40 Reasons to Support Gun Control

5.56X45mm

Milforum Mac Daddy
40 Reasons to Support Gun Control
Banning guns works, which is why New York, DC, and Chicago cops need guns.
Washington DC's low murder rate of 69 per 100,000 is due to strict gun control, and Indianapolis' high murder rate of 9 per 100,000 is due to the lack of gun control.
Statistics showing high murder rates justify gun control but statistics showing increasing murder rates after gun control are "just statistics."
The Brady Bill and the Assault Weapons Ban, both of which went into effect in 1994, are responsible for the decrease in violent crime rates, which have been declining since 1991.
We must get rid of guns because a deranged lunatic may go on a shooting spree at any time and anyone who would own a gun out of fear of such a lunatic is paranoid.
The more helpless you are the safer you are from criminals.
An intruder will be incapacitated by tear gas or oven spray, but if shot with a .357 Magnum will get angry and kill you.
A woman raped and strangled is morally superior to a woman with a smoking gun and a dead rapist at her feet.
When confronted by violent criminals, you should "put up no defense --give them what they want, or run" (Handgun Control Inc. Chairman Pete Shields, Guns Don't Die - People Do, 1981, p. 125).
The New England Journal of Medicine is filled with expert advice about guns; just like Guns and Ammo has some excellent treatises on heart surgery.
One should consult an automotive engineer for safer seatbelts, a civil engineer for a better bridge, a surgeon for spinal paralysis, a computer programmer for Y2K problems, and Sarah Brady [or Sheena Duncan, Adele Kirsten, Peter Storey, etc.] for firearms expertise.
The 2nd Amendment, ratified in 1787, refers to the National Guard, which was created by an act of Congress in 1917.
The National Guard, funded by the federal government, occupying property leased to the federal government, using weapons owned by the federal government, punishing trespassers under federal law, is a state militia.
These phrases," right of the people peaceably to assemble," "right of the people to be secure in their homes," "enumeration's herein of certain rights shall not be construed to disparage others retained by the people," and "The powers not delegated herein are reserved to the states respectively, and to the people," all refer to individuals, but "the right of the people to keep and bear arms" refers to the state.
We don't need guns against an oppressive government, because the Constitution has internal safeguards, but we should ban and seize all guns, thereby violating the 2nd, 4th, and 5th amendments to that Constitution.
Rifles and handguns aren't necessary to national defense, which is why the army has millions of them.
Private citizens shouldn't have handguns, because they serve no military purpose, and private citizens shouldn't have "assault rifles," because they are military weapons.
The ready availability of guns today, with waiting periods, background checks, fingerprinting, government forms, etc., is responsible for recent school shootings,compared to the lack of school shootings in the 40's, 50's and 60's, which resulted from the availability of guns at hardware stores, surplus stores, gas stations, variety stores, mail order, etc., etc.
The NRA's attempt to run a "don't touch" campaign about kids handling guns is propaganda, and the anti-gun lobby's attempt to run a "don't touch" campaign is responsible social activity.
Guns are so complex that special training is necessary to use them properly, and so simple to use that they make murder easy.
A handgun, with up to 4 controls, is far too complex for the typical adult to learn to use, as opposed to an automobile that only has 20.
Women are just as intelligent and capable as men but a woman with a gun is "an accident waiting to happen" and gun makers' advertisements aimed at women are "preying on their fears."
Ordinary people in the presence of guns turn into slaughtering butchers but revert to normal when the weapon is removed.
Guns cause violence, which is why there are so many mass killings at gun shows.
A majority of the population supports gun control, just like a majority of the population supported owning slaves.
A self-loading small arm can legitimately be considered to be a "weapon of mass destruction" or an "assault weapon."
Most people can't be trusted, so we should have laws against guns, which most people will abide by because they can be trusted.
The right of online pornographers to exist cannot be questioned because it is constitutionally protected by the Bill of Rights, but the use of handguns for self defense is not really protected by the Bill of Rights.
Free speech entitles one to own newspapers, transmitters, computers, and typewriters, but self-defense only justifies bare hands.
The ACLU is good because it uncompromisingly defends certain parts of the Constitution, and the NRA is bad, because it defends other parts of the Constitution.
Charlton Heston as president of the NRA is a shill who should be ignored, but Michael Douglas as a representative of Handgun Control, Inc. is an ambassador for peace who is entitled to an audience at the UN arms control summit.
Police operate with backup within groups, which is why they need larger capacity pistol magazines than do "civilians" who must face criminals alone and therefore need less ammunition.
We should ban "Saturday Night Specials" and other inexpensive guns because it's not fair that poor people have access to guns too.
Police officers, who qualify with their duty weapons once or twice a year, have some special Jedi-like mastery over handguns that private citizens can never hope to obtain.
Private citizens don't need a gun for self-protection because the police are there to protect them even though the Supreme Court says the police are not responsible for their protection.
Citizens don't need to carry a gun for personal protection but police chiefs, who are desk-bound administrators who work in a building filled with cops, need a gun.
"Assault weapons" have no purpose other than to kill large numbers of people, which is why the police need them but "civilians" do not.
When Microsoft pressures its distributors to give Microsoft preferential promotion, that's bad; but when the Federal government pressures cities to buy guns only from Smith & Wesson, that's good.
Trigger locks do not interfere with the ability to use a gun for defensive purposes, which is why you see police officers with one on their duty weapon.
When Handgun Control, Inc., says they want to "keep guns out of the wrong hands," they don't mean you.


