- May 5, 2010
- 6,588
This is a response I wrote to someone who is anti-gun after the empire state building shooting recently. I thought I would share it with you all:
Anti-gun beliefs are mainly fueled by ignorance and gullibility. Ignorance in the most literal meaning is a lack of education or knowledge of the subject. Is it a coincidence that rarely have any people who are anti-gun actually learned and shot the firearms they claim to know so much about? I think not. People that know nothing about guns speak of things like "high capacity clip", "assault rifles", and "fully automatic weapons" being something that should be kept out of the hands of civilians, yet these ideas are based on a complete lack of education on those subjects. Ignorance in the literal definition drives these arguments.
Gullibility drives the arguments that actually make people believe that a law will prevent a crime. It doesn't work for drugs and it was a disaster when it was tried on alcohol. I don't think the infamous Aurora movie theater shooter cared that there was a "no-guns allowed" sign on the front door. The ones who did care are the people who actually did not bring their legally owned firearms because of those signs. There are actual accounts of people saying that they have been to that movie theater and removed their firearm due to the private business rule. Needless to say, it did not work in their favor.
Most importantly, in a courtroom like setting you are asked to provide facts. Where are the facts supporting the anti-gun argument? Of the 41 or so states that allow "shall-issue" carry permits, it has been proven with statistics that show the "blood will run in the streets of the wild west" argument does not correlate to actual data. Data also shows that of the 9 or so may issue/no issue states have some of the most violent handgun crime rates of all. MD, CA, NJ, NY, IL (Chicago), are the most restrictive gun rights states and have some of the most violent handgun crime. So where is the data to support that less guns equal less crime? In those states it is either illegal or extremely discriminatory to be able to carry a firearm for self-defense. So then I ask, why are those states more dangerous than the others? Also, why are there no actual facts showing that concealed carry holders regularly commit crimes with those handguns? As I said earlier, 41 or more states make it easy for the average citizen to carry handguns. There are only about 9 states left that make it difficult or impossible. It is not the "wild west" states that allow it, but it is a majority of the 50 states that do...and only around 9 that don't. You would think that with this many states that there is significant data to prove or disprove either side of the argument. Still, with 42 states allowing citizens to easily obtain a "carry permit" there is little to no evidence supporting claims that there is more violence. There is plenty of data to show that the opposite is true. The final question is that if claims are made that these laws will increase handgun violence, how can you ignore the data for the majority of the 50 United States showing that there is no correlation? How about in England and Australia, where gun ARE essentially banned and crime is higher than ever? Speculation and beliefs can be debated, but the facts exist only in un-biased truth.
People are murdered every day in various ways. At the empire state building a person was in anger from someone who was fired from their employment in the past. These confrontations have existed since the beginning of time. Yes it is true that firearms may have made it easier for the other 9 people to be wounded in this shooting, however citizens were not involved in shooting these people. "New York Police Commissioner Ray Kelly said all nine bystanders wounded in Friday's Empire State Building shooting had been hit with police gunfire," according to CNN. Perhaps police officers should not be allowed to have firearms, since they negligently shot 9 unarmed citizens by accident. Since the standard for police firearms training is extremely low, it should be considered that police are not as qualified as the normal citizen who is responsible enough to obtain a concealed carry license. The average citizen who does this shoots countless rounds at the shooting range and takes shooting courses, compared to the small amount of shooting a police officer must do each year to qualify. You may argue that the mistake happened because the officers were in a crowded area, but that is no excuse for violating one of the firearm safety rules...knowing your target and what is behind it. As argued, "With your gun, you might even shoot the wrong ****ing person by accident because he was standing in close proximity to your target." That is exactly what the police offers did.
The reason for wanting to carrying a handgun is because everyone has the right to defend themselves. It is a kill or be killed world, and leaving yourself completely defenseless in the world we live in is not a smart move. The argument that "if guns were banned there would be no need" is not based on anything remotely truthful. Not only do most criminals obtain guns illegally, but many crimes involve knives, gang beatings, baseball bats, and rape. Would you want someone you know to be disarmed and have to fight off a rapist on their own? If you would, you are a sick individual. People who carry handguns are responsible, and do not feel a need for being a hero. We believe in protecting ourselves and our loved ones from individuals who have no regard for laws or killing people.
In the United States the Constitution guarantees us the right to keep and bear arms. You can wish all you want, but this right cannot be taken away. It is THE law of all laws, and millions of gun owners would never comply with any type of gun ban. You may claim that that 2nd Amendment was designed to create a militia back when there was no standing army. You would be correct to say this, however you can not deny the writings of the founding fathers expressing that "the right to keep and bear arms" is necessary as a protection from the government as well as for self defense This is not "crazy talk", it is exactly what it was created for. The founding fathers knew that if there ever was tyranny, firearms would allow the citizens to be feared as citizens instead of viewed as slaves. It is the final way to protect liberty if it ever needed to be.
In conclusion, you can speculate all you want but there is no data to back up these speculations. The FACTS remain that of the estimated 8 million concealed carriers in the US, there is no correlation to violent handgun crimes. The other FACTS are that states with very restrictive gun laws continue to have some of the highest handgun crime. You have no data or facts to back up your arguments, other than speculation based on ignorance of firearms in general. In the end, your ideas of making gun possession illegal will never work. There are people out there who would never go along with this, and it would literally spark the next civil war.
