Adequacy front page
Stories Diaries Polls Users
Google

Web Adequacy.org
Home About Topics Rejects Abortions
This is an archive site only. It is no longer maintained. You can not post comments. You can not make an account. Your email will not be read. Please read this page if you have questions.
Poll
Gun owners are
drunken sots 0%
fundamentalist lunatics 6%
anti-government wackos 12%
child killers 9%
all of the above 70%

Votes: 31

 The Terrible Truth About Gun Owners

 Author:  Topic:  Posted:
Jul 26, 2001
 Comments:
Gun politics is always a hot-button topic for debate here in these United States of America. Those who defend the pro-gun lifestyle like to claim that there is nothing wrong with it, that it is a basic and fundamental part of our national heritage. They like to claim that "the truth" about guns is nothing to be feared, and that "the truth" is that gun owners are just plain folks, no different from the decent families who work hard and raise their children in a nurturing environment.

But the truth is far from comforting. The truth is terrible.

politics

More stories about Politics
Capital Punishment Should Serve the People
America the Beautiful
Luv Yr Enemies: Viva Chile y el General Pinochet!
Reparation and reconcilation - the time is right.
Abortion or Treason? Towards a more populous America
Destroyer
Conscription: the return of American values
Gutless In Seattle
A paean to masochism: A new philosophy of life.
Isolationism Versus Go-F*ck-Yourself-ism
America is still the greatest
peace
what now for US Israel-Palestinan policy?
"Cowardly" terrorists
Adequacy sheds light at our darkest hour
Chile to bomb the U.S.A.
You are not Irish, They are not Republicans. Please stop sending them money and guns.
Kill Yr Idols: Usamah bin Muhammad bin Laden
An Early Analysis of Today's Attacks
On the Establishment of a Palestinian State
Achieving Justice for bin Laden
Ban All Guns Now!
The Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, terrorism, and decolonisation
It's time to surrender.
Why Supporting Israel Helps Everyone
America's Case for Packing Heat
What To Do About Arafat?
Save America's Gangs
Reasserting America's Manhood
Ancient History for Ignorant Americans
Kill Yr Idols: The American Electorate
America is Better than God
Beam Me Up: There's No Intelligent Life in Congress

More stories by
Anonymous Reader

Eric Raymond - Open Source hero ? or Environmental Pariah ?
Homosexuality - Is it the next evolutionary step for mankind ?
Sexism. Nature ? or Nurture ?
The Hidden Threat
Was the fourth plane shot down during an attack on 9/11?
The National Rifle Association (NRA) is the flagship organization of the gun crazies. It claims to be an organization of law-abiding Americans who are doing more than defending their Second Amendment right to keep and bear firearms. However, the truth about the NRA is far from benign; the truth is frightening. They are a group of sociopaths with a clear agenda: unlimited gun proliferation at all costs, human and otherwise. They have not one iota of human compassion or feeling; their devotion to their implements of death knows no bounds.

For example, the NRA was scheduled to hold its 1999 annual meeting in Colorado. However, in the wake of the horrible mass school shooting at Columbine, many people in Colorado pleaded with the NRA to hold its meeting elsewhere. They refused. And when the venerable Charlton Heston (the NRA's president) addressed the crowd in Denver, did he have words of regret and remorse for the tragic events? None could be found. Instead, the NRA and the gun industry expressed concern that the tragedy might hurt their image. In other words, the NRA was deeply saddened by the events at Columbine .. not because they particularly cared about the loss of so many innocent lives, but because they thought that they would end up "looking bad."

The post-Columbine insensitivity is bad enough, but the NRA has also announced its intention to lobby Congress to get gun indoctrination as a part of the standard public education curriculum for every K-6 student in the country. What Heston apparently fails to grasp is that the majority of children in this country are raised by decent, responsible, and loving parents, and that these children have about as much need for "gun education" as a fish has for a bicycle. Heston's "dream America" might be a country where bullets are zipping through the air like mosquitoes and children are shooting each other dead on the playground for their lunch money, but rational Americas do not share these views.

By far, the most inexcusable acts of the NRA are its opposition to bans on assault rifles and Teflon-coated cop-killer bullets. With regards to assault rifles, they have a sole purpose: to kill people. You don't take an AR-15 out with you to go duck hunting. You won't need an Uzi submachinegun and a truckload of 9mm clips to go deer hunting. The defense of the cop-killer bullets (so named because they are designed to penetrate the Kevlar vests worn by policemen) is simply inhuman; it astounds me that a million people are proud to call themselves members of an organization that advocates the violent murder of police officers who have sworn their lives to the defense of the innocent.

So if the gun owners' main organization is so vile, so completely devoid of worth, surely the individual gun owners themselves must have some redeeming characteristics, no? After all, there must be some good news, right?

I'm afraid not:

  • Gun owners are dangerously religious. I want you to think about this for a minute. Let's say you get into an argument with a gun owner in line at the supermarket. What's to stop him from pulling out a concealed handgun, blowing your head off, getting your home address from your driver's license, going there and murdering your wife and young children, and then taking his own life? Remember, these people believe that all they have to do is "make their peace with the lord and call him savior" and they will be immediately delivered to eternal bliss.

    It seems to me that decent Americans with families have much to fear from this mentality. These people believe there is nothing they can do that will prevent them from an eternity of pleasure with a lord. That includes the cold-blooded murder of young children.

  • Alcoholism among gun owners occurs at disproportionately high rates. This should be a source of concern to people who are concerned about the safety of their children. The gun crazies like to say that "guns don't kill people, people kill people." This apparently represents the crowning achievement in philosophy for the gun crazies, and even I will admit that there is a shred of truth to it. I would point out, however, that it's a lot easier for people to kill people if they've been out behind the woodshed guzzling "Grandpa's cough syrup" all day.

    When I take my children to see a movie, the last thing I need to see is a disheveled malcontent, staggering down the street, bib overalls reeking of moonshine and cigarette smoke, barely able to stand up. When that malcontent is armed with an implement of death, what was previously a public nuisance has suddenly become a serious public threat. There is no reason that a decent society should tolerate this sort of behavior, and that fact that we do is a sad commentary on our nation.

  • The link between gun owners and far-right militias is both undeniable and scary. These self-described "freedom fighters" are on the public record as saying that they will kill as many innocent women and children as is necessary to "reclaim their God-given rights." Apparently, these groups are fighting for their God-given right to kill women and children, since it is not obvious what other "rights" these lunatics are being denied. These militia groups are overwhelmingly racist and have expressed desires to "cleanse" the country (and indeed, the entire planet) of all persons who are not White, Anglo-Saxon, and Protestant.

    This is the face of the American gun nut.

Don't fall into the trap.

These people are hiding behind a smokescreen of false patriotism and "strict constructionist" interpretations of the United States Constitution. But the truth about the average American gun owner is that he is a slobbering fundamentalist alcoholic who would rather shoot you dead than shake your hand. These are people that would rather commit acts of terrorism against their homeland than work within the legal confines of the system to get their message out. These are people who have stockpiles of .50 caliber rifles ready to aim at the heads of our own armed services. They are a violent and traitorous bunch; they spit on the graves of true American patriots, and we cannot afford to be complacent and ignore them.

If ever there was a time in our history to enact true sensible gun control, it is right now. This is still a battle we can win, but if we pretend that this threat doesn't exist, this country will go to hell in a handbasket. One day we'll wake up in a world that resembles Mad Max Beyond Thunderdome and we'll wonder what happened. And you know what I'll say? "Far be it from me to say 'I told you so.'"

The fact of the matter is that the United States Constitution is not written in stone, and those who claim that it is are conveniently forgetting the fact that the Founding Fathers, in their wisdom, gave us a process by which it can be amended. Furthermore, because the amendment process is so convoluted and drawn out, all that we really need is a majority opinion from the United States Supreme Court. The Second Amendment, much like the GPL, has never had its validity fully-tested in the judicial system. When that day comes, I am confident that it and the imagined "rights" that it affords will be exposed as the murderous shams that they are.

At some point, the forces of morality and reason in this country will have the critical mass that is necessary to abolish the Second Amendment. The only question is .. how many more school massacres and Charlton Heston speeches ("from my cold, dead hands") will it take before people finally see the light? The gun crazies will fight us tooth and nail, but we will fight back, and we will win.


Perfect, Simply Perfect. (5.00 / 1) (#2)
by Electric Angst on Thu Jul 26th, 2001 at 02:30:36 PM PST
I agree so much, that I simply much break the rules of netiquette and simply post my overwhelming agreement with this article. Well said!


