Why guns must be outlawed


PDA






progunner1957
June 12, 2006, 10:00 PM
The experts at the Brady Campaign, Million Mom March, Americans for Gun Safety and the United Nations are in unanimous agreement that all guns must be outlawed and removed from the possession of citizens in the United States. Here are several of their reasons as to why this must be done.



1: The more helpless you are, the safer you are from criminals.

2: An intruder will be incapacitated by tear gas or oven spray, but if shot with a .357 magnum will become outraged and kill you.

3: A woman raped and strangled is morally superior to a woman with a smoking gun and a dead rapist at her feet.

4: The Second Amendment, ratified in 1787, refers to the National Guard, which did not exist until 130 years later, having been formed in 1917.

5: The phrases “Right of the people to peaceably assemble,” “ right of the people to be secure in their homes,” “enumerations herein of certain rights shall not be construed to disparage others retained by the people,” and “the powers not delegated herein are reserved to the states respectively, and to the people” all refer to individuals. However, “The right of the people to keep and bear arms” refers to the state.

6: Rifles and handguns aren’t necessary for national defense. This explains why the U.S. armed forces have tens of millions of them.

7: Private citizens shouldn’t have handguns because they are not “military weapons.” Also, private citizens shouldn’t have “assault rifles” because they are military weapons.

8: A handgun, with up to four controls, is far too complex for the typical adult to use, as compared to an automobile that has up to 20 controls.

9: Guns cause violence, which is why there are so many mass killings at gun shows.

10: A majority of the population supports gun control, just as a majority of the population supported owning slaves.

11: Most people can’t be trusted so we should have laws against guns, which all criminals will obey because they can be trusted.

12: The right of internet pornographers to operate cannot be questioned because it is constitutionally protected by the Bill of Rights, but the use of handguns for self-defense is not really protected by the Bill of Rights.

13: Police officers operate with backup in large groups, which is why they need large capacity pistol magazines, as opposed to “civilians” who must face criminals alone and therefore need less ammunition.

14: We should ban “Saturday Night Specials” and all other inexpensive handguns because it isn’t fair that poor people have access to self-defense guns too.

15: Private citizens do not need a gun for self-protection because the police are there to protect them, even though the Supreme Court says the police are not responsible for their protection.

16: Citizens do not need to carry guns for personal protection, but police chiefs, who are desk bound administrators who work in a building filled with armed police, do need to carry a gun.

17: “Assault weapons” have no purpose other than to kill large numbers of people quickly. The police need “assault weapons;” you do not.

18: Trigger locks do not interfere with the ability to use a gun for defensive purposes. This is why you see police officers with them on their duty weapons.

19: Senator Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) thinks that a concealed carry permit will not help prevent personal crime. That's why she has one.


Source: Soldier of Fortune magazine, Dec. 2004, pp. 14-17, 75.

If you enjoyed reading about "Why guns must be outlawed" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
Prof. A. Wickwire
June 12, 2006, 10:19 PM
progunner1957,

Fantastic! If I was in the mood for a family fight, I would send this itemization to my mother.

Sincerely,

Prof. A. Wickwire

TheArchDuke
June 12, 2006, 10:21 PM
I love that list. I thought there were forty of them though.

One said something along the lines of "handguns are far too complicated to figure out in a life or death situation and so simple that children can use them"

something like that.


Great stuff though

progunner1957
June 12, 2006, 10:25 PM
There are something like 40 - I picked out my favorites to pass along. Sad thing is, I actually know people who think like that - ah, The Sheeple...:barf:

TheArchDuke
June 12, 2006, 10:33 PM
Well thanks for posting!

leadcounsel
June 12, 2006, 10:37 PM
Has anyone sent this to the brady campaign? It's fantastic in its simplicity at how stupid their arguments are.

dch1978
June 12, 2006, 11:00 PM
Where can I find information that Feinstein has a carry permit?

I know this taken as common knowledge around these parts but I have not been able to indepently verify the information for myself.

Any help would be appreciated.

DCH

Spiphel Rike
June 12, 2006, 11:28 PM
You left out the one about reloading? why?

The original list of 40 was great, I annoyed the hell out of people with those.