The desire to own a gun for self-defense is a sign of a psychopathic problem and therefore that is the type of person we should keep guns from, whereas a person who has no desire to own a gun is mature and therefore should be allowed to own a gun unless he develops the psychopathic problems that cause him to desire a gun for use in self-defense and then he shouldn't be allowed to own a gun. Gotta love the circular logic.
 
"Assault weapons" have no purpose other than to kill large numbers of people, which is why the police need them but "civilians" do not.

amen to that, but don't you own an assault rifle?
 
Well one could write a thesis on your post 5.56, but it won't be me this time.
But tell me this; do you think less people would die by the gun if there circulated less guns in society?
 
I don't know, there are nearly the same amount of guns in Canada as there are in the US and only about 1/4 of the murders...go figure...
 
USMC

Yes but lets be accurate, guns are used in murder more than than anything else. Meat Forks, knifes, bats, etc surve a purpose other than killing, guns do not.

Not that a favor banning them, I used to be pro gun control, but I have since changed my mind. I think guns should be kept legal but with with a few restrictions. For example allowing people to carry guns into bars strikes me as a really bad idea.
 
For example allowing people to carry guns into bars strikes me as a really bad idea.


Hmmm good point :p , I got into an argument some of my more rural freinds at school over my view that you should have to have a high school diploma with GPA over 2.0 to own a firearm.
 
Over history the power of the individual has increased with technological advances. This will continue; more power will be available and that power will be able to be wielded by a smaller number of people. It is inevitable that, one day, the power to destroy everything will be available to the single individual.

This should be the nut of the “gun debate.” How much power should an individual be able to wield, who decides, and how is it enforced, are the questions that should be debated.

Philosophically I think that everyone in good standing (the default state, unless and until an action shows you’re not in good standing), should have access to guns. In a nation based on the individual, power on such a low level belongs in the hands of the individual.

Make no mistake – current firearm technology is a very low level of power. Yes, even “machine guns.” Current events should (but don’t, if public debate is any indication), clearly point this up; someone who wants to wreak large scale havoc doesn’t rely on firearms as their main weapon.

And as things that go boom (or hiss, or make no noise at all as they distribute their payload) get smaller and easier to manufacture the issue will become both more clear and more urgent. The time is now to have the bigger debate about individual power. Focusing on guns, while I do it myself politically because there are so may out there who think that the individual shouldn’t even have that small amount of power, actually does a disservice to us all by keeping us from looking at the real issue.
 
Perhaps we could make safer guns by drilling several holes in the barrel at least 1.5 times the diameter of the bore and a couple more in the chamber to help powder gasses escape faster. This would help to reduce recoil so there would be a higher degree of accuracy.
 
Perhaps we could make safer guns by drilling several holes in the barrel at least 1.5 times the diameter of the bore and a couple more in the chamber to help powder gasses escape faster. This would help to reduce recoil so there would be a higher degree of accuracy.

