Assist me in replying to an anti?

[GRB]

Read the article: Letter From An Angry Reader @ http://www.keepandbeararms.com/information/XcIBViewItem.asp?ID=3499. It is fairly old but not outdated. Make sure to pay attention to the line or two about gun control in England and about us not becoming like them if guns are banned. Well heavens know that gun are banned in England, so are knives and most other weapons and the incidence of violent crime is up over there. Gun control has not ended gun violence for the brits, just made a good person more likely to become a victim.

It is a fairly long letter, actually article length, as once the actual letter was received by Esquire, they asked its author to lengthen it to an article. He did just that and it is a great piece. I read it when it first came out, back in the 80s, and it still affects me when I read it now.

All the best,
Glenn B

 

[BHPshooter]

It's not worth either killing or being killed in order to defend your wallet.

Logical fallacy: Who says he's going to be happy with my wallet? Newsflash, there are people out there that are out for blood. The gang member that was recently put to death in California was a good example of that (I forget his name).

What about shooting a burglar in "self defence" so called and then finding you've shot your own son who was sneaking around the house late at night for nefarious reasons?

Why do antis always assume that we're out there shooting at every shadow? I don't know anybody that wouldn't either 1) have a flashlight with their gun, 2) shout a command such as "stop" or "freeze" to a suspected intruder, or 3) Both.

Rule #4 is know your target and what is beyond it.

Guns are bad news. What we need is a device that will stun someone without killing them.

This dude has simply been watching too much Star Trek. There have been many tools designed to "stun" someone, and most of them have one of two problems. 1) They don't reliably work to stun everyone, or 2) they still have the possibility of killing the attacker.

Wake up. We live in the real world here, and it isn't pretty. Setting the phaser to "stun" is only a reality in a tv-based 24th century.

As far as America is concened the NRA refuses to recognise the difference between deer hunters, farmers and their shotguns and the sacred right to own an AK 47 in a city.

That's because there is no difference. We have a God-given right to own any of the above, and that's that. And who says the NRA is the entity making gun laws? Everybody loves a Chairborne Ranger.

They argue that any restrictions on gun ownership are the road to tyranny, which is absurd.

Absurd, is it? Has there ever been a Genocide, mass extermination, or ethnic cleansing brought forth on ANY group of people who owned guns?
If it isn't a road to tyranny, defend the logic of this: Why is it that after every shooting, people try to take the guns away from everybody who didn't do it? How is that justifiable?

And to say that gun controls in Chicago have failed to prevent murders is a weak argument since the simple answer is that there would almost certainly be even more deaths without such controls.

Proof? Numbers? Quite brazen to tell us we're wrong without telling us how or why.

The constitutional right to bear arms dates from the time when the pioneers lived hundreds of miles away from the protection of government and needed to defend themselves both against Indians and us imperialist British invading from Canada.

And you, living in Britain, would know this how? These are some interesting assumptions -- all wrong. Read the Second Freaking Amendment. It lists one reason for its enumeration: the security of a free state.

It is another example of why a written constitution is a bad idea, since it can become out of date but virtually impossible to change. Fortunately in Britain we don't have a constitution, we have democracy instead.

Yes, having a written Constitution that tells us what the government can and can't do is MUCH worse than having a government that can do anything it wants and claim that it's Constitutional -- how will you prove otherwise? You don't have any hard document to point to.

Our Constitution is not outdated. It is every bit as useful now as it ever was, we just need to follow it.

And unfortunately, you don't have Democracy in Britain. You have Socialism with a pretty Parliament facade.

Exactly, gun ownership has been growing in London and the result is increased homicides.

Gun ownership is growing? What about all of that wonderful and effective Gun Control you guys have over there? Sounds to me like this is an inadvertent admission that Gun Control doesn't work.

I am a right wing conservative yet even I consider a lot of right wing Americans to lack empathy.

A right wing conservative in Britain is still more of a leftist than all but the most socialist-leaning people we have in the US. Empathy, politically speaking, is just another hole in the logic-bucket. Empathy is nice to have personally speaking, but it has no place in the legislature.