--
In the dark times, will there still be singing?
Yes, there will be singing. There will be singing about the dark times. -- Bertolt Brecht

 
Got a theory that explains (5.00 / 1) (#3)
by Richard Nixon on Thu Jul 26th, 2001 at 04:29:03 PM PST
The Usian love of guns. Basically all the immigrants from Europe left because they had small penises and were forced to leave their countries because women would laugh at them. In the New World they could play around with guns and religion to compensate for this and to impress the girlies.

So taking away a gun from a small dicked Usian is tantamouint to emsaculating him and thus the howls of outcry it produces.

Only countries with males who are secure about their dick size tend to ban guns for example the UK.


Nonsense... (5.00 / 3) (#4)
by suick on Thu Jul 26th, 2001 at 04:55:11 PM PST
...and don't believe everything your boyfriend tells you.

The European emigrants were hardly forced to leave. Rather, they made a conscious decision to get out--Europe was quickly falling to root-snorting new-age european homosexuals. The small penises rumor was simply started by European flamers trying to come up with a valid way to cope with rejection.

As for the guns, there's no better method for keeping the Europeans at bay--look at France for God's sake! When Germany invaded, those man-huggers bent over faster than osm did for nakedac.

c'mon, lower.

Gun (none / 0) (#6)
by Richard Nixon on Thu Jul 26th, 2001 at 05:06:20 PM PST
Equals penis substitute. You don't need to be Dr Freud to work this one out.

American history has been littered with examples of this. For fuck's sake look at the 'Minute men' during the War of Independence.

The Cold War was basically about who could build the biggest penis substitute. The Russians gave up after the KGB had collected a big enough sample size of American men and found out how 'Minute' they were. God even the US ICBMs were called 'Minutemen'....

This missile defense thing is just perverse beyond belief. Shooting down penis substitutes with other penis substitutes, weird...


You may find it hard to believe this... (5.00 / 1) (#7)
by suick on Thu Jul 26th, 2001 at 05:22:43 PM PST
...but most men outside of Europe don't look for sex toys in everyday objects. While I won't critique the lifestyle you've chosen, please understand that just because you have your own "I spy" game involving cylindrical objects doesn't mean that others do.

And the fact that you've developed strong opinions based on this perverse sex game disturbs me beyond belief.

c'mon, lower.

 
Unfortunately you're right... (none / 0) (#8)
by elby on Thu Jul 26th, 2001 at 05:50:42 PM PST
I'm sure you've only been exposed to the revisionist history of world war 2 in which large portions of the war have been largely misreprestented.

In fact, most of WW2 revolved around the axis and allied troops getting drunk and comparing the size of their guns. Occasionally actual war broke out, but it was usually the result of too much alcohol, a nasty language barrier and the fact that everyone was indeed carrying a gun.

Japan never had much hope, as you can imagine, and once America whipped out "fat boy" I'm sure you can see why what was left of the war ground to a screeching halt.

-lb


 
roflmao (none / 0) (#24)
by Anonymous Reader on Fri Jul 27th, 2001 at 01:15:13 PM PST
Don't forget SUV's! You gotta take away the V-10 strap-on to totally emasculate them!


 
too funny (none / 0) (#57)
by Grax on Mon Jul 30th, 2001 at 09:09:09 AM PST
he does have it all figured out. and I thought we could keep it quiet and impress them with our big guns.

I'm impressed with the security the UK shows. They must not have been as secure when they were a superpower with India, Canada, Australia, Hong Kong, etc. They even used to own the USA. But they're much more secure now. They just stay at home and fight over Northern Ireland.

(in case it's not 100% clear, I'm attempting humor, or is that humour?)



 
I am a handgun owning USian (5.00 / 1) (#5)
by Peter Johnson on Thu Jul 26th, 2001 at 04:56:37 PM PST
I have a .45 caliber semi-automatic pistol of Swiss manufacture. No amount of gun control laws will change this.

I paid cash for my gun. I didn't wait 7 days, I didn't buy it from an authorized dealer and there's no record anywhere that I own it. There's no way to identify me as a gun owner other than this post.

I carry my gun. I don't have a permit, I just have a concealed carry holster and a pot belly. You can't tell I'm carrying. Why do I need a permit? The cops have never searched me. I'm white and well groomed, cops only hassle minorities and vagrants.

Basically I don't see the point of gun control legistlation. It won't affect me at all.

--Peter
Are you adequate?
--Peter
Are you adequate?

but you show how you fit the bill (1.00 / 1) (#18)
by motherfuckin spork on Fri Jul 27th, 2001 at 09:06:21 AM PST
by illicitly purchasing your sidearm, you have shown your disrespect for those who would like to allow the controlled, well-thought-out possesion of firearms. You have added to the sense of deceit and ill-will that the control advocates feel towards the NRA members.

you are clearly showing your general disrespect for those around you, as your gun possesion could lead to the unintentional loss of life, and this would come at the cost of your own freedom. Would you be able to live with yourself knowing you inadveretly killed someone?

likewise, your unclever brandishing of your firearm from the confines of your personal space is a pure indicator of the risk you take every day. just carrying your firearm into the wrong area could give cause for your own demise at the hands of those you thought to protect yourself.

beware the hand that feeds you, for your own illicit gun ownership means that someone else also owns a firearm under the same circumstances for much less noble reasons.


I am not who you think I am.

 
caution (none / 0) (#21)
by alprazolam on Fri Jul 27th, 2001 at 11:21:46 AM PST
I'm white and well groomed, cops only hassle minorities and vagrants.

If you got a tan, cops could mistake you for an arab or mexican and hassle you. Also, considering you own a VW Bus, I would expect cops to hassle you, because they think you're some kind of long haired hippie.


 
This worries me greatly. (none / 0) (#30)
by elenchos on Fri Jul 27th, 2001 at 05:43:22 PM PST
While your toying with a firearm is dangerous, I'm just as concerned about the health issues implied by a pot belly large enough to conceal a handgun. Have you thought about the risk of heart disease and stroke that you are running by neglecting your health?

You have many years of afflicting the comfortable and comforting the afflicted (or vice versa -- whatever) ahead of you, shoeboy. Don't let them be cut short by this avoidable neglect of your health!

A real acid wit and sharp social critic is a healthy wit and a fit critic! Remember: Shakespeare and Samuel Clemens were trim men who lived long lives. Falstaff is only a fiction and no one wants you to die his too-early death.


I do, I do, I do
--Bikini Kill


 
You are wrong (none / 0) (#9)
by Anonymous Reader on Thu Jul 26th, 2001 at 06:35:23 PM PST
I was at the NRA annual meeting in Denver. Your statement that President Heston did not have anything to say in terms of sorrow for the victims of the Columbine attack is simply not true.

His entire speech is available online.

Next time, check your facts before you rant.

jeff@TheJeffMiller.com


I was at that same meeting (none / 0) (#10)
by Anonymous Reader on Thu Jul 26th, 2001 at 06:41:00 PM PST
And I got a completely different sense. I won't go as far as saying he was happy that those children died (unlike most gun nuts), but I would have to emphasize the inattention he was paying to the whole controversy. The whole meeting had this veneer of respectability that just didn't hold up to scrutiny.


 
I've read the speech (none / 0) (#11)
by Anonymous Reader on Thu Jul 26th, 2001 at 07:53:14 PM PST
Heston barely paid lip service to the people that died. Instead, the bulk of his "sorrow" was reserved for the fact that the slaughter would portray guns in a bad light, and that we should not allow that to happen. All in all, I got the impression that the NRA considered it terribly inconvenient that those innocent people died, and they spent the bulk of their convention doing damage control. They are heartless, soulless sons of bitches and I have not one shred of respect for them.


 
Reality distortion field turned up to 11 (none / 0) (#12)
by Anonymous Reader on Thu Jul 26th, 2001 at 07:56:45 PM PST
In order to get a hall large enough for an NRA meeting, you have to pay a lot of cash well in advance. Canceling the use of the hall would have forfeited the deposit to the hall owners. The NRA was simply practicing good business sense and didn't waste it's members money. Maybe the US government can learn something from that.

Gun education is important. Kids need to respect and understand the power of a gun. Through education more people will have the knowledge to use it in only the direst of situations and be unaffected by the immoral messages contained in the drek that flows out of the sewer known as Hollywood.

Do you know what the government's definition of an assault rifle is? It has nothing to do with the number of rounds per minute the gun is capable of firing. It is mostly to do with aesthetics and size. The "ban" on assault rifles really keeps people from purchasing certain rifles and other longarms that are more suitable for hunting game than crowds of people.

Teflon coated cop killer bullets? You don't need some fancy round to penetrate body armor. A .357 or .44 magnum can go right through a kevlar vest. I've heard that even .22's have enough power that with careful aim, any protection worn is useless.

