gun control..if there's a gun I want contol - Kimber Forum

Kimber


Go Back   Kimber Forum > Off Topic Area > Off-Topic Discussion Forum

Like Tree7Likes
  • 1 Post By oz white
  • 1 Post By Gmountain
  • 1 Post By jonh1373
  • 2 Post By Richard
  • 1 Post By Gmountain
  • 1 Post By Insta-Gator
Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 10-04-2015, 07:54 PM   #1
Senior Member
 
oz white's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2014
Location: NJ
Posts: 275
gun control..if there's a gun I want contol

Smashing the Gun Control (human control) argument is so easy that even a Columbia journalism major could do it, if they some how possessed the courage to try. What follows is a simple three step process to addressing the argument for civilian disarmament. All so-called “gun control” regulations exempt the government, or more aptly, employees of the state.

Gun control laws also by definition exempt criminals and those with criminal intent. A criminal is a person prone to or engaged in “unlawful activity”. Therefore, Malum Prohibitum laws concerning firearms will not prevent a criminal from possessing or using a gun in the commission of a crime. A violation of an existing Malum Prohibitum statute is merely an additional charge to add to the charges of Murder, Attempted Murder, Aggravated Assaulter, etc.

If the stated purpose of the gun control law is to “save lives” we can clearly see that criminal behavior will not be affected as they have already made a conscious decision to violate the law. To state that a creature, who is willing to violate Malum In Se through the act of murder, robbery, rape, etc., will be dissuaded from using a firearm during the aforementioned acts by a new Malum Prohibitum statute is the height of childish naivete and blind, emotionally driven foolishness.

Considering the previous facts, supposed gun control laws have only one true legitimate target; the civilian. Only law-abiding citizens are genuinely effected by further restrictions. Ergo, gun control is tantamount civilian or citizen disarmament, it cannot and does not affect anyone else.

3 Steps

#1 Self-Defense

Ask you subject whether or not a man or a woman (any human being) has a legitimate right to self-defense. Does a person posses the legal right to defend themselves against unlawful attack? If the person you are speaking to hesitates and says anything but “yes”, your conversation is over. Should the subject say “yes, but…” then they do not believe it. They are a slave to the state and cannot be saved. You are finished with them, move on with your life.

“A man who cannot be persuaded to take up arms, even in the defense of that which he holds most dear, even for the protection of his own life, is the most selfish and vile of all creatures. That creature is no man at all and deserves neither respect nor serious consideration.”

–PGM 1/4/2013

#2 The Police

Ask the subject if it is the responsibility of the state, the police, to protect you (the people) from criminal attacks. Do you believe that the police are required to protect you by law? Unless they have been previously educated, your subject may naively respond to the effect that yes, the police must protect you, it is the law.

It is in fact NOT the law that the state, the police, protect individual citizens from attack or harm. In Warren vs. Districts of Columbia the court found that the D.C. police “owe no specific duty” to protect individuals from criminal harm. Therefore the District was held harmless. Warren was a woman who, along with her two female roommates, was brutalized horribly after the D.C. police were called but never arrived to help.

In a more recent case, the Manhattan Supreme Court ruled that the city of New York could not be sued after NYPD officers failed to stop a man from being brutally stabbed on a subway, even though the officers were present when the attack occurred. The court again found that the police had “no special duty” to protect citizens as individuals.

#3 Tools

Arriving safely at this point with our subject, we will reinforce the fact that self-defense is a human right and that the state does not have a legal duty to protect individual citizens from criminal harm. Now it is time to discuss the tools. This step will include a short battery of questions.

If someone is trying to kill you or a loved one, is it legal to use a hammer as a tool to stop them? …is it legal to use a knife to stop them? …a gun to stop them? …a coffee pot to stop them?

If the answer to the battery of question is yes, you can continue with a final two part question.

Does the tool used for self-defense have any bearing on whether or not the defense was justified? Or, are the person’s actions what justifies self-defense, not the object used?

In Conclusion

Having come to the conclusion of the discussion. Your subject should agree that every human has a natural right to self-defense. They understand that the government/police have no duty to protect you as an individual (and in reality cannot). Finally, it is not the object that determines what is and is not justifiable self-defense but the actions of the person.

