You are Unregistered, please register to use all of the features of!    
Firearm & Gun Forum - > General Firearms Forums > Legal and Activism >

gun control

Closed Thread
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 03-08-2014, 12:56 PM   #11
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
SB777's Avatar
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 943
Liked 718 Times on 449 Posts
Likes Given: 727


How about some reference to the mental state of the most sensational mass killers driving the anti-gun arguments? All had known psychological issues and the debates have danced around those facts.
The problem with socialism is that you eventually run out of other peoples' money.

Margaret Thatcher
SB777 is offline  
Old 03-08-2014, 01:13 PM   #12
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
TekGreg's Avatar
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: Cincinnati,OH
Posts: 2,003
Liked 1469 Times on 773 Posts
Likes Given: 634


TW, those are great statistics! Can I ask where you obtained those? I'd like to see if there is a printed version they sell.

To help the OP, here are two sources (Note: I remembered you needed to cite two sources for your paper!) below that detail the psychotropic drug history of every mass shooter in the last 20-30 years and the fact that all of them either were using or going through withdrawal from prescription mentally-altering drugs.

Brief killer drug history

One thing killers have in's not guns

Hopefully this was on topic and not controversial so JonM won't knock me off!
“Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem." (I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.). Thomas Jefferson

"All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing."

-Edmund Burke, Loosely translated from Thoughts on the Cause of Present Discontents. (1770)
TekGreg is offline  
Axxe55 Likes This 
Old 03-08-2014, 01:25 PM   #13
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
MisterMcCool's Avatar
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: Bumfugg, Egypt
Posts: 12,805
Liked 12868 Times on 6693 Posts
Likes Given: 26962


Give It to Them Straight
by John Ross

The biggest mistake we make is failing to take the moral high ground on our issue, and letting our
enemies define the terms.

THEY SAY: "We'd be better off if no one had guns."

WE SAY: "You can never succeed at that, criminals will always get guns." (FLAW: The implication here is that if you
COULD succeed, it would be a reasonable plan.)

WE SHOULD SAY: "So, you want to institute a system where the weak and elderly are at the mercy of the strong, the
lone are at the mercy of the gang. You want to give violent criminals a government guarantee that citizens are disarmed.
Sorry, that's unacceptable. Better that we should require every citizen to carry a gun."


THEY SAY: "Those assault rifles have no sporting purpose. You don't need a 30-round magazine for hunting deer --
they're only for killing people."

WE SAY: "I compete in DCM High Power with my AR-15. You need a large-capacity magazine for their course of fire.
My SKS is a fine deer rifle, and I've never done anything to give my government reason not to trust me, blah, blah, blah."
(FLAW: You have implicitly conceded that it is OK to ban any gun with no sporting use. And eventually they can replace
your sporting arms with arcade-game substitutes.)

WE SHOULD SAY: "Your claim that 'they're only for killing people' is imprecise. A gas chamber or electric chair is
designed for killing people, and these devices obviously serve different functions than guns. To be precise, a high capacity
military-type rifle or handgun is designed for CONFLICT. When I need to protect myself and my freedom, I want the most
reliable, most durable, highest capacity weapon possible. The only thing hunting and target shooting have to do with
freedom is that they're good practice."


THEY SAY: "If we pass this CCW law, it will be like the Wild West, with shoot-outs all the time for fender-benders, in
bars, etc. We need to keep guns off the streets. If doing so saves just one life, it will be worth it."

WE SAY: "Studies have shown blah blah blah." (flaw: You have implied that if studies showed CCW laws equaled more
heat-of-passion shooting, CCW should be illegal.

WE SHOULD SAY: "Although no state has experienced what you are describing, that's not important. What is important
is our freedom. If saving lives is more important than anything else, why don't we throw out the Fifth amendment? We have
the technology to administer an annual truth serum session to the entire population. We'd catch the criminals and mistaken
arrest would be a thing of the past. How does that sound?"


THEY SAY: "I don't see what the big deal is about a five day waiting period."

WE SAY: "It doesn't do any good, criminals don't wait five days, it's a waste of resources blah blah blah." (FLAW: You
have implied that if waiting periods DID reduce crime, they would be a good idea.)

WHAT WE SHOULD SAY: "How about a 24-hour cooling-off period with a government review board before the news is
reported? Wouldn't that prevent lives from being ruined, e.g. Richard Jewell? And the fact that this law applies to people
who ALREADY own a handgun tells me that it's not about crime prevention, it's about harassment. Personally, I want to
live in a free society, not a 'safe' one with the government as chief nanny."