Fear seems to be in the driving seat. How about being brave enough not to carry a gun?
Does George W ever wonder whether Jesus would carry a gun?

Nobody's forcing you to carry a gun. Nobody wants to force you to, either. Why, then, are you so bent on making sure that nobody else does? That's a personal decision that doesn't affect you in the least -- unless you are the type that likes to go carjacking or breaking and entering.

Actually, Jesus -- if in modern times -- would have carried a gun, and so would his disciples. Luke 22:36 documents Jesus talking to his followers, saying: Then said he unto them, But now, he that hath a purse, let him take it, and likewise his scrip: and he that hath no sword, let him sell his garment, and buy one.

And what does GWB have to do with any of this, other than being a convenient target for pot-shots?

Next!

Wes

 

[Poprivit]

Evil, un-British gun owners

Ever hear of Lend-lease? Or were all you Brits asleep during the last two World Wars? I seem to remember that the 'ol USA sent everything including sporting rifles over to Britian during those two conflicts. Also, we left a lot of good American names on crosses over there. The British were more than happy with our guns and lots of them back then. They NEEDED guns to keep them from speaking German!

I heard that after the war all the guns were rounded up and dumped in the ocean.

Free and Class III owner
(What does "Molon Llabe mean? I'm new here.)

 

[iapetus]

I've discussed/argued about RKBA with a number of people (both in the "real world", and on web forums). Sometimes I've had some success, sometimes not.

One problem is that different people have their beliefs for different reasons, and respond to different lines of reasoning.

Sometimes I've argued for ages, gaining no ground, and then one comment has almost instantly brought them round to my side.

On other occasions, that same point has made someone who had been becoming increasingly sympathetic to my views decide that I was a delusional nutcase after all.

You would probably have to try to work out where they are coming from, and tailor your arguments to suit them. Or just get lucky.



Possible points to bring up:

Genocide.
Describe how in so many cases of genocide or ethnic cleansing, thousands of people (or hundreds of thousands, or more) have passively, almost willingly go to their deaths.

Suggest that it seems almost inconceivable that so many people would show such passivity, but then point out that - without arms - there wasn't really anything else they could do.

Then say that while such events seem implausible in our countries, history has shown that it has happened many times, in many places, and often in countries that - until shortly before - had been relatively liberal, peaceful nations. And while we may not see any need for such weapons now, if a liberal, democratic society will not let its citizens own defensive arms, at what stage on its slide into tyranny and oppression will it relent?


Comparisons of other countries.
If you can find any statistics that really do prove that more guns = less crime, by all means use them. But failing that, a comparison of gun ownership and crime rates in various countries will probably show absolutely no correlation what so ever. (E.g. Switzerland: lots of guns, low crime rate; Japan: very few guns, low crime rate; UK: few (legal) guns, violent crime generally lower than US, but rising, and more gun crime than before handgun ban; Mexico: stricter gun laws than US (so I believe), worse violent crime; etc).


Try to see if he will agree if there is every any situation where lethal force may be justified in self defence. If he agrees, point out that banning guns because "someone may misuse them" means you are preventing the person described previously from defending themselves, effectively punishing them (possibly with a death sentence) for the acts (or potential acts) of others.


Say that when something can have both good and bad uses, a free society should trust its citizens to exercise their good judgement, and only punish those who violate that trust. Rather than banning that something, thereby preventing it being used for good (and as likely as not, doing little to stop it from being used for bad).


Make a comparison with other objects that can be used or abused with fatal consequences. Cars might be a good example, as far more people are killed with cars than guns, many people don't actually need their cars (bring this up if he says most people don't actually need their guns, and/or says people need cars). And I'm sure that the proportion of legal drivers who use their cars irresponsibly is higher than the proportion of legal gun owners who use their guns irresponsibly. (Depending on your view on the issue, you could also add global warming to the "why cars are worse than guns" line of reasoning).


I'm sure there is more, but this post is getting long, so I’ll leave it there.

 

[ArfinGreebly]

Thefumegator

Wes,

Nicely said.

It always warms the heart to see logic properly applied.

Thanks.

Oh, PILMAN, post # 27 is what you're looking for.