Roadwild17
June 12, 2006, 11:40 PM
Some please tell me this is a joke, like seriously, I'm reading this to my partially anti-gun girlfriend and shes even laughing.

The_Shootist
June 12, 2006, 11:57 PM
...give them the source..."Soldier of Fortune"? Slight bias in its op-ed, perhaps? :D

Carl
June 13, 2006, 07:50 AM
Nice!

#11 is my favorite.

sterling180
June 13, 2006, 08:35 AM
1: The more helpless you are, the safer you are from criminals.


2: An intruder will be incapacitated by tear gas or oven spray, but if shot with a .357 magnum will become outraged and kill you.
3: A woman raped and strangled is morally superior to a woman with a smoking gun and a dead rapist at her feet.

7: Private citizens shouldn’t have handguns because they are not “military weapons.” Also, private citizens shouldn’t have “assault rifles” because they are military weapons.
8: A handgun, with up to four controls, is far too complex for the typical adult to use, as compared to an automobile that has up to 20 controls.
9: Guns cause violence, which is why there are so many mass killings at gun shows.

All of the above are untrue and stupid,to say the least.A rapist will rape and might kill a woman-anyway,so that rules that out.In saying this I have read about rapists,who were killed by inmates in British jails-because other cons,hated their crimes and the rapists-calling them scum and nonces.

Most handuns are easy to use,as told by countless persons-but can be difficult to to fire at targets accurately.That is why civillians and military persons practise at the range-and also to zero the sights as well. A handgun is easy to use,when shown how to,but takes practise-to score accurate hits.

Guns cause violence in the wrong hands of a stupid,irresponsible,moronic whacko-but not in the hands of a responsible person.

As for shooting an intruder with a .357 magnum,well I think that the intruder would be more than incapacitated-they would either be seriously injured or even dead.Why do they think that Hollywood and the video-games industries,portray the .357,.44s and .50AEs as powerful bullets,that will kill most things?

The more helpless you are,the more likely you will become a target for criminals.You become "easy game",for them.They would watch you,like a pack of wolves,watching a lamb-on its own.

sterling180
June 13, 2006, 08:42 AM
14: We should ban “Saturday Night Specials” and all other inexpensive handguns because it isn’t fair that poor people have access to self-defense guns too.

[Whats class got to do with it? In the UK both mass-murderers lived in middle-class,upper-working class districts and owned expensive weapons.Can't poor people save up their money, or can they not?

Iv'e known a Royal Mail man,to have saved up for several years,to buy a Rolex watch.Crazy people exist in all social classes.

LadySmith
June 13, 2006, 09:02 AM
Sterling180,
It seems you're unaware that the article is strictly satire. It's point is to show the often twisted and hypocritical thought processes of those who would like to ban guns in the USA.

Kentak
June 13, 2006, 09:08 AM
Sterling180--

You do know this is satire, right?

K

the pistolero
June 13, 2006, 09:41 AM
There's much more, here (http://www.imao.us/archives/004368.html) and here (http://www.imao.us/archives/004375.html). Some of my favorites:

AMAZING BELIEFS:

That the proper response to an attack is to call the police, but only unarmed police, because "Violence never settles anything."

That it’s wrong to make snide, sexist comments about women, unless the comments are about women who own guns.

That a hijacker could easily take a gun away from a pilot, but the hundreds of passengers aboard would then be unable to take the gun away from the hijacker.

That if there’d been a gun aboard American Airlines Flight 93, someone could have been hurt.

That the lack of mention of guns in wills in colonial American cities proves that most Americans didn’t own them, just as the lack of mention of outhouses proves that most people squatted in the yard.

That NASA, the military, physiologists, anatomists and trainers all agree and Olympic scores confirm that men on average have tremendously more upper body strength than women, but women should try to defend themselves with martial arts and not a gun.

That rather than spend a few hundred dollars on a firearm and an afternoon learning how to use it, one should instead spend thousands of dollars and several years learning a martial art, so you’ll be well-prepared to fight anyone, as long as they’re in your gender division and weight class.

That an actor from Hollywood who points a gun at friend and foe without discrimination, who keeps the finger on the trigger with no target, who fires a handgun on its side, who fires two guns akimbo, who tries to shoot a single-action pistol with a lowered hammer, and who fires 60 shots from a 30-round magazine, should be taken as an expert on the subject.