With the common ground established between you and a person that possesses the capacity for rational thought, you are now able to pose what should be a rhetorical question. What is the purpose of gun control laws, other than to hinder the law abiding and offer an imaginary “feel good” solution to a human behavior problem?
Chuck43 likes this.
oz white is offline   Reply With Quote
Remove Ads
Old 10-04-2015, 08:07 PM   #2
Senior Member
 
Gmountain's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: Florida
Posts: 3,178
Here's the link to the original post. Smashing the Gun Control Argument in 3 Easy Steps | Student of the Gun Blog

However, that argument will not work on most people because they believe that getting rid of guns will eventually result in less gun deaths. Remember, self defense is only an issue with gun owners. If non gun owners were concerned about it in the first place, they would own a gun now. So asking them to consider self defense is a waste of time.

Many understand that getting rid of guns will not result in immediately seeing a decrease in gun deaths, but they believe that over years, there will be enough attrition to show a decrease in gun deaths.

None of those arguments are going to change anyone's minds, anymore than any argument they make is going to change your mind. Are you willing to consider you might be wrong?

There is only one surefire way to turn an anti gun person to our side, and that is to take them shooting. Shooting is fun. It's not always about death. They invariably love it and come away with a different point of view. That's the way to win the argument.
Chuck43 likes this.
Gmountain is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-04-2015, 09:33 PM   #3
Senior Member
 
jonh1373's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Location: MN
Posts: 462
One flaw to number three, discussion of tools, is that some people just don't like guns and never will. Some people would defend themselves if necessary just not with a firearm, as in your example with a knife, coffee pot, etc. Some fear firearms as they have never had a proper introduction or training. Yes, asking them to go shooting is a great idea and the opportunity to give them an informed education of what firearms are and how they can be used. Although they may not accept our views, hopefully we can bring them around to making an educated decision to accept firearms and not push for unreasonable gun control measures. We just have to remember that some people are not going to change their minds and we have to be ready to accept and actually respect their decisions.
Gmountain likes this.
jonh1373 is offline   Reply With Quote
 
Old 10-04-2015, 09:40 PM   #4
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Location: Nevada
Posts: 2,446
Smashing the Gun Control (human control) argument is so easy that even a Columbia journalism major could do it, if they some how possessed the courage to try.
I'm afraid I can't agree with this assertion. None of the journalists that currently dominate the field have the critical thinking skills required to analyze the gun control argument. You even say so yourself:
is the height of childish naivete and blind, emotionally driven foolishness.
Lets get down to brass tacks: The real aim of the gun control legislation proponents is the complete and total removal of guns from the hands of all civilians, all of the time. They foolishly believe that guns can be totally eliminated from the population at large, and maybe even from the majority of the police à la Great Britain. This is a foolish expectation. The entire mind set of our society is different from that of Great Britain, Canada or Australia, and comparing our society to theirs makes no sense to anybody other than a politician or a Columbia University Journalism major.

Our country was born in a convulsion of violence that we call the Revolutionary War. Every American must learn about it. The first President of the United States and the Father of our country was its first military general. Guns were the predominant weapon used in that war. Not swords. Not knives. Not spears. Not bows and arrows. Guns! Our country will always be different from those other countries because of the way it was born.

Not too long afterwards, our country was wracked with a great social injustice that has led to the creation of a subculture of violence that is based, primarily, on the color of one's skin. It was slavery, and it led to a great civil war that divided our country and led to the deaths of more Americans than any other event before or since. Once again, guns were the primary weapons used in that war, and most Americans (men and boys) learned to use one before the end of that war. Guns became a permanent part of our culture.

There are more reasons than these, but these two, alone, are sufficient drivers of the need felt by most Americans to own guns. We need the ability to protect ourselves and our families, and until a better weapon is invented, guns are our best option. We will NEVER morph into a Great Britain, a Canada, or an Australia. It is craziness to try to disarm all of America. Yet, the politicians and the journalists never learn. Once again, legislation will be introduced into the US Senate to change our gun laws. And, since the people we elect to conduct our government's affairs refuse to learn from history, once again the attempt to disarm all of America will fail, and the situation will not improve.

The leaders and the reporters of events in our society are unable to face reality, engage in critical thinking, and solve the problem of gun violence at its roots, rather than at the signs of it symptoms. It is like trying to cure cancer with Vaseline and aspirin.