Gun owners are likely to be alchoholics, you say. I can turn that around and say alchohlics are likely to own guns. Let's ban alchohol. It would stop people from buying guns.

Gun nuts. Gun crazies. What ignorant terms. Well here's a quote from someone you'd call a gun nut: "A strong body makes the mind strong. As to the species of exercises, I advise the gun. While this gives moderate exercise to the body, it gives boldness, enterprise and independence to the mind. Games played with the ball, and others of that nature, are too violent for the body and stamp no character on the mind. Let your gun, therefore, be the constant companion of your walks." This quote is attributed to Thomas Jefferson, one of the fathers of our country. To him games that use balls like basketball or bowling or golf are much more violent than the proper use of a firearm, an idea that any intelligent man would strongly agree with.

The second amendment has been tested many times. It says that citizens of the US should be allowed to have firearms for protection within and without the US. Education and target practice are all you need to protect yourself from the hoodlums that would rather play with balls than learn the finer points of windage, grain size, and iron sights.

If you think that you are safe because of the police, think again. Ask any cop and they will tell you that if you are in a life and death situation without protection, they will happily come by to draw a white chalk outline around you when they arrive. The police are the cleanup crew. They may catch the guy who shot/stabbed you for the $4 and Subway stamps in your wallet, but you're still dead. How dare you put your loved ones through the emotional and financial trauma of a funeral and burial just because you thought you were morally correct. I guess you think your beliefs are more important than your family.

You end your misguided tirade with yet another mention of school shootings. If one of the teachers had been properly trained in firearms and allowed to keep one on his/her person, only one person would have died: the morally bankrupt individual who wanted to hurt his/her classmates.


Reinforcing the truth (none / 0) (#13)
by Anonymous Reader on Thu Jul 26th, 2001 at 08:53:22 PM PST
Canceling the use of the hall would have forfeited the deposit to the hall owners.

I see. So the Columbine incident presented a potential financial hardship to the NRA. Poor, poor, NRA. I mean, how can these people be bothered to consider the feelings of grieving parents if it means that they might end up losing money? What a bunch of savages.

Your post does nothing but reinforce the terrible truth about gun owners; namely, that you are obsessed with implements of death and will not stop until five-year olds are shooting each other dead in the streets over arguments about a hopscotch game.

Gun education is important. Kids need to respect and understand the power of a gun.

The hell they do. I am a loving and responsible parent, and I care for the safety of my children. I do not own guns. My children will not go within ten feet of a gun. Because I am a responsible parent and I love my children, I do everything in my power to keep them out of situations that can result in harm to them. This especially includes situations that involve guns. The overwhelming majority of child gun deaths are a result of being shot by friends or family within their own home. The standard position of the gun crazies is that murder of children is perfectly acceptable so long as the Second Amendment is not challenged. I mean, what are these Columbine parents crying about? They're just kids! An hour or so in the missionary position can make another one that looks similar to the one that fell in the glorious battle for our "firearm rights."

*spit*

The amount of sheer hatred that the average gun owner has towards children is astounding. It is absolutely astounding. Sure, I know; when a child is shot dead by a gun, it is the work of "the lord" and we should not question the lord since he works in mysterious ways, but he wants us to be as heavily armed as possible. Jesus tapdancing Christ.

The second amendment has been tested many times.

Wrong. The Second Amendment has never been tested in front of the United States Supreme Court. When "George" Dubya Bush is voted out of office in 2004 because of his support of environmental destruction and his extremist fundamentalist stances, his Democratic successor will be in a position to nominate at least two Supreme Court justices that will guarantee the abolishment of the Second Amendment. Good riddance to bad rubbish, I say.

I hope that CNN and Fox News and ABC and all of the news outlets broadcast live feeds from the destruction of the guns once they are criminalized. We'll have trash compactors reducing the guns to pieces of unrecognizable metal. The death-worshipping guns nuts will be watching TV, tears streaming down their cheeks, shrieking "OUR GUNS! OUR GUNS!" Their children will ask them what time supper is, and they will backhand them across the face and shout "DON'T TALK BACK TO ME! THEY'RE DESTROYING OUR GUNS!"

If you think that you are safe because of the police, think again.

It comes as no surprise that you take this position, because you advocate the murder of peace officers by your support of cop-killing bullets. Oh yeah, that's right; they're just for "hunting." Give me a break. The reason that the NRA advocates killing as many police officers as possible is that the very presence of police officers completely shoots holes (no pun intended) through their entire justification for owning guns. "We need to protect ourselves! And we can't protect ourselves if the police are continually being killed by these cop-killer bullets, which we support, by the way."

As a law-abiding citizen, I find the murder of police officers to be repugnant. These are decent men, many of which have families of their own. You consider them to be valueless casualties in your war to accumulate as much killing power as possible. May God have mercy on your soul.

If one of the teachers had been properly trained in firearms and allowed to keep one on his/her person, only one person would have died: the morally bankrupt individual who wanted to hurt his/her classmates.

Ahh, yes. Let's strap holsters on our teachers and arm them with six-shooters. Yee-haw! What a wonderful environment for our children to learn in. If Billy misbehaves, Mr. Jenkins can put a bullet between his eyes! You people are out of your fucking minds, and you represent the single greatest threat to a decent society that this country has ever known. If you have children, I sincerely hope that they are taken from you before you do them permanent harm or prematurely end their lives.


Just a few points here... (5.00 / 1) (#14)
by SpaceGhoti on Thu Jul 26th, 2001 at 09:26:35 PM PST
My children will not go within ten feet of a gun.

So your children will grow up ignorant of firearms except for an intangible fear, which just might spark their curiosity enough to go play with a gun they find somewhere and not ask you because they know you'll go into a fury over the instrument of death? Then, having no parental guidance, they'll proceed to hurt themselves and someone else far more than if they had been instructed in proper firearm handling and safety.

Sounds good to me. The gene pool needs cleaning.

The amount of sheer hatred that the average gun owner has towards children is astounding.

That's quite a claim. You have references for this, or is this just a product of your fevered imagination?

The Second Amendment has never been tested in front of the United States Supreme Court.

Are you aware of what the United States Supreme Court uses for its legal precedents? First and foremost, the United States Constitution and its Amendments. The Supreme Court can rule on interpretations of the law, but it cannot overthrow Constitutional law. Only an act of Congress signed by the President or a majority referendum of States can add, amend or remove a Constitutional Amendment.

...the NRA advocates killing as many police officers as possible...

Once again, do you have references to back this up, or are your drugs inducing more hallucinations? My family has long been members of the NRA as well as employed in various law-enforcement agencies. I imagine I'd be familiar with this sort of propaganda if it were true, but for some reason I'm not.

I look forward to your truly enlightened rebuttles.


A troll's true colors.

 
Impressive (none / 0) (#17)
by Anonymous Reader on Fri Jul 27th, 2001 at 05:07:12 AM PST
You have the amazing ability to take everything I said out of context and twist it into a litany of lies. Are you a liberal perchance?

I am a loving and responsible parent

No you're not. Unless your kids understand how dangerous it is to use a weapon, they will be the kind that ends up on the 6 o'clock news with the word "tragedy" under their picture. You are endangering your own children. You are a hateful and irresponsible parent.

The amount of sheer hatred that the average gun owner has towards children is astounding.

Hmmm, examining the previous paragraph, it looks like that the sheer amount of hatred that non-gun owners have towards children is just as astounding.

I hope that CNN and Fox News and ABC and all of the news outlets broadcast live feeds from the destruction of the guns once they are criminalized.

I had a feeling this is where you got all your news info from. If you believe these guys, you have serious problems. This pretty much proves my first statement. Your indoctrination is complete.

I find the murder of police officers to be repugnant.

As do I. So I don't shoot them. You know who does? Criminals.

These are decent men, many of which have families of their own. You consider them to be valueless casualties in your war to accumulate as much killing power as possible. May God have mercy on your soul.

As I said before, the cops will not be around to save you if you're in trouble. If a thief comes up to you, may God have mercy on your soul. If a thief comes up to me, may God have mercy on his.

If Billy misbehaves, Mr. Jenkins can put a bullet between his eyes

I can see you have no intention of having a rational discussion since you are totally incapable of doing so. In every country that has banned guns recently, gun crime has gone up. The people can't protect themselves, so they're just easy targets for criminals. With your attitude, you'll probably just end up another statistic. For your family's sake, I hope not.