That a punk wakes up one morning, and thinks, "Gee, instead of robbing, raping, sodomizing and killing a young woman, why don’t I turn my $400 gun in for $20 and a pizza and go work at McDonald's?"

That one should consult an automotive engineer for safer seatbelts, a civil engineer for a better bridge, a neurosurgeon for spinal paralysis, a computer programmer for Y2K problems, and Sarah Brady for firearms expertise.


Read 'em all. Good stuff. :D

Manedwolf
June 13, 2006, 10:11 AM
Should add something about Rosie o'Donnel's million mom march. That she has ARMED bodyguards for her kids.

sterling180
June 13, 2006, 10:56 AM
Sterling180,
It seems you're unaware that the article is strictly satire. It's point is to show the often twisted and hypocritical thought processes of those who would like to ban guns in the USA.

Opps,okay,so it's satirical,but it is similar to the UK GCNs points about gun ownership-and I am not kidding either.Some of the points made are similar to what goes on, in the minds of the antis in the UK.That is why I couldn't tell the difference,at first-but I can now.

I guess that I didn't read it carefully-I can usually spot satires,easily enough-because we in the UK,have and still make enough satirical comedy shows,that mock, current affairs.This piece is funny enough.

progunner1957
June 13, 2006, 12:30 PM
it is similar to the UK GCNs points about gun ownership-and I am not kidding either.The power brokers behind the gun ban movement are not stupid - they know exactly what they are doing.

As for their simpleminded, Pollyanna followers -also known as "The Sheeple"- the tortured logic, denial and outright stupidity they employ to (attempt to) justify their beliefs knows no bounds.

Simplemindedness, gullibility and stupidity are not conducive to personal freedom.

Sterling180, you have my sympathy regarding the situation in the UK. I hope you and your fellow citizens are somehow able to regain your right to arms some day. If not, the American shooting community would welcome you here with open arms.

Carl N. Brown
June 13, 2006, 01:57 PM
Uh, that article was satire? It was not copied from Brady Campaign
or IANSA? It was not a transcript of a recording of Rebecca Peters
singing in the shower? Could'a fooled me too.

That the lack of mention of guns in wills in colonial American cities proves that most Americans didn’t own them, just as the lack of mention of outhouses proves that most people squatted in the yard.
It is true that disgraced historian Michael Bellesiles found only seven
percent of Colonial wills listed guns, while few historians have found
outhouses listed in Colonial wills; however, several historians who
examined Bellesiles' sources found that they actually showed an average
of 75% listing firearms; 25% listed clothing. Yes, boys and girls, at least
50% of Colonial Americans were gun toting nudists.

Phetro
June 13, 2006, 02:11 PM
It is true that disgraced historian Michael Bellesiles found only seven
percent of Colonial wills listed guns, while few historians have found
outhouses listed in Colonial wills; however, several historians who
examined Bellesiles' sources found that they actually showed an average
of 75% listing firearms; 25% listed clothing. Yes, boys and girls, at least
50% of Colonial Americans were gun toting nudists.

Bah, I just knew I was living in the wrong era!

GLOCK19XDSC
June 13, 2006, 07:52 PM
I like this rant, by THR member madmike:

http://michaelzwilliamson.com/rants/guncontrol.php?PHPSESSID=cd9516b6e7cf4d156810a7a699cae583

Also,

Madmike, where is the next installment of the adventures of Wade and Monroe? Huh? WHERE IS IT? I want it, now, please.:evil:

Thank you.

