A new "anti-gun" argument that seems to be catching on

[jimlongley]

Your argument is flawed. I can say the same for a knife, going around and saying "swish" isn't going to kill anybody, but you don't see a huge uprising against knives do you? You can't just ban any tool that you are afraid of, or don't understand how to operate safely and properly, and that is all a firearm is, a tool.

I think the second sentence is much more effective than the first.

Actually, that "but guns make it easier" arguement has been used before, and has led to a lot less of the "guns don't . . ." usage more recently. It's a reducing arguement - guns don't, knives don't, baseball bats don't, and on and on. The real point is that whatever the tool people choose to commit crimes with, it's their choice to commit the crime that leads to damage of some sort.

My suggestion for a solution to this sort of thing also goes somewhat outside the box, I just wish I could claim it as my own original idea. A columnist for the Albany Times Union newspaper, one Barney Fowler by name, and a cousin to my late father in law, used to suggest regularly that criminals should be required to register their occupations, just as anyone else in business for themselves does. They should pay taxes on their ill-gotten gains, carry insurance and Workman's Comp, and they should be subject to the same (frequently administrative and thus not subject to the vagaries and delays of courts of law) the same administrative fees, fines, and penalties as any of the rest of us.

The only crime Capone was ever convicted of was tax evasion, and that sort of thing could work too.

And of course, if you shoot someone commiting a crime on your property, and they are disabled and can't work, then their comp carrier becomes responsible for their care and so on. Of course the standard of "proof" for the crime becomes much less in an administrative environment - they are not charged with a crime, just the mere fact of their presence on your property is presumptive of their following their chosen career path, and their eligibility for benefits.

If the home invader is found to not be complying with the employment rules, then they get sanctions and possibly jail time.

Getting shot, beat on, knifed, or even falling into a trap, will be considered to be a natural hazard of the workplace.

Actually I could go on about this much longer, but I think you probably get the idea. [/rant]

[barres]

Making light of such a serious topic does not change any of the facts involved. When a person, for whatever (or no) reason decides to hurt, maim, or kill someone else, they are going to do it with whatever tool they can get their hands on. Yes, guns are effective tools for that malicious action, which also makes them the best tool to combat those nefarious evil-doers. But guns aren't the only tool that can be used for those purposes. Just look at Great Britain today. They've had an almost absolute ban on handguns for years, but they still have violent crime. They are now considering banning swords, because they are being used in the commission of violent crimes. When are people going to learn that the tool does not commit the crime. A criminal commits the crime. And that criminal will still commit violent crime regardless of what weapons are or are not available to him.

An examination of suicides by method showed no decrease in the overall number of suicides when guns were not available. People just found other ways of taking their own life. (The rate of suicide is not affected by the presence of a firearm. This is true in either a time-series analysis, or through cross-national analysis. For example, Japan has no private handgun ownership (aside from an extremely limited number of licensed Olympic sport shooters), and yet had a suicide rate more than twice that of the United States in 2002. [Courtesy of GunFacts v4.2, available at www.GunFacts.info])

Until crime no longer exists and weapons are only a distant memory, I demand the ability to protect my family in the most effective way possible and practical. That is why I own guns. That is why I carry a handgun where ever it is legal and practical to do so.

[Oldgringo]

Do y'all remember the woman in Houston who, several years ago, ran over her husband - several times with her Mercedes? When you gotta' go, you gotta' go - I reckon.

[Wildscar]

But what if the person that you point the finger at and yell bang dies from a heart attack? There was no gun involved but a death would still occur.

[linman]

From The Akron Beacon Journal


Don't blame handguns
Published on Tuesday, Apr 01, 2008







Jane Grover wrote (''Handguns are the problem,'' Voice of the People, March 5) that many tragedies on college campuses are due to handguns. Did she think this up on her own, or was she taught that an inanimate object has a mind of its own to cause violence?

Since when did a gun grow legs and walk out and kill someone? I am a custom rifle manufacturer, and I have never seen one of our guns or anyone else's get up and shoot someone all by itself.

It takes a person to pick up the gun and aim it and pull the trigger for a gun to be used. What does Grover not understand about this? Why would she blame a gun for a murder and not a car when a drunken driver kills someone?

We sell our custom rifles all over the world, and I would invite Grover to call some of my English customers so they can tell her of the crimes being committed in the middle of the day and in their homes due to the fact the English are not allowed to own handguns for personal protection.

I also remind her of the problems in Africa, where they are using machetes to kill people. When people go crazy they will use whatever is available to cause harm to others. Why is Grover so naive to not see this and blame guns for problems?

With her views, people would never be charged with violent crimes when they use an inanimate object to commit their crime.
James A. Kelbly
North Lawrence

[anygunanywhere]

But what if the person that you point the finger at and yell bang dies from a heart attack? There was no gun involved but a death would still occur.

Just say that your finger "went off" and it was an accident. Fingers do that just like the antis like to say that guns kill people.


Anygun

[Kerbouchard]

Here's my response, "I agree. We should make all guns illegal. It's a commonly known fact people will not commit crimes. I will turn in all my guns, but there's a condition. BG's first."

or the ever popular, "You're right, we should treat guns like drugs. I say make 'em all illegal. There will be no way the criminals could get 'em then."

or, "Yeah, you're right, these criminals are out of control. Did you hear about that guy who killed the woman with a hammer a few weeks ago? These things are never going to stop until we have common sense legislation on the sale of hammers. I mean, really, why does somebody need to buy more than one hammer a month? And when you start getting into the hammers that have a 16" handle or longer, it becomes ridiculous. Nobody needs that much leverage. Can you believe it? They don't even have to fill out any paperwork. There's no waiting period! It's outrageous, anybody can just walk into a store and buy a hammer. We don't have any idea if he's going to use it for lawful purposes or who he might give it to. Just the other day I saw somebody buy a hammer and he didn't even buy any nails. He looked pretty suspicious to me."

You can use statistics until you are blue in the face, proving that disarming the lawabiding populace only empowers criminals, but it doesn't work.

'If a position is reached by emotion, rather than reason; what makes you think reasoning can change that position?'

Arguing with them doesn't work...here's what I say/do if I think they are arguing to be arguing, and are not open to discussion...
"You're absolutely right, I'd never thought about that." and then I walk away.