The truth shall set you free (none / 0) (#27)
by Anonymous Reader on Fri Jul 27th, 2001 at 03:11:54 PM PST
No you're not. Unless your kids understand how dangerous it is to use a weapon, they will be the kind that ends up on the 6 o'clock news with the word "tragedy" under their picture. You are endangering your own children. You are a hateful and irresponsible parent.

I don't think you understand. My family does not own guns. My children do not play with guns. They are not allowed to play at or around the homes of known or suspected gun owners. I repeat: moral children raised by moral people have as much use for gun education as a fish has for a bicycle. Sure, if you live in Whiskey Lick, Wyoming and run the kind of house where you've got firearms laying carelessly scattered around all over the place, then children should be taught about guns, if only that they should stay as far away from them as possible. But you are mistaking your hellish household for the kind of environment that is provided by responsible parents.

I can see you have no intention of having a rational discussion since you are totally incapable of doing so.

Sorry, but a discussion that includes advocating arming schoolteachers with sidearms is incapable of being rational. You've not left me much to work with. Gun nuts have a lot of crazy positions, but arming teachers is the craziest of them. I was listening to the Michael Reagan (an arch-conservative) talk show one night, and when one of his callers expressed this desire (arming teachers), Reagan himself called the idea crazy. If you've got Michael Reagan thinking you're nuts, you must really be off the deep end.

I don't understand why gun crazies don't want to stop school shootings. Your focus is never on stopping the shootings; instead, it is always on shooting first. "Try to shoot up the cafeteria, kids! We'll take your head off before you can squeeze out three rounds!" To be true, two dead children are preferable to seventeen dead children, but the point that moral people are trying to make .. hold on to your hats .. is that no dead children is better still! Yet for some reason the gun zealots find this notion to be hateful; at least one dead child must be the result. The mind boggles. In every country that has banned guns recently, gun crime has gone up. The people can't protect themselves, so they're just easy targets for criminals.

References, please. And I don't mean some isolated "World Net Daily" article that discusses some isolated, outlandish gun crime in Australia. I'm looking for hard government statistics that demonstrate that crime -- gun crime -- has increased, in every country where guns are "banned." While you're doing that, you might ponder the wonderful effects that guns have had on the per capita murder rate here in the US .. a murder rate that is six times higher than that of Great Britian and five times higher than Australia's. And it's interesting to note that the gun-loving state of Texas has a murder rate that is nearly triple that of "godless, gunless" Massachussetts.

I am aware that it is considered hateful to point these truths out, but sometimes you gotta do what you gotta do. The nice thing about Internet anonymity is that it enables people to speak the truth to gun nuts without placing our families in danger of rage-induced retribution.


Reality distortion field now up to 12 (none / 0) (#28)
by Anonymous Reader on Fri Jul 27th, 2001 at 03:49:19 PM PST
your hellish household

When not using them (meaning at a gun range firing at targets), my weapons are kept locked in individual boxes which are then locked in a combination safe. Thanks for making all sorts of assumptions about me.

Your focus is never on stopping the shootings; instead, it is always on shooting first.

When a professional car thief sees your car, he will steal it no matter what precautions you have taken. When someone wants to get a gun and start shooting innocents, he will find a way to make it happen. If someone is going to take things that far, is it not a good idea to be ready for anything?

Try to shoot up the cafeteria, kids! We'll take your head off before you can squeeze out three rounds.

And that claim wouldn't make would-be assassins think twice?

I'm looking for hard government statistics that demonstrate that crime -- gun crime -- has increased

I don't have time to do a full dissertation. After all, I'm a gun owner. I have to go out and kill some people, right? Here's a link or two to munch on.

Australian Institute of Criminology

The Guardian (UK paper)


Must they be locked up? NRA sez no. (none / 0) (#29)
by elenchos on Fri Jul 27th, 2001 at 05:35:20 PM PST
How come when reasonable people wanted to pass a simple, unobtrusive law requiring every gun sold to also include a trigger lock in the sale, the NRA went ape shit? Anyone who believed that guns must be locked up wouln't even notice a law like that. The law didn't even say you had to use your gun lock -- you could leave it in the original packaging and forget it until you went to re-sell the gun if you wanted to. But that was just too much for the gun lobby. They made up scenarios about grandma with her terrible artritis being unable to work the key on her government-mandated trigger lock while a big, hairy rapist smashed in her front door to fuck her with his big, black cock.

This is how gun nuts are. If you decide to defend them and their actions, it is perfectly reasonable to assume that you think like they do, and probably live the same way they do too, Jethro.


I do, I do, I do
--Bikini Kill


Beats me (none / 0) (#31)
by Anonymous Reader on Fri Jul 27th, 2001 at 06:05:10 PM PST
I'm not an NRA member so I don't know why they got in a tizzy about it. You'd have to ask them that. I figure my stuff is fairly secure, so i don't use trigger locks.


Gun locks (none / 0) (#45)
by Chris Gore on Sun Jul 29th, 2001 at 03:30:21 PM PST
I don't use the gun lock that came with my .22, but that is because it is not very well designed. It kept getting caught in the mechanism, and I eventually had to send the rifle in for repair because it had bent a spring and the rifle was jamming on every shot. Rifle cases with locks are a much better idea, but I do not use one of those either since there are no young children in my household to be worried about.


 
Let's knock it down to 10 (none / 0) (#34)
by Anonymous Reader on Fri Jul 27th, 2001 at 09:49:08 PM PST
When not using them (meaning at a gun range firing at targets), my weapons are kept locked in individual boxes which are then locked in a combination safe. Thanks for making all sorts of assumptions about me.

I should not have suggested that your home was in the manner that I described, and I do apologize for that. However, the fact remains that many inferior-class households in the Midwest and South do exhibit this kind of irresponsible parenting, and that is a real problem. I commend you on keeping your guns safely out of your children's hands (if you have any; you didn't say.) However, I am left wondering how your firearms can be used "in a pinch" to defend yourself if you are required to go through such a byzantine and convoluted procedure to even get to them.

This is the biggest problem with the "guns as defense" argument. Unlocked and accessible guns invariably result in dead children, and tightly-locked guns are all but useless in the hypothetical situations where their services could be handy. One comes to the logical conclusion that if they cannot be properly used when properly stored, then they have no useful purpose whatsoever and it would be better to be rid of them altogether.

When someone wants to get a gun and start shooting innocents, he will find a way to make it happen ..

.. unless there are no guns available, in which case he's up S**t Creek. I suppose he could take a baseball bat or a shovel to school, but it's much easier for moral children to escape an insane shovel-wielder than it is to escape an armed lunatic who's spraying the gymnasium with gunfire .. not to mention the fact that it would be a trivial manner for the police to force his surrender.

And that claim wouldn't make would-be assassins think twice?

Maybe I'm being trolled here, but I simply cannot see how repeatedly threatening children with violent death is going to produce an environment that is conducive to learning. "Remember, children," says Mr. Jenkins as he pulls open his coat and points at his holster, "I'm packing!" This type of environment in our schools would be more at home in a Stephen King horror novel than it would be in the ideal environment for education.

Personally, I think the answer to people who want heavily-armed teachers is completely obvious: homeschooling. That way, since they themselves are the teachers, they can arm themselves to the teeth and make whatever threats they feel to be appropriate. If people want to strap grenades across their chest and blow off toes one-by-one every time Billy gets the wrong answer on his multiplication flash cards, then fine. But they should do it to their children, not mine. The day that my children come home with missing toes is the day that some psycho goes to jail.

The biggest problem with this argument is that you seem to think that threats of violence are some sort of deterrent. Well, they're not; my previously cited statistics on the murder rate work just as well to prove that such threats (in this case, the death penalty) are all but useless. When the United States, whose federal and state governments slaughter people in front of live audiences left and right, has a per capita murder rate that is six times that of England, which does not carry out a death penalty, the whole deterrent argument quickly falls apart.

Regarding your links, the first one (the Australian one) actually contradicts your position by admitting that firearm-related deaths have declined since the Aussie gun control legislation was enacted! As for the England article, the gun violence that it speaks of is cyclical and (as the article points out) nearly always related to drug trafficking. Since moral people do not engage in drug transactions, the relevance of this statistic to the general population is tenuous at best.


Do you see (none / 0) (#35)
by Anonymous Reader on Sat Jul 28th, 2001 at 06:55:11 AM PST
Why I said earlier about you're incapable of a rational discussion...

If people want to strap grenades across their chest and blow off toes one-by-one every time Billy gets the wrong answer on his multiplication flash cards, then fine

Here's a copy of our home game and a year's supply of Rice-a-Roni, the San Francisco treat. Thanks for playing. Next.