THEY SAY: "In 1776, citizens had muskets. No one ever envisioned these deadly AK-47s. I suppose you think we should
all have atomic bombs."

WE SAY: "Uh, well, uh . . ."

WE SHOULD SAY: "Actually, the Founders discussed this very issue - it's in the Federalist Papers. They wanted the
citizens to have the same guns as were the issue weapons of soldiers in a modern infantry. Soldiers in 1776 were each
issued muskets, but not the large field pieces with exploding shells. In 1996, soldiers are issued M16s, M249s, etc. but not
howitzers and atomic bombs. Furthermore, according to your logic, the laws governing freedom of the press are only valid
for newspapers whose presses are hand-operated and use fixed type. After all, no one in 1776 foresaw offset printing or
electricity, let alone TV and satellite transmission."


THEY SAY: "We require licenses on cars, but the powerful NRA screams bloody murder if anyone ever suggests licensing
these weapons of mass destruction."

WE SAY: Nothing, usually, and just sit there looking dumb.

WE SHOULD SAY:"You know, driving is a luxury, where firearms ownership is a right secured by the Constitution. But
let's put that aside for a moment. It's interesting you compared guns and vehicles. Here in the U.S. you can AT ANY AGE
go into any state and buy as many motorcycles, cars, or trucks of any size as you want, and you don't need to do anything if
you don't use them on public property. If you DO want to use them on public property, you can get a license at age 16. This
license is good in all 50 states. NO waiting periods, no background checks, nothing. If we treated guns like cars, a fourteenyear-
old could go into any state and legally buy handguns, machine guns, cannons, whatever, cash and carry, and shoot
them all with complete legality on private property. And at age 16 he could get a state license good anywhere in the country
to shoot these guns on public property."


Final comment, useful with most all arguments:

YOU SAY: "You know, I'm amazed at how little you care about your grandchildren. I would have thought they meant
more to you than anything."


YOU SAY: "Well, passing this proposal won't have a big immediate effect. I mean, in the next couple of years, neither Bill
Clinton nor Newt Gingrich is going to open up internment camps like Roosevelt did fifty-odd years ago. But think of your
worst nightmare of a political leader. Isn't it POSSIBLE that a person like that MIGHT be in control here some time in the
next 30, 40, or 50 years, with 51% of the Congress and 51% of the Senate behind him? If that does happen, do you
REALLY want your grandchildren to have been stripped of their final guarantee of freedom? And do you really want them
to have been stripped of it BY YOU?"
I'm not just a happy drunk; I'm also a mean sober. (̿▀̿ ̿Ĺ̯̿̿▀̿ ̿)̄
MisterMcCool is offline  
People Like This 
Old 03-08-2014, 06:51 PM   #14
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
Join Date: Mar 2014
Posts: 3
Liked 1 Times on 1 Posts


Thank you! this all helps a lot
domsupra90 is offline  
MisterMcCool Likes This 
Old 03-08-2014, 08:54 PM   #15
The Apocalypse Is Coming.....
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
Join Date: Aug 2011
Posts: 7
Liked 22419 Times on 12500 Posts
Likes Given: 53672


looking back at the history of all gun control laws ever made, one can see a definate pattern in that they were enacted to control a group of people from having guns, not in reducing crime. into current times, the only thing that has changed in new gun control laws is the group of people they wish to restrict from having guns.
Axxe55 is offline  
People Like This 
Old 03-08-2014, 08:58 PM   #16
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
Jagermeister's Avatar
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: Germany
Posts: 6,814
Liked 3872 Times on 2308 Posts
Likes Given: 3233


Just tell them.....

Gun control is hitting what you are aiming at.
"Feuer Frei!"
Jagermeister is offline  
People Like This 
Old 03-08-2014, 09:09 PM   #17
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
G30USMC's Avatar
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: NE Ohio
Posts: 15,275
Liked 1844 Times on 1196 Posts
Likes Given: 230


Originally Posted by Jagermeister View Post
Just tell them.....

