Reasonable gun-control is an oxymoron, most advocates of that are either: (a) Uninformed about guns, so aren't going to make good laws or (b) hoplophobics (those with an irrational fear of guns), and since they aren’t rational about guns (they fear/hate them), so they don’t create well reasoned (reasonable) laws. It’s like asking arachnophobics to write reasonable laws on spiders: they’re more likely to “burn down the house, then rebuild”.
Basics
|
What is a gun? It's an inanimate tool, that does not kill people, or do anything without a human driving it. Fewer people are killed by guns than cars, and far fewer than drugs, cigarettes, or alcohol. While far more are saved because of them. Those that fear guns, usually fear their own self control.
|
Main article: What is a gun?
|
|
|
Since the 1930's an assault rifle is fully automatic (select fire) military weapon (one squeeze of the trigger fires multiple bullets). Then in 1988 gun-control activist (Violence Policy Center founder Josh Sugarmann) invented the term "Assault Weapon", to include civilian semi-automatic weapons (one squeeze of the trigger fires one bullet), because it had a few cosmetic features in common with assault rifles, and because the public might not be able to understand the difference. The media and AP immediately went along with the ruse to dupe the public.
So an assault weapon is just a low-powered (smaller cartridge) hunting rifle with some wooden parts replaced by plastic parts (to lighten it), and some cosmetic accessories thrown in; like a pistol grip, barrel shroud, flash hider, accessory rails, or collapsable/foldable stock. Most guns have removable magazines, and the biggest difference coastal progressives point to is a pistol grip or magazine size. But all these features are easily swappable after-the-fact, none of which changes the lethality at all, and people can convert most rifles back and forth in about 10 minutes. Which is why gun enthusiasts think gun controllers (and their voters) are completely uninformed about guns
|
|
|
|
|
While I wish it was a joke, California, UK and Oz (Australia) all have "knife control" to keep the public from having pointy things. And they're adding more of these laws to protect us, all the time. Never mind that criminals ignore dumb laws by nature of them being criminals, so all the laws can do is punishing the innocent. Worse, since gun control laws seem to result in more violent criminals using knives, and thus more stabbings (up to 5-10x our rate of stabbing), they are looking at adding many more laws to protect us from the dreaded assault utensils. Seriously, don't stop rampant criminal immigration, or punish criminals, it's time to outlaw pointy things, and demanding cooling off periods before ordering cutlery. Politicians are willing to turn law abiding citizens (collectors/practitioners) into criminals, and waste the courts time and money, and distract law enforcement from more serious issues.
|
Main article: Knife Control
|
|
|
Igno-arrogant is similar to Dunning-Kruger, with a different cause. Smart people confusing their expertise in one area, with expertise in everything else. Which is annoying as hell to those who do the research to know what we're talking about. Gun debates are often filled with the igno-arrogant -- people tugging at the heart-strings instead of brain-strings, proposing things that can't be effective because they don't even fully understand the technology or problems, but using political theater to rile up the gullible or themselves. And worst of all, many of these types are so self-assured that they're the hardest to teach because their egos and mouths are doing the thinking, before they even have their basic facts straight.
|
|
|
|
|
Asking "who needs an AR15?" is like asking "who needs free speech?". Why do you need your 1st, 4th or 14th amendment rights? If you're not doing anything wrong, you shouldn't need a right to privacy, and if you aren't saying anything wrong, then guaranteeing free speech is redundant.
Of course the reality is the opposite. You don't need to justify why you get to keep your rights/liberties, others have to justify why they should get to take them away. So the proper answer to that question is, "Because, fuck you, that’s why!” If you can take someone's AR15, then what moral ground to you have to prevent them from taking your cell phone, car, Internet access, alcohol, pets, or anything else that isn’t an absolute necessity.
|
|
|
|
|
History
|
There are a few late 20th century inventions in the war against civil liberties (and the 2nd), but few as virulent and wrongheaded as that the 2nd amendment was about "the militia" and the militia meant "National Guard" (something that wasn't invented until 1903). These assumptions fail at Logic, English, History, and Constitutional Law, and there were the founders words, Supreme Court rulings, and experts in language and history that all but unanimously disagree with them. Of course mere facts won't prevent the determined from demonstrating the Dunning-Kruger effect, but hopefully the evidence can deter a few of them from demonstrating their willful ignorance in the future.
|
|
|
|
|
There’s a common argument (fallacy) that the Second Amendment didn't project changes in armament / technology, thus it couldn’t have been intended to apply to modern pistols and rifles (most of whose designs actually go back to the 1800’s or early 1900’s). This argument completely fails on the intent of the 2nd (which was about balancing power), but it even more strongly fails on understanding gun technology and history. At the founding of the country they had 8-shot revolvers, 9 shot "repeaters", 11-shot field artillery pieces, Jefferson even had a 22 shot repeating rifle. Not to mention "burst mode" automatics that fired up to 20 rounds with a single pull of the trigger. And during the remainder of their lives, not one of the founding fathers came forward to complain that technology was advancing beyond the intent of the 1st or 2nd Amendments.