Gmountain and Marshall like this.
__________________
Richard
NRA Life Member - 1982
Richard is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-04-2015, 09:57 PM   #5
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Location: Nevada
Posts: 2,446
Originally Posted by Gmountain View Post
Here's the link to the original post. Smashing the Gun Control Argument in 3 Easy Steps | Student of the Gun Blog

However, that argument will not work on most people because they believe that getting rid of guns will eventually result in less gun deaths. Remember, self defense is only an issue with gun owners. If non gun owners were concerned about it in the first place, they would own a gun now. So asking them to consider self defense is a waste of time.

Many understand that getting rid of guns will not result in immediately seeing a decrease in gun deaths, but they believe that over years, there will be enough attrition to show a decrease in gun deaths.

None of those arguments are going to change anyone's minds, anymore than any argument they make is going to change your mind. Are you willing to consider you might be wrong?

There is only one surefire way to turn an anti gun person to our side, and that is to take them shooting. Shooting is fun. It's not always about death. They invariably love it and come away with a different point of view. That's the way to win the argument.


I do not believe that this will work, either. Anti-gunners are irrational on the subject of guns, and many of them are afraid to touch a gun -- much less shoot one. Look, for example, at Congresswoman Gabby Giffords and her husband, Astronaut Mark Kelly. They used to be avid shooters until Giffords was shot. Now, they are both virulent anti-gunners who have aligned themselves with Bloomberg and Brady. All over America, this issue is being dealt with on an emotional level, and not with reason and logic. The politicians who have the power to do something constructive are being whipped by a frenzied group of "journalists" who see an opportunity to change the world so that they can brag to their grandchildren.

Have we all forgotten about the laws that were passed in 1934 (National Firearms Act), 1968 (Gun Control Act), 1993 (Brady Bill), and 1994 (Assault Weapons Ban)? How well have these laws protected American citizens? Why would we pass more laws to supplement or supplant laws that already don't work? This is insanity!



__________________
Richard
NRA Life Member - 1982
Richard is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-05-2015, 06:42 AM   #6
Senior Member
 
Gmountain's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: Florida
Posts: 3,178
Originally Posted by Richard View Post
I do not believe that this will work, either. Anti-gunners are irrational on the subject of guns, and many of them are afraid to touch a gun -- much less shoot one. Look, for example, at Congresswoman Gabby Giffords and her husband, Astronaut Mark Kelly. They used to be avid shooters until Giffords was shot. Now, they are both virulent anti-gunners who have aligned themselves with Bloomberg and Brady. All over America, this issue is being dealt with on an emotional level, and not with reason and logic. The politicians who have the power to do something constructive are being whipped by a frenzied group of "journalists" who see an opportunity to change the world so that they can brag to their grandchildren.
It works every time. When was the last time you took someone shooting that was against guns, or at least open to gun control? After a day or two of shooting, they are converted.

Gabby Giffords is an outlier. If I had been shot in the head, maybe I would think differently about who can get a gun. Who knows?
Chuck43 likes this.
Gmountain is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-05-2015, 07:30 AM   #7
Senior Member
 
Insta-Gator's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Location: Georgia
Posts: 11,761
If the gun control fairy waved a magic wand and every gun on the entire planet disappeared, the criminal would find the next convenient/effective object to use in the commission of his/her crime. It's just that simple. Anyone remember swords, knives, arrows, ... ?

If guns are the cause of violence, why then are there statistics tracking violent acts in which other objects were used?
Richard likes this.
__________________
Insta-Gator aka .. Gary
(warning: prone to bouts of petulance)

It's not that I have something to hide, ... I have nothing I want you to see.

(remember your 4th Amendment right, people)
Insta-Gator is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
My thoughts on Gun Control glokrok Off-Topic Discussion Forum 77 10-05-2015 05:25 PM
We Need Hammer Control!!! Lineman Off-Topic Discussion Forum 20 09-02-2015 01:49 AM
Kim Kartrashian On Gun Control Lineman Off-Topic Discussion Forum 21 08-15-2015 09:37 PM
Training Trigger Control Chuck43 Training Videos 0 11-07-2014 04:43 PM
CNN Poll On Gun Control Chuck43 Off-Topic Discussion Forum 14 05-28-2014 07:29 PM