All I can say is, thank God you are not a firearm designer. You really don't know what you are talking about.
 
I have no use for people that truly feel that guns should be totally illegal to law abiding citizens, and believe the civilian population would be better off without guns. Where is the common sense?

You cannot reason with people that feel this way. It is impossible. It's like they are in their own special bubble of cotton candy and gumdrops where no one does anything wrong and bad people would never own guns because it would be illegal. And we all know bad people follow the laws. Right.

(I will admit to being in a cotton candy and gumdrop world and wishing and assuming everyone does everything moral and good, but in my cotton candy and gumdrop world I also own a gun - just in case.)

I feel much how mmarsh does though, I believe there should be strict regulations. (And some changes to some of the strict regulations currently in place). I do think that some of the CCW classes need to be a little more intense. One 6hr class for a guy carrying a pistol makes me a little nervous. Is this person responsible? What is his driving record like? What is this man's temper level? Did he pay attention at a important point or was he checking his text messages? 6hr to carry a loaded pistol in society makes me nervous and I am not afraid to admit that here.
 
One simple helpfull tool would be, have you ever been admitted to a mental ward are you on narcotic drugs of any kind (prescription) simple checks into mental health. You dont have to commit crimes to be ****ing crazy. We had a lady come in the shop waiting room the other day pullout two guns and just show them to random customers she was obviously unstable. The NRA thinks that this women should own guns? I am all for guns i love them but some of the laws are so lax it's unreal.
 
I am all for guns i love them but some of the laws are so lax it's unreal.

No government can legislate for criminals or nut cases. If guns are banned the ban only affects the law abiding, criminals ignore laws anyway.

Remember the Hungerford incident where Michael Ryan went bonkers with a Norinco AK47 semi auto? I wont go into the incident chapter and verse, BUT where the 1968 firearms act failed wasn't due to the act itself, but poor enforcement of the act by the local police. Michael Ryan was known to have metal health problems and he had been thrown out of local gun clubs (who advised the police he had been thrown out, club membership was a condition of his licence), the police should have stepped in and confiscated his firearms, they didn't! Even after armed police had secured the area it was a complete and total farce, one so called police marksman said he had Ryan in his sights but didn't shoot the bugger. Ryan had proven that the was dangerous and should have been taken out.

If something similar had happened in my town in UK and I had shot the nutter dead with my own legally held rifles, I would have been jailed, no ifs ands or buts.
 
Last edited:
I do not care if there is a ban on assault weapons... MAC-10's... UZI's... high capacity magazines for pistols...there is no real good to owing those types of weapons.
That said I like M1's, M1Carbines (to me it is a .30cal .22) My favorite weapon is an FN-FAL, in my shooting days I would have loved to have owned one,... I like shooting and plinking...
having worked in the mountains all my working life I lost the desire to hunt but I do enjoy putting the fear into cans, paper targets, ground dogs... I enjoy shooting long range using iron sights and doing the o'Kentucky windage and elevation thing...

and cides, one never knows when them pesky Brits will decide to make an end run again.........:p do they still wear those bright red jackets like they did the last go around?
 
No government can legislate for criminals or nut cases. If guns are banned the ban only affects the law abiding, criminals ignore laws anyway.

Remember the Hungerford incident where Michael Ryan went bonkers with a Norinco AK47 semi auto? I wont go into the incident chapter and verse, BUT where the 1968 firearms act failed wasn't due to the act itself, but poor enforcement of the act by the local police. Michael Ryan was known to have metal health problems and he had been thrown out of local gun clubs (who advised the police he had been thrown out, club membership was a condition of his licence), the police should have stepped in and confiscated his firearms, they didn't! Even after armed police had secured the area it was a complete and total farce, one so called police marksman said he had Ryan in his sights but didn't shoot the bugger. Ryan had proven that the was dangerous and should have been taken out.

If something similar had happened in my town in UK and I had shot the nutter dead with my own legally held rifles, I would have been jailed, no ifs ands or buts.

I was on duty the day the Hungerford massacre occurred. My lot were running round like headless chickens due to the fact he was dressed in combats. It was initially thought that a soldier had gone rogue.
 
Back
Top