And one more thing... (none / 0) (#36)
by Anonymous Reader on Sat Jul 28th, 2001 at 06:59:40 AM PST
I'm very glad that you do not want to own a gun. If you think this way (your above statement in italics), then you are the absolute last person I want owning one since you have no idea when it is proper to use it.


 
I read this reply... (none / 0) (#25)
by Anonymous Reader on Fri Jul 27th, 2001 at 01:34:02 PM PST
...and can only imagine the poster screaming at the top of his lungs. Don't think. Besides, we can get a bandage for that knee if you jerk it too hard.


 
gun control (none / 0) (#32)
by Anonymous Reader on Fri Jul 27th, 2001 at 08:10:49 PM PST
You Yanks really do have a wierd attitude towards guns. I live far away in New Zealand and yes we have private ownership of guns. However it is very time consuming, difficult and expensive to get a gun in New Zealand, and when you do you cannot own a pistol, automatic weapon, or even have a magazine that holds more than 15 rounds. When you apply for a licence you must attend a firearms safety course run at a local police station, pass a written exam and then pass a police interview in your home. A family member and another nominated referee will then be interviewed to give their opinions on your suitability of gun ownership and finally if you have proven that you have a real purpose to own a gun you will be given a licence to do so. However the need to own a gun extends only for "game hunting purposes" or membership to a gun club for competitive shooting (like they have in the olympics). When you finally purchase a rifle it nust be stored in a locked cabinet and the bolt and ammunition stored in another locked cabinet (all of which the police inspect). I personally own a rifle for the purpose of deer hunting and i believe the laws relating to gun ownership are not at all onerous. In New Zealand now gun ownership is a highly regulated privilage and guess what, we don't have a problem with gun violence, we respect the potential danger of guns and we don't have half the problems that you folks have in the states.

So the point is that you could clean up gun laws in the US, get rid of automatic weapons pistols etc, and still have controlled gun use for the enthusiast. You constantly talk of the need for guns for personal protection. Well if this is the case then i pity you all then. In New Zealand no citizen needs a military style gun, thats the way it is and that is the way it wil stay.

cheers and have a nice life you poor Americans.



Oh poor us! (none / 0) (#33)
by Anonymous Reader on Fri Jul 27th, 2001 at 09:04:22 PM PST
Yes, we all walk around wearing flak jackets carrying full auto M16s or AK47s followed by a Jeep with a .50 Browning pintle mounted as backup in case we get into heavy fire.

Whatever...


 
i didnt know "Guns and Ammo Mag" was a l (none / 0) (#19)
by Anonymous Reader on Fri Jul 27th, 2001 at 09:37:30 AM PST
The second amendment has been tested many times. It says that citizens of the US should be allowed to have firearms for protection within and without the US.

Sorry, every single decisions ending on appeal upto and including the Supreme Court has ruled against the Standard Theory. This is considered a matter of settled law and the Supreme Court has rejected every 2nd Amendment challenge brought before it since 1936. Not surprisingly, the NRA has never, not once, fought gun control on the basis of Second in court. It simply manipulates public opinion and rewards friendly congressmen. Recent Standard Theory work woven from the clothe of privately funded legal wonks has been thoroughly discredited by Pulitzer Prize winning historian Gary Wills (I dont have a link handy, nor any interest in refuting reality. Deal with it, you I-can-quote-half-of-the-2nd-Amendment morons.)


 
How do you feel about self defense? (none / 0) (#15)
by Art Tatum on Fri Jul 27th, 2001 at 12:11:41 AM PST
Well, how *do* you feel about it? Is there a right to defend one's life? That's *my* only concern with regard to being able to own a gun. (There's hunting, but I don't hunt so it isn't of immediate concern to me.)

Just as an aside, your anonymous status tends to make me think that I'm feeding a troll. Maybe not, but it seems that way.


 
Guns (1.00 / 1) (#16)
by sventhatcher on Fri Jul 27th, 2001 at 02:23:16 AM PST
I begrudgingly admit that this article actually has a really good point.

The gun lobby generally is filled with some very questionable people. Largely fundamentalists or survivalists. There's something unnerving about anyone who collects large quanities of firearms to me. They're the sort that say they'll "go down fighting" if the government were to attempt to take away their right to own a fucking UZI.

Of course, outlawing things in America has never really proven very effective at stopping people from getting and using them and instead has created lots of organized cartels of crime, so let's stick with that 2nd amendmant and keep the Columbians from providing our guns as opposed to legal distributoers even though the gun lobby are some fucked up scary folks. OK?

--Sven (now with bonus weblog vanity site! (MLP sold seperately))

face it, nuts lead all of the lobbies. (5.00 / 1) (#23)
by shren on Fri Jul 27th, 2001 at 12:24:41 PM PST
The kind of person that rises to the head of a political organization is a man or woman of strong opinions. Strong, perhaps radical, maybe antisocial opinions.

For instance, a rather famous enviornmentalist *lived in a tree* for a time period of months or years (don't remember which, or her name). Sounds crazy to me. She climbed a tree and sat there munching granola for days, I guess.

And what about the black block? Deny it all you want, but I know that there are some serious connections between the black hood wearing types and the peaceful protesters. If not, wouldn't they have been exposed by now? I've met people who do both, who serve the same cause by multiple methods. They're often respected for it. Yet they just smash windows and vandalize. Crazy. They're a bunch of loonies.

And the NRA? I'd imagine that most of the people up top are nuts.

But stating that the position that they stand for is invalid just because they do crazy things, like smash windows, live in trees, or stockpile heavy artillery because they like the booming noise it makes, is like some kind of reverse appeal to authority. "Look, your leaders are nuts. Your whole position must be nuts as well!" It's not true. While the greenpeace sabotuers and the tree dwellers might be a little off, there is a valid problem with the enviornment that deserves to be brought to the attention of everyone. While the globalization black block might be doing violent things for no good reason, there is a valid problem with the domination of the world by multinationals.

And, of course, while Heston might be an utter bagbiter, I'd think that the collective desire by most governments of the world to disarm thier populace is also a valid problem. Power emerges from the barrel of a gun. Can you trust a government that wants you powerless? We won't even get into the crime issue, I see other people are bringing up that bit already.


 
So many wrong things it's scary (none / 0) (#20)
by Anonymous Reader on Fri Jul 27th, 2001 at 10:22:51 AM PST
Ok you say the NRA meeting was in Colorado? Nope! East of the Mississippi!!!! The actual annual NRA meeting was held in Charlotte, NC.
You can read more about that meeting here:
http://www.nrahq.org/transcripts/index.asp

(By the way... the place Charleton Heston decides to talk to the NRA has nothing to do with my right to own a firearm, nor my responsibility and safety in doing so.)

That is just the first of the many lies, half truths and moronic statements you've made. I think your "article" is more aptly titled "The Terrible Things I'm About to Say About Law Abiding Citizens".

I wonder where you're getting all your facts. I know that FBI statistics show that law-abiding gun owners with permits have the lowest rates of crime (any crime... that includes both violent and non-violent) of any group in the country. Law abiding citizens do not brandish their weapons in public places (re: your bible bashing statement) because that is a crime. Criminals aren't legally permitted to own or possess guns, so those 18 year old punks who may pull out a gun in public are not the types of folks we're defending here.

Statistics show that in countries where private citizens are stripped of firearms, gun crime ... well ALL crime... goes up dramatically. Look at the United Kingdom (Great Britain, England, etc). They stripped guns out of everyone's homes and their crime hasn't gone down... it's gone up! An unarmed citizen is a victim waiting to happen.

According to FBI statistics (see how i give a SOURCE for my statements? That's what makes them verifiable facts!) Maryland has one of the highest crime rates of any state in the nation. Coincidentally, they have the strictest provisions on private ownership of firearms. Vermont and New Hampshire have the most lenient of gun laws... and surprise surprise they have the lowest crime rates in the nation.

How would i protect the public from crime? I'd lessen gun laws, and start running the country with a bit more common sense.

That's not just my opinion, or a rant, it's the TRUTH. Look it up.

Toni Marie


His argument skills... (5.00 / 1) (#22)
by Anonymous Reader on Fri Jul 27th, 2001 at 11:36:05 AM PST
...are from the Calvin & Hobbes school of debating:

If you can't win by reason, go for volume.


 
Hmmmm.... (none / 0) (#54)
by Anonymous Reader on Mon Jul 30th, 2001 at 04:05:35 AM PST
. I know that FBI statistics show that law-abiding gun owners with permits have the lowest rates of crime (any crime... that includes both violent and non-violent) of any group in the country.

What a surprise. People who are law-abiding tend to commit far fewer crimes.