Gun control is hitting what you are aiming at.
Amen !!!!!
G30USMC is offline  
texaswoodworker Likes This 
Old 03-08-2014, 09:22 PM   #18
Feedback Score: 1 reviews
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: Reno,Texas
Posts: 10,211
Liked 6584 Times on 3640 Posts
Likes Given: 27929


Originally Posted by TekGreg View Post
TW, those are great statistics! Can I ask where you obtained those? I'd like to see if there is a printed version they sell.
Sure. Here you go.
texaswoodworker is offline  
People Like This 
Old 03-09-2014, 11:05 AM   #19
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
danf_fl's Avatar
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: LA (Lower Alabama),FL
Posts: 12,363
Liked 4873 Times on 2702 Posts
Likes Given: 2377


Enacting laws against guns to "reduce deaths" is like restricting the horsepower output of cars to reduce drunk driving. Neither make any sense.
Amendment II:
"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

Life Member NRA
Life Member NAHC
Former President of the ECPT (Eifel Combat Pistol Team)
danf_fl is offline  
texaswoodworker Likes This 
Old 03-09-2014, 12:19 PM   #20
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
eatmydust's Avatar
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: pennsylvania
Posts: 4,371
Liked 3643 Times on 2074 Posts
Likes Given: 2535


This piece is from If you go to the site, in the headings bar, you will find a tab for "Education 101", click on it and at the bottom of the drop down menu, you will find this op/ed piece.

the gun is civilization

Human beings only have two ways to deal with one another: reason and force. If you want me to do something for you, you have a choice of either convincing me via argument, or force me to do your bidding under threat of force. Every human interaction falls into one of those two categories, without exception. Reason or force, that's it.

In a truly moral and civilized society, people exclusively interact through persuasion. Force has no place as a valid method of social interaction, and the only thing that removes force from the menu is the personal firearm, as paradoxical as it may sound to some.

When I carry a gun, you cannot deal with me by force. You have to use reason and try to persuade me, because I have a way to negate your threat or employment of force.The gun is the only personal weapon that puts a 100-pound woman on equal footing with a 220-pound mugger, a 75-year old retiree on equal footing with a 19-year old gang banger, and a single guy on equal footing with a carload of drunk guys with baseball bats. The gun removes the disparity in physical strength, size, or numbers between a potential attacker and a defender.

There are plenty of people who consider the gun as the source of bad force equations. These are the people who think that we'd be more civilized if all guns were removed from society, because a firearm makes it easier for an armed mugger to do his job. That, of course, is only true if the mugger's potential victims are mostly disarmed either by choice or by legislative fiat–it has no validity when most of a mugger's potential marks are armed.

People who argue for the banning of arms ask for automatic rule by the young, the strong, and the many, and that's the exact opposite of a civilized society. A mugger, even an armed one, can only make a successful living in a society where the state has granted him a force monopoly.

Then there's the argument that the gun makes confrontations lethal that otherwise would only result in injury. This argument is fallacious in several ways. Without guns involved, confrontations are won by the physically superior party inflicting overwhelming injury on the loser. People who think that fists, bats, sticks, or stones don't constitute lethal force watch too much TV, where people take beatings and come out of it with a bloody lip at worst. The fact that the gun makes lethal force easier works solely in favor of the weaker defender, not the stronger attacker. If both are armed, the field is level. The gun is the only weapon that's as lethal in the hands of an octogenarian as it is in the hands of a weight lifter. It simply wouldn't work as well as a force equalizer if it wasn't both lethal and easily employable.

When I carry a gun, I don't do so because I am looking for a fight, but because I'm looking to be left alone. The gun at my side means that I cannot be forced, only persuaded. I don't carry it because I'm afraid, but because it enables me to be unafraid. It doesn't limit the actions of those who would interact with me through reason, only the actions of those who would do so by force. It removes force from the equation… and that's why carrying a gun is a civilized act.

So the greatest civilization is one where all citizens are equally armed and can only be persuaded, never forced.

– Marko Kloos
"Your fear is 100% dependent on you for it's survival." - Steve Maraboli, Life, the Truth, and Being Free
eatmydust is offline  
therewolf Likes This 
Closed Thread

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Firearms Forum Replies Last Post
Cleaver attack? Can you say "gun control fail & immigration control fail"? orangello Politics, Religion and Controversy 1 05-22-2013 08:51 PM
Control Ammo to Control Guns danf_fl Conspiracy 9 01-01-2013 12:17 PM
Gun Control: A Step Towards Total Control PanBaccha Politics, Religion and Controversy 6 08-13-2012 07:15 AM
Gun control!!!!! Big-Nasty Legal and Activism 11 08-06-2012 12:19 PM
Obama on Gun Control, McCain on Gun Control tracker Legal and Activism 8 06-23-2008 01:00 AM