|
|
|
|
|
Almost every discussion with a gun-controller looks the same, I show them how if they really cared about lives, crimes, or the things they claim they care about, they would be putting their energies elsewhere. The evidence seldom changes their minds, but it often irritates them into never wanting to discuss the topic with me again.
|
|
|
|
|
NPR tries to school the right on something NPR knows little about: in this case anything to do with guns (or canons), or History. Which begs the question, "Why do we have to subsidize them"? It's not that I dislike NPR, but whenever I hear them on conservative issues, they usually fuck it up, big time. Like this example on where Molon Labe comes from, and why it's wrong to use it with AR-15's instead of a canon.
|
|
|
|
|
Here are my favorite gun quotes. This quote sums up the key problem with gun-controllers arguments: they're unintentional hypocrites or fools. You can’t eliminate a tool, or knowledge of it. All that you can do is decide whether there should be a balance of power, or none. Some believe in that balance, others believe that the state is never wrong, especially if you ignore the History of all the times they’ve been wrong in the past. Liberty • Militia Meaning • Militia Dependent • Founding Fathers • Legal • Famous People • Opponents • Obama
|
|
|
|
|
Media / People
|
While Hillary tries to play the moderate to those that don't know better, if you have any understanding of her background, you'd know she'd be on the least constitutional, and certainly least pro-2nd Amendment Presidents we've ever had. For me, that's reason enough to never have voted for her. But the denials of those on the left come in two flavors: ignorance or polemics (trying to spin). If you know what you're talking about, there's no doubt of where she stands, only doubt on how successful she'd be at her agenda.
|
|
|
|
|
There was another anti-gun hit-piece in NYT, where they gave up all semblance of journalism and integrity, and decided to turn over their editorial pages to founder of UT Students Against Guns on Campus (with no common sense or rebuttals allowed, as usual). The lies of omission make you dumber for reading the article, as you'll come out less informed and more confident of the opposite (like Progressives on most issues they know nothing about). And then some wonder why the informed on topics mock the NYT as a caricature of what Journalism is supposed to be?
|
|
|
|
|
This is a short list of some of the "smartest Gun-Controllers in the room". This isn't just "gotcha" type mistakes, this is about Gun Control advocates fundamental failure to understand the basics of what they're talking about. I'd be happy to find a gun-controller that could talk about the basic parts and operation without sounding like an idiot, but this article is about the examples of the 99% that are giving the rest a bad name. The things they said that make the informed gun-owners double-face-palm, and undermines the interests of any rational gun controllers. Some day I'll meet one of the latter.
|
|
|
|
|
The NYT embarassing editorial on guns, shows what's wrong with the paper. They either don't have fact checkers, or count on their readers to either not know the truth, or not care. Bad facts, and one side of the story is propaganda (FakeNews), not journalism.
|
|
|
|
|
Why don't people trust Obama when he says he isn't trying to take anyone's guns? Because gun advocates listen to what he says at other times too. How he legislated, what he says to campaign contributors, and like his gun control speech that the media failed to fact-check, but I point out just a few of the problems with it.
|
|
|
|
|
Charlton Heston 1999 speech to the Harvard Law School Forum on 'Winning the Cultural War', resulted in this man, and others like him, getting vilified for their beliefs: that we should be tolerant, free, allow free speech, but also be judged by our own actions.
|
|
|
|
|
From Gun Sales to Mass Shootings, how the unintended consequences of community organizing are often detrimental to the stated goal. How divisive rhetoric and drawing attention to your cause can often get the opposite outcome of intent. Of course if your intent is to pose for the selfie-stick and drive up gun ownership and mass shootings then maybe it isn't the opposite of intent.
|
|
|
|
|
Never let an opportunity go to waste: the politicians and media prey on this tragedy, knowing it will be fodder to copycats. But lives of those sacrificed aren't as important as the agenda. Hey, if you want to let democrats make an omelet, they're going to break some eggs. Just remember, you, your friends, your family, and the truth, are the eggs.
|
|
|
|
|
This smells like a false-flag effort, by a gun nitwit, meant to try to dupe the gullible into destroying valuable tools, in the name of some gun cause. There's a ton of support by folks without guns or a clue, and no support from anyone with one. Either way, I feel sorry for Steve, he either lost his mind, or he's a dishonest herd-follower, and either is just sad.
|
|
|
|
|
Laws
|
In 2016, California passed many gun-grabbers dream laws: phased in tyranny over the next couple years. If you want to know why gun advocates have a problem with "reasonable" gun laws, you have to look no further than California, and their legislators versions of "reasonable". Not one of these new laws will help in shooting or mass shootings in any way, or gun safety, they only show raw, naked contempt for gun owners and the second amendment, in ways that will hurt the innocent, waste millions of dollars in legal fights, and eventually lose. But that doesn't slow them down from passing them. And that's why the NRA exists, and informed gun owners have contempt for what sounds reasonable to the uninformed.