Uhhhh... (none / 0) (#58)
by Anonymous Reader on Tue Jul 31st, 2001 at 02:24:38 AM PST
I believe the point being made by that statement was that the *gun ownership* was lawful. The content of the original article is a hodge-podge of incorrect generalizations made about gun ownership and gun owners. To dispute this, we test the assumptions of the article against the facts the FBI provides us: that the vast majority of guns are legally owned, and that registered gun owners are particularly law-abiding. This alone discredits at least half of the article.


 
Solution to the gun problem (none / 0) (#26)
by Anonymous Reader on Fri Jul 27th, 2001 at 02:10:03 PM PST
If we amend the constitution to make gun ownwership a capital offense, will the NRA commit mass suicide to protect us from the criminals?


 
Usian Supreme court and Amendments. (none / 0) (#37)
by Anonymous Reader on Sat Jul 28th, 2001 at 10:44:44 PM PST
Furthermore, because the amendment process is so convoluted and drawn out, all that we really need is a majority opinion from the United States Supreme Court. The Second Amendment, much like the GPL, has never had its validity fully-tested in the judicial system.

Sadly this shows an utter lack of understanding of the usian constitution.

The Usian supreme court does NOT have the authority to set aside amendments to the constitution or to rewrite the constitution. (Although they can sometimes play fast and loose with other laws)

It can only be changed directly by the described proceedure, or by overthrow of the government.

The idea of that constitution is that is is fundamental to all other law. including the attempts of people to put in a quick fix. Changes have to be with the sustained consent of the people over a long time.

Yes, Amendments are part of the constitution, and are completely part of it, and do not have lesser status because they are "only" amendments, despite some folks confusion to the contrary.


 
I just don't get it (none / 0) (#38)
by Anonymous Reader on Sun Jul 29th, 2001 at 12:02:01 AM PST
I've never understood why anyone would want to take guns away from people. I'm relatively certain that I'm talking to a brick wall when I post this, but I'm going to go ahead and do so anyway in hope that someone somewhere might read it and experience what is sometimes known as a paradigm shift.

It was Mao who said that political power comes from the barrel of a gun. He was a communist dictator, but who better than a dictator to understand the nature and source of power. The reason for the second amendment is to preserve freedom. The second amendment puts power directly into the hands of the people, where it belongs. In the 18th century your average rifle was a military grade munition. An army might have cannon and calvary, but a group of people with nothing more than some guns and ammo could put up a significant fight even against well armed professional soldiers. The American revolution proved that.
The desire of some to disarm us and do away with the second amendment does not exist in a vacuum, but is part of a much greater problem. That problem is how we define our nation and its government. This country was founded upon the principle that our govnernment derives its authority from our consent to be governed by it, and that it is we as citizens who have the ultimate authority. The mindset was that people had rights independent of the government that were inherent to being human. Something has changed though. Today the mindset is such that many people see the government as the ultimate authority and see rights as a kind of indlugence by the government. Whereas I see the bill of rights as a declaration and acknowledgement of pre-existing rights, they see it as a list of rights that only exist because the government gives them to us. The real question here is, are you as an individual person sovereign unto yourself, or are you the subject of the state the way someone living in medieval times might be a subject of their king? Are you the possession of the government? Is the state responsible for you, or are you responsible for yourself?

Those who believe in individual rights and individual responsibility rarely have a problem with individuals having the power to defend their freedom. This is what a gun is. George Washington described the second amendment as "The people's liberty's teeth." He understood that the ability of people to defend themselves from tyrrany was the best defense against tyrrany. Our system of government was designed to prevent tyrrany, but I think we all know that it hasn't always worked. Guns are what keep this country safe from so many would-be eroders of our natural rights. Now some might argue that the way to defend our rights is at a ballot box. In a perfect world where everyone was honest that would be true, unfortunately things just aren't like that. Josef Stalin once said that those who cast the votes have no power compared to those who count them. The last presidential election should prove that to anyone, regardless of your partisanship. Lets not forget also that Adolf Hitler was democratically elected. Tyrrany can just as easily come in through the front door as it can sneak in through the back window.

The reason I'm a member of the NRA is the same reason I'm a member of the ACLU, both organizations work tirelessly to protect our rights. Charleton Heston is a member of the ACLU also.

Blaming guns for social problems such as school shootings, makes about as much sense as blaming movies or video games for school killings. There are approximately 90 million firearms in private possession in this country. If they were such a problem then the streets would be red with blood by now. Guns are not a problem, making them illegal cannot solve a problem that does not exist. I don't know about you, but I don't think I'd feel better about people being stabbed to death in school, or beaten to death with baseball bats. For guns to be of special concern in this issue they would have to have some kind of mystical power to make people want to kill, which they don't. Lets not forget all the bombs that those guys planted in Columbine. The bombs didn't go off, thank God, but just how would making guns illegal prevent those bombs from being made?

I really do think sometimes that the gun elimination crazies are made up of people who are unfortunate enough to be blessed with a good heart, but cursed with a profound lack of common sense. I also think that many of them are quite simply running a left wing program hatched as far back as the 1930's or before. Gun control and political correctness are only separate issues above the water line. Below the surface they are both part of a larger agenda.

It is quite true that the only way you'll take my gun away is to pry it from my cold dead fingers. It is also true that anyone who comes to try and take my gun will be shot. You may kill me in the end, but I'll take five or six of your cohorts with me.


You know .. (none / 0) (#39)
by Anonymous Reader on Sun Jul 29th, 2001 at 09:47:10 AM PST
You had actually written a quite reasonable (if not loftily-long-winded) reply, but unfortunately you ended up ruining it with this:

You may kill me in the end, but I'll take five or six of your cohorts with me.

Has it ever occurred to you that the reason that gun owners are so universally despised is that they are unable to argue their case without resorting to death threats?

By the way, I don't recall ever seeing an incident on the news involving seventeen children beaten to death with a baseball bat or stabbed to death with a pocketknife. It is a trivial manner to run away from some crazy kid brandishing a baseball bat. It is not at all trivial for moral, well-adjusted children to defend themselves from a badly-parented child with a gun. The very nature of guns dictates that they deliver lethal force in a way that the intended target is completely unable to defend itself. (Of course, this is the way that Colt and Browning and their ilk want it.)


Riddle me this (none / 0) (#40)
by Anonymous Reader on Sun Jul 29th, 2001 at 02:06:16 PM PST
It is a trivial manner to run away from some crazy kid brandishing a baseball bat

What if the crazy kid runs faster than you?

It is not at all trivial for moral, well-adjusted children to defend themselves from a badly-parented child with a gun.

Of course it isn't trivial, it's a serious situation. Take my previous response. Someone attacks you with a bat who's faster and physically stronger than you. What do you do? Resign to your fate in the intensive care ward for several months or maybe six feet below the ground? Sorry, but I don't like those answers. If some jerk wants to hurt me, he'd better expect retaliation of the worst kind.

BTW, I've never seen a anti-gun nut answer that question. If I'm attacked by someone bigger and faster than me, do I let them pound me into mush all to protect their precious morals because they wouldn't let me use a gun?


Answer (none / 0) (#41)
by Anonymous Reader on Sun Jul 29th, 2001 at 02:21:03 PM PST
BTW, I've never seen a anti-gun nut answer that question. If I'm attacked by someone bigger and faster than me, do I let them pound me into mush all to protect their precious morals because they wouldn't let me use a gun?

Yes. A beating is nothing. Much better for someone innocent to be beaten than for a criminal to be shot to death.


I hope I read that right (none / 0) (#42)
by Anonymous Reader on Sun Jul 29th, 2001 at 02:27:02 PM PST
someone innocent to be beaten

This is a literary device called sarcasm, right?


 
Whoa (none / 0) (#47)
by Anonymous Reader on Sun Jul 29th, 2001 at 06:03:19 PM PST
What if the crazy kid runs faster than you?

Huh? Now what in the good God damn is this? We're talking about school shootings here. Are you seriously suggesting that slow children should be able to arm themselves before they go to school? You're even crazier than the guy below who says that the teachers should be armed. I could be mistaken, but I always thought that the "guns for self-defense" crowd was talking about adults, and never took the position that all schoolchildren should be armed. Maybe I was wrong? Given some of the replies to this article I guess it wouldn't surprise me.

This aside, I ask again: If we lived in a moral country where children had no access to guns, do you really think we'd see headlines about seventeen children killed in a "mass batting" by a couple of loners? Nobody is suggesting that bats or hammers or knives can't be used to inflict harm. But to try to equate the level of harm from a gun with the level of harm from a bat is classic example of Gun Thinking 101.

BTW, I've never seen a anti-gun nut answer that question. If I'm attacked by someone bigger and faster than me, do I let them pound me into mush all to protect their precious morals because they wouldn't let me use a gun?