Zen21Tao
June 13, 2006, 09:23 PM
I've seen the list and love it. It really astounds me that some people actually believe that banning guns will somehow end all the violence in the world and bring all people together to sing a chorus of Koom-by-ya. :banghead:

LadySmith
June 14, 2006, 08:54 AM
Opps,okay,so it's satirical,but it is similar to the UK GCNs points about gun ownership-and I am not kidding either.Some of the points made are similar to what goes on, in the minds of the antis in the UK.That is why I couldn't tell the difference,at first-but I can now.
I know how you feel Sterling. I live in California where most of those points have been made into laws. Even though the list is satirical, sometimes I didn't know whether to laugh or cry. :mad:

280PLUS
June 14, 2006, 09:16 AM
I can usually spot satires,easily enough-because we in the UK,have and still make enough satirical comedy shows,that mock, current affairs. There's plenty of Americans that miss Benny Hill. :(

A few of us were just talking about him the other day. Apparently there's a wax figure of him in Madam Tuassad's (sp?) in Amsterdam. :D

Funny stuff, makes me want to turn all my guns in given the rational reasoning presented. Where do I go? :rolleyes:

sterling180
June 14, 2006, 01:13 PM
[[/IMG]Sterling180, you have my sympathy regarding the situation in the UK. I hope you and your fellow citizens are somehow able to regain your right to arms some day. If not, the American shooting community would welcome you here with open arms.

Thanks progunner1957,In the near future,there is always a possibility,that I might,just might immigrate to the USA.As for our bans,well-we have had centrefire slr's and pump-actions banned since 1989 and all handguns since late 1997 and early 1998.There was an attempt to ban pump-action and self-loading rifles and shotguns-but it failed misrably for the antis-in 2004.

For 17 years we have waited for our "proper" assault-weapons and self-loading and pump-action centrefire rifles,to return,but they haven't.So it's likely that they will never return-and to make matters worse,this happend under a Tory government-who claimed to be pro-shooting.

It was the same government who outlawed centrefire pistols in 1997 and then Blair-the Labour leader/newly-elected PM-banned rimfire pistols in 1998.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/3/3c/Michaelryan190.jpg http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/a/a9/Thamilton.jpeg

Thomas Hamilton,who was responsible for the deaths of 16 kids and their teacher in an Elemantary School in Dunblane,Scotland.Right Photograph

Micheal Ryan,the Hungerford mass-murderer,responsible for 17 peoples deaths on August 19th 1987.Left photograph.

http://www.expressandstar.com/millennium/1900/1976-2000/pictures/1987/HUNGERFORD.jpg
Members of the Tactical Firearms Unit (Swat teams.) who were gearing up,to locate Micheal Ryan

Billy_H
June 14, 2006, 01:16 PM
I got a kick out of those, as scary as it is to think that people really do have that mindset.

I posted them over on a local social networking website I run to try and spark some discussion on the subject...we'll see how that turns out.

Here is a link to the thread if anyone is interested... Gun "Beliefs" (http://www.tampaforums.com/forums/free-4-all/some-funny-scary-gun-beliefs-discussion-inside-274983/)

sterling180
June 14, 2006, 01:18 PM
There's plenty of Americans that miss Benny Hill.

A few of us were just talking about him the other day. Apparently there's a wax figure of him in Madam Tuassad's (sp?) in Amsterdam.

Yes,don't we all miss him,he was an absolute comical genious-in terms of his acting and timing in his comedy shows.He still makes me laugh to this day,but he was a very rude man-both of screen and on-screen.He liked to fondle the ladies apparently-because a woman was invited to dinner by him and was touched up by him.What a performer.:) :)

As for there being a statue of him,there is definately of him in Madame Tussards-in London-but I don't know about there being one of him in Amsterdam.:)

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/2/29/BennyHill.jpg

sterling180
June 14, 2006, 06:26 PM
The Task Ahead
It is important for us in Gun Control Australia to make a critical assessment of the new gun laws. There is no doubt that major improvements to gun laws have taken place. One only has to note that now there is a national gun registration scheme, gun law uniformity throughout the nation, and much stricter arrangements for the ownership of the most dangerous weapons. But there are serious weaknesses in the new gun laws.

The first echelon of weaknesses were introduced by the police ministers themselves by way of concessions to gun owners.

The concessions to members of the Australian Clay Target Association (ACTA).

This concession allows existing members of ACTA to use semi-auto and pump action shotguns in defiance of the category C prohibition for such weapons. It also allows new ACTA members to use such guns if they can show a physical reason to do so. I believe this is a sop of the worst kind to the claybird fraternity.

The weakening of the requirement for hunters to have written permission to shoot.

