try to crack down on illegal resellers, they just say, “Oh, that gun was stolen,” and that’s the end of the story. The police can’t do anything about it. To discourage this, one of the two parties (I’ll let you guess which one) wanted to pass a law requiring stolen guns to be reported in a timely fashion. Seems reasonable, right? NOT TO THE NRA. They opposed the law loudly, and made sure it never saw the light of day.
I own many weapons, legally purchased, with 30 round magazines. Like any other hobby or interest one wants to have the best equipment and training. If 30 round mags are good enough for law enforcement and the military then they are good enough for me. whatever your interests might be you probably wouldn’t want less than the best and as far as firearms for training and defensive purposes, speaking for myself, I want the best there is.