Somebody who would attack a smaller and weaker person has no "precious morals" to speak of. I would say this: if the gun enthusiasts were to spend all of the time they spend at NRA conventions and gun shows and the practice ranges at a gym or a public health club instead, they wouldn't have to worry about being smaller and weaker. But as it stands, I have little sympathy for people with no self-control who let their mouths get themselves into situations that their bodies find it hard to get out of.


No genius (none / 0) (#48)
by Anonymous Reader on Sun Jul 29th, 2001 at 06:56:51 PM PST
"Their" precious morals refers to anti-gun nuts


 
You didn't answer the question (none / 0) (#49)
by Anonymous Reader on Sun Jul 29th, 2001 at 07:00:45 PM PST
Me vs. attacker. Attacker much more physically powerful. In hand to hand, I'd have no chance. But to keep your conscience clear, I'm not allowed to have a gun. Doesn't seem to good for me, does it.

Thankfully, people like you don't get to make laws.


Yes, I did (none / 0) (#50)
by Anonymous Reader on Sun Jul 29th, 2001 at 07:14:04 PM PST
Me vs. attacker. Attacker much more physically powerful. In hand to hand, I'd have no chance.

I answered this very clearly and succinctly. We all have the ability to better ourselves physically. There is no excuse for a moral, law-abiding citizen to be physically inferior to anybody that he or she considers to be an adversary. In simpler terms: if you're going to pick fights, pick them wisely. Otherwise, I believe that my exact words were "I have no sympathy" .. meaning yes, if you're outmatched, then the result will be as it may be.

At any rate, I reiterate my claim that the vast amount of time that gun owners spend in dark closets polishing their AR-15 and dipping their bullets in poison would be far better spent lifting weights or running or getting some sort of physical exercise so that if the day ever comes that they have to defend themselves like a real man, they'll be able to. I'm almost ashamed to be an American when I look at the state of our population; we are turning into a herd of fat, slobbering, violent cretins. The world is laughing at us, and we have the unmitigated gall to think it's because they're "jealous."

To conclude, I have to say that your call to arm America's schoolchildren is among the most odious things I have ever read here. There are laws against children bringing guns to school. I know that the NRA and its members consider these laws hateful and want to see them overturned, but for your sake and the sake of your children (if you have any) I sincerely hope that you don't get your wish. Guns are dangerous enough when they are left laying around the house. By issuing them to every child and turning playgrounds across America into war zones, we'll have succeeded in killing off our most precious natural resource.


You answered, but the wrong question (none / 0) (#51)
by Anonymous Reader on Sun Jul 29th, 2001 at 07:25:05 PM PST
I answered this very clearly and succinctly. We all have the ability to better ourselves physically. There is no excuse for a moral, law-abiding citizen to be physically inferior to anybody that he or she considers to be an adversary. In simpler terms: if you're going to pick fights, pick them wisely. Otherwise, I believe that my exact words were "I have no sympathy" .. meaning yes, if you're outmatched, then the result will be as it may be.

Did I say I was picking fights? Sometimes people will cause trouble over nothing. That's the situation I'm talking about.

would be far better spent lifting weights or running or getting some sort of physical exercise so that if the day ever comes that they have to defend themselves like a real man, they'll be able to.

Sorry, I and about 99.9% of the population can't spend enough time in the gym to become a pro boxer or weightlifter, which is the state of fitness you'd need to be ready for any situation. You'll have to be a bit more practical here. Oh, and if you hate this place so much, you could always leave. Probably raise the property values on your street.

vast amount of time that gun owners spend in dark closets polishing their AR-15 and dipping their bullets in poison

Oh, man. You have serious mental deficiencies. Please see a doctor. Now.

There are laws against children bringing guns to school. I know that the NRA and its members consider these laws hateful and want to see them overturned.

Please point us to a page stating the NRA wants these laws overturned.


Which question didn't I answer? (none / 0) (#53)
by Anonymous Reader on Sun Jul 29th, 2001 at 09:39:01 PM PST
Did I say I was picking fights? Sometimes people will cause trouble over nothing. That's the situation I'm talking about.

Trouble is never caused over "nothing." There is always some cause that problematic situations can be attributed to. The vast majority of hypothetical "muggings" that gun nuts claim to be frightened of could be avoided by staying in the right neighborhoods and avoiding seedy areas after dark. This is the sort of common sense that they used to teach children in grammar school. Perhaps gun owners have gotten it thrown out of the curriculum along with evolution? After all, common sense does not lend itself very well to many gun-defending arguments; it only makes sense that they would want to teach as little of it as possible.

Oh, and if you hate this place so much, you could always leave. Probably raise the property values on your street.

Yep, see, there you go again. Why is it that gun nuts spend half of their time ordering moral people to leave this country and the other half threatening to murder them (as you did to me in your top-level post?) Well, I'm not leaving. As the saying goes, evil is allowed to flourish when good men stand back and do nothing. I have nothing to fear from cowards who are unable to defend themselves and instead must hide behind the barrel of a gun. I do appreciate the insult about the property values, though I must tell that where I live, the presence of a normal family is vastly preferred to a household where assault rifles litter the living room and half a dozen broken-down cars are up on blocks in the yard. But that is as it may be. I have refrained from being insulting thus far, and I had hoped that you would extend the same courtesy.

Please point us to a page stating the NRA wants these laws overturned.

The NRA wants all gun laws overturned. You know it, and I know it. They have a public face that they put on, but at the end of the day, their true agenda is the unlimited proliferation of as many guns as possible to as many people as possible. Heck, they even almost got a law passed in Vermont that would require people who did not own a gun to pay a yearly fine. You have yet to defend your position that all schoolchildren should be armed. I claim that this will precipitate a new era of violence in our schools and is in violation of the law. What part of this do you find objectionable?


Doesn't matter which you answer (none / 0) (#55)
by Anonymous Reader on Mon Jul 30th, 2001 at 05:18:28 AM PST
As you make up both the questions and answers as you go along.

Yep, see, there you go again. Why is it that gun nuts spend half of their time ordering moral people to leave this country and the other half threatening to murder them

You're the one proclaiming to hate this country so much. Move to Canada. It's like America but colder and has nice Draconian gun laws. You even get free health care out of it.

(as you did to me in your top-level post?)

Huh? What are you smoking? Maybe you should be posting in this thread?

The NRA wants all gun laws overturned

Knee jerk reaction: NRA=no gun laws. You need a bit more education.

You have yet to defend your position that all schoolchildren should be armed.

What?! You're too funny. Stop putting words in my mouth. Never said that. Try again.


 
The reason you don't see... (none / 0) (#44)
by suick on Sun Jul 29th, 2001 at 03:25:27 PM PST
...those news reports: Given the choice between terrorizing seventeen children with a gun or terrorizing seventeen children with a shovel, which would you choose? Outlaw guns, and I guarantee a rise in shovel/child related assault. Outlaw shovels and I guarantee a rise in hammer/child related assault. As with everything else in life, people are essentially lazy--it's all about which tool will get the job done the fastest and most efficiently.

Incidentally, I've found a newfound respect for serial killers who avoid the use of guns--not only do they take the time to get the job done right, they really take pride in their work (as evidenced by the average sewing/skinning/shoveling abilities displayed by the more prominent serial killers). Show me a man who has 14 bodies hacked up and resewn in his basement, and I'll show you a man who I'd be proud to have manage my business.

c'mon, lower.

 
This article is extremely inaccurate. (none / 0) (#43)
by Chris Gore on Sun Jul 29th, 2001 at 03:01:48 PM PST
I am a gun owner, and feel that I make a perfect counter-example.

Gun owners are dangerously religious.

I am an athiest.

Alcoholism among gun owners occurs at disproportionately high rates.

While I do drink occasionaly, I am most definitely not an alcoholic.

The link between gun owners and far-right militias is both undeniable and scary.

I am not a member of any militia. I am not a short, fat, balding redneck. I am a white male. I do have friends who are not white males. The writer has confused cause and effect. If you were to start a militia, you would naturally want weapons, otherwise you are just a bunch of whiny people running around in the woods dressed in camoflage. Owning a gun does not lead to militia-membership.

The National Rifle Association (NRA) is the flagship organization of the gun crazies.

This may be true. I am not a member of the NRA, and do not plan to ever be. I do not feel that the NRA represents the average gun owner, and most gun owners are not members of the NRA.

With regards to assault rifles, they have a sole purpose: to kill people.

How long did it take for you to figure that one out? I do not own a gun to hunt, I have not hunted since I was 10. If I want meat, I go to the supermarket, not the woods. I own a gun primarily for self-defense. Assault rifles are short-range rapid-fire weapons which are ideal for use with multiple assailants. They do not posess the accuracy for hunting, because they were not designed for that purpose.