|
|
|
|
|
Some claim, "nobody wants to take your guns, we just want a few 'reasonable' controls on them". But if we pretend that gun control works (by ignoring facts and history), and we assume guns are the problem, then there is no such thing as gun-control: you need gun bans. "Controlling" semi-auto rifles means you have to control semi-auto-pistols... and then revolvers, and pump/lever action, then bolt action guns (which committed one of our worst mass shootings in American history) and the results are, there are no safe guns in the hands of crazies. Thus logic says they're lying, either to us, themselves or both. So I've yet to meet the gun-controller that will be satisfied with X, when that means their neighbors will still have guns.
|
|
|
|
|
California was one of only 10 "May-issue" Conceal and Carry permits states (as opposed to "Shall-Issue"). Which means they can choose to use the "good cause" to set impossible standards that no one other than the politically connected or big police donors, to meet the standards -- thus they violate the intent of the law that is supposed to allow C&C permits (not deny them). Stacked on top of California not having open carry, it means that you have a right to have a gun, you just can't ever take it anywhere in California. And it's been ruled before that such restrictions violate the people's Second Amendment rights. The State's then A.G. (Kamala Harris) doesn't care about victims lives as much as her political career: and she had armed security guards, so that's all that mattered.
|
|
|
|
|
There’s an oft repeated fallacy that “all we want it a few more ‘reasonable’ gun laws” but (insert either the NRA, evil republicans, gun-nuts), won’t be reasonable. So let's talk about "what's reasonable", and explain some of the complexities that the reasonable laws on the books already look like, to understand why some are so hesitant to ask for more. If you want to be reasonable, you first need to be informed, and get the basics right. How can you reason with an ignoramus (well meaning or not)? So the first step to reasonable gun laws, is educating the gun controllers, on what guns are, how they work, and how bad the current laws are.
|
|
|
|
|
"Smart guns" (sometimes called safe guns) were an idea invented by gun controllers to have a wedge issue to divide the nation. But there's nothing smart about them. Anyone with a basic clue of them, would laugh openly, if they weren't so fucking dangerous. But the whole issue is evidence of why we should tests to qualify people on topics, before allowing them to vote.
|
|
|
|
|
The left demands that we close the “insane” loophole that allows people on the No Fly List to buy guns. Which begs the question, who gets on that list, and how do you get off it, if you're on it by mistake? What we know is there's thousands of people that shouldn't be on there, on it. No known way for them to get off it. And no mass shooter has ever been on it. Sounds like a good enough reason to assume your guilt and take away your rights, to a Democrat.
|
|
|
|
|
Progressives are full of good ideas on how to spend other people's money, on ways to avoid blaming criminals for their actions. This one was by spending ≈$250,000/square mile (or about $60-90K/sq mi in yearly reoccurring costs), you could detect and send cops to scenes of shootings. And liberals who watch too much CSI pressed many cities to adopt the expensive systems. How are they working?
|
Main article: Shotspotter
|
|
|
Experiences
|
These are the stories of my experiences pulling a gun to stop crimes, and how it differs from the stereotypes. In my life, I have personally used a gun to end an altercation three times. A rape, an armed car robbery, and a drug dealer or pederast trying to pedal something on a not so helpless young lad.
|
Main article: Pulling a gun
|
|
|
This is a story of what shooting is like for me, and how it differs from the stereotypes. Now the plural of anecdote is not data -- but lies of omission, are lies. The media loves to bombard us with selective anecdotes about how guns ruined lives, but almost never about the many, many millions of times a year more, where they are just used for hobby or sport. This is just some of those.
|
|
|
|
|
Comparisons
|
When you correct for their creative-accounting, the U.S. has a lower white murder rate, and less violent crime than the UK. And the UK's murder and crime rates went up since gun control (while the U.S.'s have been trending down, despite loosening gun-control laws). Gun control didn’t work well for the UK. This breaks down the numbers, links to sources, and shows my work.
|
|
|
|
|
There’s this common meme spread to mislead people that the U.S. is so much worse than Canada in murders, so I wanted to show it in pictures (to help people understand). Canada rates of murder didn't change any more than the U.S. despite Canada enacting gun control and the U.S. loosening it. This shows that gun control is not an effective determining factor in murder rates.
|
|
|
|
|
When the facts support your argument, you share the facts -- when they don't, some will resort to partial information (cherry picking), fallacies, or other deceptions.
The facts are, in murder rates: U.S. ranks #121 safest out of 218 countries, #4 safest out of 49 counties in our hemisphere, #19 safest out of 36 OECD countries, our drug/gang/crime problems have nothing to do with gun control, and more guns = less murder because it's dangerous to try to kill an armed person. This article contains the stats and facts, for those who care.
|
|
|
|
|
Australia took away guns and had a decrease in gun murder/crime/suicide, with a larger increase in murder/crime/suicide overall. Decades later they are down in murders and suicides, but not by any more than the U.S, or trends that started 30 years before the gun ban. They’re up in Violent Crime, Robbery, Rape and aggravated assault by much more. Their mass murderers moved to burning down buildings (with rates about flat). So they spent $500M, still have 3M illegal guns in their country., and higher violent crime: I’m not seeing the win.
|
|
|
|
|
