Straight Shooting About Gun Control
April 26th, 2007 at 4:24 pm by Mark
Tags: cartoon, gun control, law, massacre, media, moonbats, politics, shooting
A friend of mine sent me this cartoon earlier, and I find it perfect considering the media’s anti-gun standpoint in the wake of the mass shooting last week.
[ Copyright © Leo Garza / San Antonio Express-News ]
Having been around guns since I was … well, born, actually … I learned to have a healthy respect for them. As a child, I never touched them unless they were handed to me. I didn’t tell my friends about them. I didn’t ever show them to my friends. I didn’t carry them around with me. I certainly never took one to show-and-tell.
Why?
Because I listened to what my father told me.
Flash forward a lot of years, and any time a child doesn’t listen to their parents and does any of those things with a gun, the media goes insane about it.
The problem isn’t guns — it’s in raising a child who has no idea about cause-and-effect relationships, no responsibility or consequences for their own actions.
Guns should be kept away from children. I agree with that. Some people should not own guns. I agree with that. But making widespread sweeping changes and Federal bans on guns?
Congress doesn’t know enough about firearms to make any such distinctions. There are any number of stumbling blocks here. You can’t go out today and come home with a handgun. You can’t go out today and purchase a fully automatic, military-style weapon — nor can you in two weeks. Or a month. Or six.
We have enjoyed gun ownership since this country was founded. There are plenty of them around. Employing strict gun control laws only affects guns that the Government knows about, viz. AR-15 rifles. Since we’ve been signing up for them, with background checks, for nearly thirty years, then what are we supposed to do?
In essence, the Government would be saying, “Oh, by the way, that gun you signed for twenty years ago? Give it here. No, you haven’t done anything wrong. But … Give it! No, I don’t care how much you paid for it, and I don’t care what it’s worth. I’ll give you to the count of three, or I’ll have to shoot you… 1 … 2 … I thought so.”
“But you don’t need a Glock 17 that can hold 19 rounds!” some scream.
I would argue that they don’t need an SUV with a 24-gallon gas tank that has to be refilled every 200 miles.
Sure, my gun might, one day, give one person a really bad day if they come into my home with the intent of causing me harm. But their SUV is nothing more than a carbon monoxide factory that is destroying the ozone layer and screwing it up for all of us.
Which one’s really more important?
On 19-Apr-2007, vehement gun control activists, The Brady Campaign, released a press statement, titled, “Cho Seung-Hui Was A Prohibited Purchaser Under Existing Federal Law.”
Brady Campaign To Prevent Gun Violence President Paul Helmke issued the following statement:
“We believe that based on existing Federal law, Cho Seung-Hui should not have passed his Brady background checks and should not have been allowed to purchase firearms.”
So, basically, they’re saying that even though there were laws in place to prevent Cho from ever owning a gun, he got them anyway, because someone broke the law. Was it Cho? The seller? Those responsible for the background check?
Whatever the answer, it doesn’t change the fact that no amount of legislation would have kept it from happening.
Heed My Words: Gun control isn’t going to affect the massive number of illegal, untraceable guns that are out there, and it will leave a populace completely undefended against those who possess them.
April 26th, 2007 at 6:40 pm
I agree that gun control laws will never prevent an act of violence. Someone who is determined to get their hands on a gun will do so, and probably fairly easily. Besides, people were killing each other before guns existed. You’ve got knives, clubs, even bow and arrow. You can’t restrict everything that someone can harm someone with.
April 27th, 2007 at 8:58 am
But you can slow them down.
Americans and their little penises. They gotta carry a little penis around with them to compensate so they can be John Wayne. So they can feel powerful. So they can imagine that if they were at VT they would have shot that idiot and saved the day. The answer is more penises and bigger ones! Sure crazy people have them, so if my Mom and Grandma and sister and brother and Uncle have one too, then A) those crazy people won’t use them out of fear, and B) if they do, sis will shoot them dead…. Or C) more fights will end in bloodshed D) more depression will end in bullets to the brain E) more accidental shootings F) more easy to get guns for bad people…
Americans and their little penises need to get a grip and stop watching John Wayne movies. Live in reality. Stop watching Red Dawn too.
April 27th, 2007 at 9:41 am
I don’t think he is arguing that we need guns Monty. It’s pretty much a given that there would be less violence in the world if guns didn’t exist. Sure they made hunting much easier in the colonial days, but that use is becoming much less a necessity obviously. I think what mark is trying to say is that, now that there is already a vast circulation of guns, gun control is going to be ineffective. Like I said above, someone who wants to acquire a gun is going to acquire one, whether through human error as Cho did, or through illegal dealing. Look at the tight restrictions on drugs, and the effect that has had.
Also, banning guns won’t guarantee a drop in violence. If you look at the genocide in Rowanda, most of the mass killings were carried out by men with machetes. That just goes to show you that even genocide can be carried out without the widespread use of guns.
April 27th, 2007 at 10:13 am
Monty, if you think you can slow it down by getting rid of the legal guns, then you might need to do a refresher course in Logic and Scientific Reasoning.
I’ll owe it to your sheltered upbringing in a foreign country that never allowed gun ownership … oh, wait … they still have a moderate amount of gun violence … hey … how did that happen, since were never never allowed to buy guns? Hmmm… so, uhhhh… only criminals own guns… and… the violence is pretty much the same… in a 100% gun control state… what the….? The mind boggles, dude.
As for my alleged “small penis,” 9-out-of-10 hot, Swedish chicks disagree. Of course, I can’t compare to a 7-foot tall Liberian named Ekim.
April 27th, 2007 at 11:21 am
The logical falacy that prevades many arguments is the movement from the specific to the general. Here we have the specific good laws like the waiting period and the outlaw of guns like the Tech 9, to some generality about how you can always get a gun and it won’t stop everything. Absolutely true. As long as gun shows still allow you to buy a gun and walk home with it… But the fact that you can’t stop all gun violence with laws does not mean you can’t stop some gun violence with laws. Nor does one law to prevent gun violence mean the government is about to break down your door and take all your guns. That’s just inflamatory rhetoric.
Let’s hear an argument for allowing mentally ill people to buy guns.
And one for allowing violent felons to buy guns.
And please tell me why we need the Tech 9.
And there is that other addage: “If you outlaw guns, only the government will have guns.”
Ronald Reagan wanted the Brady Bill passed. You think he is anti-gun? Bill Clinton signed it into law.
April 27th, 2007 at 11:29 am
What were’re discussing here is the recent calls for MORE gun control, based on VT. We don’t need it.
I already said some people shouldn’t own guns. I have no problem with that. As far as gun shows, the outright sales that are happening there are ILLEGAL.
Have you been to a gun show? You are subject to a background for ALL handguns, and MANY rifles. Point is, you can’t just walk in, buy one, and leave.
Private sales of handguns without the background checks are already illegal. Private sales of many rifles without background checks are already illegal.
The point is, the laws are already there. People are breaking them, because the laws are not being enforced.
That’s the whole of the matter.
As for the Tec-9, I have but one thing to say: Bloody Swedes. 😉
April 27th, 2007 at 2:32 pm
More gun control can only mean an eventual “War on Guns” and how fucking ironic is that.
April 28th, 2007 at 4:12 am
More than war on guns (great turn of phrase), but war on freedoms perpetrated by control freaks. Monty, please sit down before you hurt yourself. xoxo, Brat
March 6th, 2011 at 9:43 pm
Its very douptful wheather theres any common sense in anti-gun waclos since their so dad gum emotional and reactionary