The fact of the matter is that the United States Constitution is not written in stone, and those who claim that it is are conveniently forgetting the fact that the Founding Fathers, in their wisdom, gave us a process by which it can be amended.

Yes, they did, and that process was used to enact the second amendment.

The Second Amendment, much like the GPL, has never had its validity fully-tested in the judicial system. When that day comes, I am confident that it and the imagined "rights" that it affords will be exposed as the murderous shams that they are.

I like the GPL, too.

The gun crazies will fight us tooth and nail, but we will fight back, and we will win.

If I were to bet on a fight, I would choose the side that is better armed.


I'm really sorry (none / 0) (#46)
by Anonymous Reader on Sun Jul 29th, 2001 at 03:34:47 PM PST
Look I'm really really sorry please put the gun away please don't hurt me, yes you are right guns are for self defence and they're good look man I didn't mean it, just don't fucking kill me, please?

Look I'm sorry!


 
Not to be a spelling N*zi, but .. (none / 0) (#52)
by Anonymous Reader on Sun Jul 29th, 2001 at 07:28:35 PM PST
.. it's spelled "atheist", not "athiest."

The whole idea of atheism is bad enough as it is, people should not be mispelling it.


 
Anecdonte is not fact (none / 0) (#63)
by Anonymous Reader on Wed Aug 1st, 2001 at 06:04:01 AM PST
the plural of "anecdote" is not "fact." That you are an exception proves nothing about the overall trend.


 
totally ridiculous (none / 0) (#56)
by Grax on Mon Jul 30th, 2001 at 08:57:53 AM PST
It seems absolutely insane to suggest that firearm safety education is an evil to be avoided at all costs. So many of the stories depicted as "sad story of another life taken by a gun" are stories of uneducated children over at a friend's house.

There is no way that we will ever get to a state where there are no guns anywhere. Even if the freedoms guaranteed by our forefathers are revoked there will always be someone authorized. A police officer or military man. And there will always be crimininals with illegal weapons.

Your children need to know what to do when they encounter a gun. If they're on the wrong side of it should they kick it out of the criminal's hand? If they're holding it should they point it at their friend's head and say the latest line from their favorite movie?

You point to Columbine as if it is the only way that children die from gun violence and gloss over these other preventable "accidents" that could have been prevented with a little education.

To suggest that children do not need to know how to behave safely around firearms is to put the children's lives in danger.

While we're discussing things that make no sense, you characterize the average gun owner as a "slobbering fundamentalist alcoholic" and site a study showing higher alcohol use among collegiate gun owners. In case you haven't, the college years a known as a time of higher alcohol use across the board. To point to a collegiate study as proof that all gun owners imbibe more alcohol is an irresponsible stretching of the truth shown in the study.

Also, most fundamentalists believe they will go to hell if they break the commandment "thou shalt not kill". And claiming that fundamentalists Christians are in favor of murdering young children is ludicrous and an obvious attempt to exploit the emotions of the reader without respect to the facts.

In conclusion, whether you believe guns are the ultimate evil or a tool to keep society balanced so that we do not become easily controlled sheep, you have a responsibility to your children to see that they are properly prepared for a possible gun encounter.



 
The basis of the Second Amendment (none / 0) (#59)
by lowapproach on Tue Jul 31st, 2001 at 03:50:39 AM PST
When written, the Second Amendment had one true purpose - to guarantee that individual citizens would forever have the right to buy, own and use firearms within a well-regulated militia. It had no intention of offering individuals protection against other individuals (although they likely would have assumed as much), so much as offering entire communities the means to resist if the force of law alone did not protect them.

If someone really wants to kill you, they likely can choose a time and place where you cannot do anything about it - armed or not. How they try to kill you is irrelevant.

However, governments can cause much more death and suffering than individuals can, and in this century they have. One of the reasons that the German and Soviet holocausts against their own citizens worked out so completely in the favor of the government is that the Jews and Russian rural peasantry had neither access nor right to guns, even a limited one. I don't know how many were killed by guns in crimes over the last five years, but I feel certain it will not equal six million Jews gassed during World War II, nor an estimated twenty million killed by Stalin to force collectivization on his farmers.

I will concede that a problem of law might exist - the right ones not being on the books, or not being enforced if they are. I am not in favor of giving up the Second Amendment, because of media-generated hysteria. [p.s. I do not own a gun, and only fire one yearly for qualification purposes.]


Basis for law (1.00 / 1) (#60)
by SpaceGhoti on Tue Jul 31st, 2001 at 09:48:03 AM PST
I don't think I completely agree with this interpretation. While I believe it has a fair amount of validity to it, it misses an important detail. The United States Constitution was written after a particularly nasty little revolutionary war in which a group of colonists felt they were being treated unfairly with no representation within their parent government. They also felt that this was further aggravated by the fact that government troops were being housed in private homes at the citizens' expense, and the fact that they were largely prohibited from keeping guns that might be used to defend themselves.

Put all that together, and when writing the law of the land, you include a small detail about preserving the right of citizens to own and maintain their own weapons so they can never be treated that way again. Yes, that's right: the Second Amendment of the Constitution of the United States was written to ensure that no government could ever impose tyrannical rule over its citizens with impunity. Also consider that at the time, the practice of dueling was legal and socially acceptable; restricting the right to carry weapons for self-defense was unthinkable for the Framers.

Beyond that I have no complaints with your statements. But I don't think you quite grasped the full impact of the Second Amendment.


A troll's true colors.

 
errata (5.00 / 1) (#61)
by jsm on Wed Aug 1st, 2001 at 01:31:10 AM PST
I don't know how many were killed by guns in crimes over the last five years, but I feel certain it will not equal six million Jews gassed during World War II

Nobody, or at least no reputable scholar wihtout an axe to grind, puts the number of Jews who were gassed in the Second World War at more than three million. There's no need to exaggerate.

And Russian peasants did in fact have access to firearms, as contemporary literature makes clear.

... the worst tempered and least consistent of the adequacy.org editors
... now also Legal department and general counsel, adequacy.org

Points taken (none / 0) (#62)
by lowapproach on Wed Aug 1st, 2001 at 03:10:40 AM PST
It probably would have been better to state that the Russian peasantry had a limited access to firearms (admittedly due to economics and issues of production as much as laws concerning private ownership), and I seem to remember six million from a class that I had on Eastern Europe during the Second World War. However, I obviously didn't edit for content, so thanks for waving the bullshit flag as necessary.


lest this remain as inaccurate (5.00 / 1) (#64)
by jsm on Wed Aug 1st, 2001 at 06:39:54 AM PST
I was hoping for an argument here, but didn't get one so I'll put up for the record that six million Jews were killed in the Second World War, of who about half died in concentration camps. Of that fraction, possibly two thirds were gassed.

... the worst tempered and least consistent of the adequacy.org editors
... now also Legal department and general counsel, adequacy.org

 
ha ha (none / 0) (#65)
by Anonymous Reader on Mon Sep 17th, 2001 at 11:14:54 AM PST
This article is so stupid it's funny. I mean, I actually laughed.


 
hey anonymous (none / 0) (#66)
by Anonymous Reader on Sun Dec 23rd, 2001 at 07:47:00 PM PST
It's you commie bastards that will cause this nation to collapse. Here is a scenario:It's 3:00am...u wake up because you hear something...you roll over to see a knife wielding man over your wife or girlfriend....or in your case male friend, anonymous moron. now...if you a pacifist u just pray to god he doesn't kill your loved one. and chances are he will. now...if you are like me, you will reach with lightning speed for your Beretta 9mm. And either try to make him stand back or put a hole in his head. I want you to answer this. And you DO realize that terrorists wear Kevlar too right? So why aren't they just called armor piercing on TV? BEcause jackasses like you want to promote a bad image of gun owners. So remember fellow gun owners....keep and protect your right to keep and bear arms...if so even with the firearm that law is supposed to be protected

Never with an empty mag,
Burt


 

All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective companies. Comments are owned by the Poster. The Rest ® 2001, 2002, 2003 Adequacy.org. The Adequacy.org name, logo, symbol, and taglines "News for Grown-Ups", "Most Controversial Site on the Internet", "Linux Zealot", and "He just loves Open Source Software", and the RGB color value: D7D7D7 are trademarks of Adequacy.org. No part of this site may be republished or reproduced in whatever form without prior written permission by Adequacy.org and, if and when applicable, prior written permission by the contributing author(s), artist(s), or user(s). Any inquiries are directed to legal@adequacy.org.