By permitting hunters to obtain a 'one-off' letter of approval to shoot, from a landowner, the police ministers have opened old- fashioned free for all hunting procedures. The idea that hunters have to obtain a landowner's written permission whenever they wish to hunt game or feral pests was one of the strongest aspects of the proposed legislation.

The most dangerous guns are hunting guns which are stored in the home, but available for domestic impropriety. The police ministers have done the public a great disservice by allowing lifetime hunting approval to be given.

Occupational Concessions for guns which would otherwise be prohibited.

By making it possible for landowners to use category C weapons if they obtain approval for feral pest reduction, the police ministers have once again let the public down. We believe that self-loading guns are not required for such purposes and this concession is a sop to the farming community. This concession has been magnified by allowing such approvals to take part in joint shoots on other farming properties.

Another complaint which could be made about the new gun laws is the legitimacy which many gun clubs have now accrued.

By declaring that membership of a well-known gun club constitutes a genuine reason to own guns, the police ministers have made an extraordinary concession to the gun lobby. It now means that merely by paying a yearly subscription of perhaps $40 to $50 automatically proves that he or she is entitled to own a gun. This is deplorable. The police ministers have taken the easy out and in the process have ensured that gun clubs will increase in size and have more people and resource strength to combat stricter gun laws. It also implies that membership of a gun entitles a person to a quasi-right to own a gun and places the gun clubs on a new pedestal of legitimacy.

There are more serious weaknesses in the gun laws however than the above three concessions.

The police ministers, the premiers and the federal government were convinced that the new gun laws would stop Australia taking the American path. To the extent that there is now a clearer understandin
g that gun ownership is not a right, and to the extent that the new laws will slow the rate of gun proliferation, the politicians are correct. But the American gun problem largely arises from the high percentage of homes in the US where there is a gun. Nothing was done to seriously improve this situation in Australia. It has been estimated that one in four Australian homes contains at least one gun. Most gun tragedies come about because of this and the new gun laws have done nothing to reduce the number of guns in homes, just as they have achieved very little about improving the storage requirements of guns in homes.

The police ministers balked at the difficulties facing them in regards to the removal of guns from homes. This was and still is a major difficulty for any regime of gun control, because it requires new concepts in gun storage, concepts which have not been adequately debated. Our parliamentarians could have required that all rifles and shotguns be stored in a similar manner to handguns, but they were not prepared to go that far. No matter how good home storage is, however, the guns are still where they are easily accessible to the gun owners and where they can cause the most danger.

By concentrating on controls directed towards high power guns, the parliamentarians were in fact indicating that they were primarily concerned with gun massacres and not the vastly more common individual shootings. Aside from removal of guns from homes, could they have tackled the individual shooter problem? The answer is yes, but they had no theory to support them. All this century the gun lobby has argued that it is the person that should be controlled, not the gun. The fact that the gun lobby does not want very strict controls on the person can for the moment be ignored, but perhaps this is one of the reasons that the parliaments did not choose to make greatly improved training and testing procedures the very core of their new gun laws.

Two months after the massacre, Gun Control Australia started a campaign to show that there was a major weakness in the new gun laws. Put simply, the parliaments failed to realise the core importance of a thorough instruction program for those who wished to obtain a shooters licence. While a person only has to attend an afternoon's instruction and pass a 15 minute multiple choice test, there is no real challenge and hence no real selectivity in the shooters licence program.

One only has to read the six Australian gun magazines to realise that many active shooters have become a different segment of the community to the majority, a segment that has a fatal attraction to guns and to the killing process. Above all, they constitute a segment that is ill-disciplined, poorly read and all too often quite callous.

For these reasons Gun Control Australia has always believed that shooters need at least 40 hours of instruction spread over six months if they are to develop sufficient knowledge about their weapons for public safety. We believe that this failure by our parliaments to face the two fundamentals of prolonged training and through testing on one hand and the removal of guns from homes, on the other, will prove to be a severe weakness in the contribution of the new gun laws to community safety.

I conclude with this warning. Despite the considerable improvement to gun laws throughout Australia there are major weaknesses in regards to the ready availability of most guns. No substantial improvements have been made to the laws controlling handguns and the removal of weapons from private homes has in no way been tackled. Finally, gun law legislation still remains with the six States and two Territories. The nightmare still exists; one of the state's might break ranks with the concept of uniform gun laws and then we'd be back with the oldest and nastiest trouble of all.

