I am calling out all the gun control opponents with empty, unsupported, vaccuous, specious and flat out ludicrous arguments. Get real and get solid arguments already. Your lame, weak excuses for arguments probably don't even convince your fellow gun ownership advocates.
I was in Canada, attending and speaking at a conference, when the Aurora shootings happened. That gave me a bit of a different context to think about them. Some commenters on the Aurora tragedy suggest that Canada was still vulnerable to its recent shooting, that gun control didn't protect Canada. It is tragic that such a shooting occurred, but it is one, compared to so many many in the USA. And then there is the difference between the number of shooting deaths per capita in the US and Canada. Underneath the shallow argument that attempts to use the Canadian shooting as an example there is a specious lie or just plain dumb, ignorant logic. And there's plenty of it to go around.
" Take every single gun out of circulation - an utterly impossible endeaver, but let's assume for discussion. In one weekend tens of thousands of enterprising hobbiests could build their own out of parts available at Home Depot or Lowe's. They would be much less safe and completely unregulated. Would you prefer that?
This one is particularly ludicrous, but I have not seen a single sustainable, supportable argument opposing reasonable gun control in the entire thread of comments on the article.
What I see are lapdogs for the right wing who vote right wing because they buy the propaganda.
Gun control works. There are still incidents and exceptions, but it still works. The argument that if there were gun control and laws people would use gasoline or knives for terrorist or mass killing attacks instead is just so, so stupid and weak. The suggestion that there was still a case in Canada, does not detract from the argument. Canada's gun deaths are so, so much lower.
Then there are the gun carry law supporters. Even those laws could still exist at the same time that automatic weapons could be banned. Seventy year olds could still shoot thugs robbing convenience stores, as gun law regulation opponents seem to like to cite.
Do we really need to allow anyone to buy a gun like this one, that the Aurora shooter used?
The M&P - 15 Sport image from the Smith and Wesson Website.
There are plenty of ways to cut the chances of more Auroras from happening while still allowing honest, law abiding citizens to own guns.
Simple rules could keep guns out of the hands of people who would be higher risk, while still allowing honest, sane citizens to have them.
Laws that require a two week, or even a month wait, are reasonable, for honest, law abiding citizens. How about red-flagging individuals who buy thousands of rounds of ammunition, like James Holmes did? it was good that the gun club owner rejected Holmes because of his bizarre phone message. But we already have a homeland security policy of "see something or someone and say something." Why not apply that to people who ruin gun ownership for everyone else. There are responsibilities that are associated with gun ownership. Even the NRA should admit to THAT. Do they?
The idea that guns protect free speech is totally unsupportable. You want to protect free speech, start reining in the police state. I think we can agree there's a problem there. But guns against the police state? I don't think so. Guns didn't take down the Soviet Union or East Germany or Tunisia.
Those who think that guns in a 21st century world can do the same as they did in 1776 are deluded. Back then, electricity was defined as an unusual property of amber. The world is totally different now.
Now, if you right wing gun contr ol opponents keep voting in fascists who expand the police state and support transnational corporations which are strip mining the nation, the USA will actually become a third world nation. My article on Traitors covers this in more detail.
You want to own a gun? Fine. Own one, if you're not mentally ill or have a violent history. I don't oppose gun ownership with reasonable regulations. But you don't need an automatic weapon. And if you want a weapon so you can kill police or soldiers in some fantasy revolution-- you are nuts and should not be allowed to have any guns.
I'm all for revolution-- we need one-- but the successful ones are not won with guns or violence. They are won by getting the mass of the people involved. We need to do more to restrict guns-- keep gun-toting soldiers off the street. Posse comitatus used to do that. We need to be sure that loaded drones don't begin flying the skies of the USA. We can ratchet down all the robocop technology that local podunk police departments, awash in Homeland Security funds, have acquired. Those robocop police are dangerous. THEY kill innocent people.
Aurora was a horrible tragedy. We need to learn from it. We need to have a conversation about guns. But please, don't throw your half cent worth of argument onto the comments section without some supporting evidence.
The second amendment gave the people the right to bear arms. Nowadays, the first amendment, the right to free speech, is far more threatened by megacorporations that successfully control and limit access to the internet, that give billionaires voices that totally blot out the voices of the the average American.
Those are the freedoms that we really need to be worrying about. The pen is our greatest weapon. How about putting a bit more into fighting for those rights?
7
6
6