Anti-gun beliefs are mainly fueled by ignorance and gullibility. Ignorance in the most literal meaning is a lack of education or knowledge of the subject. Is it a coincidence that rarely have any people who are anti-gun actually learned and shot the firearms they claim to know so much about? I think not. People that know nothing about guns speak of things like "high capacity clip", "assault rifles", and "fully automatic weapons" being something that should be kept out of the hands of civilians, yet these ideas are based on a complete lack of education on those subjects. Ignorance in the literal definition drives these arguments.
Gullibility drives the arguments that actually make people believe that a law will prevent a crime. It doesn't work for drugs and it was a disaster when it was tried on alcohol. I don't think the infamous Aurora movie theater shooter cared that there was a "no-guns allowed" sign on the front door. The ones who did care are the people who actually did not bring their legally owned firearms because of those signs. There are actual accounts of people saying that they have been to that movie theater and removed their firearm due to the private business rule. Needless to say, it did not work in their favor.
Most importantly, in a courtroom like setting you are asked to provide facts. Where are the facts supporting the anti-gun argument? Of the 41 or so states that allow "shall-issue" carry permits, it has been proven with statistics that show the "blood will run in the streets of the wild west" argument does not correlate to actual data. Data also shows that of the 9 or so may issue/no issue states have some of the most violent handgun crime rates of all. MD, CA, NJ, NY, IL (Chicago), are the most restrictive gun rights states and have some of the most violent handgun crime. So where is the data to support that less guns equal less crime? In those states it is either illegal or extremely discriminatory to be able to carry a firearm for self-defense. So then I ask, why are those states more dangerous than the others? Also, why are there no actual facts showing that concealed carry holders regularly commit crimes with those handguns? As I said earlier, 41 or more states make it easy for the average citizen to carry handguns. There are only about 9 states left that make it difficult or impossible. It is not the "wild west" states that allow it, but it is a majority of the 50 states that do...and only around 9 that don't. You would think that with this many states that there is significant data to prove or disprove either side of the argument. Still, with 42 states allowing citizens to easily obtain a "carry permit" there is little to no evidence supporting claims that there is more violence. There is plenty of data to show that the opposite is true. The final question is that if claims are made that these laws will increase handgun violence, how can you ignore the data for the majority of the 50 United States showing that there is no correlation? How about in England and Australia, where gun ARE essentially banned and crime is higher than ever? Speculation and beliefs can be debated, but the facts exist only in un-biased truth.
People are murdered every day in various ways. At the empire state building a person was in anger from someone who was fired from their employment in the past. These confrontations have existed since the beginning of time. Yes it is true that firearms may have made it easier for the other 9 people to be wounded in this shooting, however citizens were not involved in shooting these people. "New York Police Commissioner Ray Kelly said all nine bystanders wounded in Friday's Empire State Building shooting had been hit with police gunfire," according to CNN. Perhaps police officers should not be allowed to have firearms, since they negligently shot 9 unarmed citizens by accident. Since the standard for police firearms training is extremely low, it should be considered that police are not as qualified as the normal citizen who is responsible enough to obtain a concealed carry license. The average citizen who does this shoots countless rounds at the shooting range and takes shooting courses, compared to the small amount of shooting a police officer must do each year to qualify. You may argue that the mistake happened because the officers were in a crowded area, but that is no excuse for violating one of the firearm safety rules...knowing your target and what is behind it. As argued, "With your gun, you might even shoot the wrong ****ing person by accident because he was standing in close proximity to your target." That is exactly what the police offers did.
The reason for wanting to carrying a handgun is because everyone has the right to defend themselves. It is a kill or be killed world, and leaving yourself completely defenseless in the world we live in is not a smart move. The argument that "if guns were banned there would be no need" is not based on anything remotely truthful. Not only do most criminals obtain guns illegally, but many crimes involve knives, gang beatings, baseball bats, and rape. Would you want someone you know to be disarmed and have to fight off a rapist on their own? If you would, you are a sick individual. People who carry handguns are responsible, and do not feel a need for being a hero. We believe in protecting ourselves and our loved ones from individuals who have no regard for laws or killing people.
In the United States the Constitution guarantees us the right to keep and bear arms. You can wish all you want, but this right cannot be taken away. It is THE law of all laws, and millions of gun owners would never comply with any type of gun ban. You may claim that that 2nd Amendment was designed to create a militia back when there was no standing army. You would be correct to say this, however you can not deny the writings of the founding fathers expressing that "the right to keep and bear arms" is necessary as a protection from the government as well as for self defense This is not "crazy talk", it is exactly what it was created for. The founding fathers knew that if there ever was tyranny, firearms would allow the citizens to be feared as citizens instead of viewed as slaves. It is the final way to protect liberty if it ever needed to be.
In conclusion, you can speculate all you want but there is no data to back up these speculations. The FACTS remain that of the estimated 8 million concealed carriers in the US, there is no correlation to violent handgun crimes. The other FACTS are that states with very restrictive gun laws continue to have some of the highest handgun crime. You have no data or facts to back up your arguments, other than speculation based on ignorance of firearms in general. In the end, your ideas of making gun possession illegal will never work. There are people out there who would never go along with this, and it would literally spark the next civil war.
If the current trend in America continues, we will indeed loose much of our 2A rights in the next 10 years. With the MSM in the pockets of the Anti's, the masses will just agree like sheeples "that sounds reasonable" and before you know it, we will only be "allowed" to have one firearm (Rifle), a limit of 3 round max capability.