Of course, private trading in guns still exists and inadequately protected gun shops are spread throughout the land. In short, the task of proper gun control is far from complete.


http://www.edgar-brothers.co.uk/ORIG...iles/26925.jpg

So why are they objecting to semi-auto and pump-action shotguns,for clay-shooting? How stupid can you get? But it's funny how some states defy the bans,by being sensible.

MedGrl
June 14, 2006, 06:38 PM
can anyone post a link or give a spasific location to retrieve the whole 40 item list? I would love to see al 40.

Spiphel Rike
June 15, 2006, 09:41 AM
It's available from google. I think the list of definitions was more hilarious, IIRC they were canadian and poked fun at the made up definitions. Hearing that reloading involves witchcraft is just too damn funny :D

sterling180
June 15, 2006, 05:55 PM
Amnesty nets Kalashnikov


The Kalashnikov was handed in to police
A Kalashnikov assault rifle and two sawn-off shotguns have been handed in to Scotland's largest police force during the third week of a nationwide guns amnesty.
Strathclyde Police believe the AK47 rifle had been deactivated and could not be fired.

But they said it would have caused "a great deal of fear and alarm" if it had got into the wrong hands.

More than 4,000 rounds of ammunition and 147 other weapons were also surrendered in the last week.

The force's total haul so far is 313 guns.

Sawn-off shotguns

Detective Superintendent Stephen Ward said he was relieved that the owner of the Kalashnikov rifle had decided to hand it in to a police station.

He said: "Although this weapon cannot be fired, it still resembles a real, live AK47.

"If this weapon got into the hands of criminals, it could cause a great deal of fear and alarm."

The two sawn-off shotguns handed in were in addition to one given up earlier in the amnesty.

Mr Ward said: "We were surprised but delighted when we recovered one sawn-off shotgun, now three have been handed in.

It is a particularly lethal weapon which can cause real harm

Detective Superintendent Stephen Ward

"A sawn-off shotgun exists for only one reason - to commit a crime.

"It is a particularly lethal weapon which can cause real harm. However, three have now been taken out of circulation and cannot contribute to any injury or loss of life."

Retired Red Army officer Mikhail Kalashnikov invented the AK47 at the end of World War II and despite numerous modifications it remains essentially the same.

It is simple to make and to use - making it easy to copy for dozens of arms manufacturers around the world.

A staggering 100 million AKs have been produced so far - enough to arm all the armies of the world.

http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/media/images/39126000/jpg/_39126837_kalashnikov203.jpg

The Kalashnikov was handed in to police

Yet these types of AKs and variants are legal in the UK,
The Assault-rifle is bolt-action and the Saiga 12guage,is 100% genuine.

http://www.rusmilitary.com/images/ak102_saiga.gif

http://www.rusmilitary.com/images/saiga12%20(78).gif
:rolleyes: :confused: :banghead:

kikr
June 16, 2006, 02:08 AM
I have always found it fascinating that the big wigs of the anti-gun folks are ALWAYS surounded by security people. Of course they dont believe anyone should own a gun...they can hire someone else to own one for them.:confused:

Nitupsar
June 20, 2006, 01:28 AM
I am of the opinion that it is the clear right that people should be allowed to defend themselves against intruders, assault, criminals of all kinds and this would naturally involve the use of a weapon when warranted.

However someone whom I trust a lot once said heard that it does not necessarily have the desired result to have a gun around. Poeple end up shooting themselves, their family, relatives or the children find the gun and shoot each other or any other gruesome scenario that we wish to avoid. Very seldom, it is said, is the gun effective in protecting life and property. However, I would like to see some stats on this issue. If anyone has any research or hard facts to show, I would like to hear it. :)

kikr
June 21, 2006, 03:01 AM
Nitupsar, I think the two URL's below will help answer your question:

http://www.nsc.org/lrs/statinfo/odds.htm

http://www.fbi.gov/research.htm

With those two pages you'll be able to see how many times guns are used in both wrong full deaths IE.. suicide, homicide, ND/AD, and in self defense. Good luck

If you enjoyed reading about "Why guns must be outlawed" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!