 

[Christianninja]

**Abridged** Well let's see now, a chav with an axe broke into my home. What would I do?

I would tell him: "I say, sir, that is a simply marvellous axe. You wield it with such skill and with such vigour that I instantly warm to your derring-do .............yself an axe of equal character to yours, so that we may more equally discuss the future ownership of my possessions and the quality of my physical constitution."

Your laws may be screwed up, but I tell you Stephen King was right- the English can make an ad for ribbed condoms sound like poetry.

 

[Zen21Tao]

The "occasional maniac" is going to be armed whether or not the law and sane abiding are allowed. Seems to me that if you have 100 people, of which 1 is a nutball then I want as many of the remaining 99 to be armed and prepared for said nutball as possible.

I agree 100%. Consider the following two incidents. The first is a crazy guy with NO armed citizens. The second is a crazy man with a citizen (off duty cop) carrying a concealed weapon.

1. "Luby's Massacre"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luby's_Massacre

On October 16, 1991 in Killeen, Texas, a man named George Hennard drove his 1987 Ford Ranger truck into a Luby's Cafeteria in Killeen Texas, yelled "This is what Bell County has done to me!" then opened fire on the restaurant's patrons and staff with a Glock 17 and later a Ruger P89. He killed 23 people and wounded 20 before he killed himself. Only the work of a large man breaking through a window allowed the rest of the patrons to escape. One noted exception was a mother and her 4-year-old child, who Hennard allowed to leave. Though Hennard was shot several times by police, only when he ran out of victims did Hennard walk to the rear of the seating area and take his own life with a gunshot to the head.

It should be noted that many of the patrons, such as Suzanna Hupp, had firearms in their vehicles but by law were not allowed to carry them on their person. Survivors and family of the victims, with the help of the media, were successful in moving lawmakers to consider the concept of conceal carry permits for citizens. As a direct result of this massacre, in 1995 Texas lawmakers, led by Suzanna Gratia Hupp (whose parents were both killed in the massacre), passed a law after the veto of former Governor Ann Richards that allowed Texas citizens to obtain a concealed carry handgun permit in part as a reaction against the massacre. Soon after, many states considered similar weapon permits for law-abiding citizens.

No arned citizens = 23 killed + 20 more wounded.


2. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trolley_Square_shooting

On February 12, 2007, at 6:44 PM MST, Talović began a deadly shooting in Trolley Square resulting in the deaths of five bystanders and the shooter himself,[3] as well as the wounding of at least 4 others. Talovic was described as wearing a white shirt, a tan trenchcoat and a mullet.[4] He carried both a shotgun and a handgun,[5] as well as a backpack full of ammunition.[6]

The gunman was ultimately stopped after a shootout with off duty Police Officer Kenneth Hammond. The final confrontation, in which Talović was killed, occurred in the Pottery Barn Kids home furnishing store.[7] Hammond was at Trolley Square with his pregnant wife, 911 dispatcher Sarita Hammond. Sarita borrowed a waiter's cell phone to call 911.

An armed citizen (armed off duty cop having dinner with wife) with a gun stops killer in his tracks = 5 killed + 4 wounded

 

[Odd Job]

Your laws may be screwed up, but I tell you Stephen King was right- the English can make an ad for ribbed condoms sound like poetry.

Aah, but sir I am a South African, through and through

 

[ArfinGreebly]

Odd_Job

I would tell him: "I say, sir, that is a simply marvellous axe. You wield it with such skill and with such vigour that I instantly warm to your derring-do and I feel a surge of bravado and machismo overtaking me, to the point that I feel compelled to challenge you fairly and squarely just as in the chivalrous duels of old.
However, I must say at this point that it is hardly a fair match: notwithstanding the fact that you have a substantial melee weapon and could probably fell me with one swift blow to the upper cervical region, I have here in my hand a firearm that can readily and more efficiently dispatch you by virtue of the fact that it can expel lead projectiles at more than 1000 feet per second. I therefore propose that you come into my kitchen and avail yourself of a cup of tea and a freshly-made scone while I pawn this firearm with all haste and purchase for myself an axe of equal character to yours, so that we may more equally discuss the future ownership of my possessions and the quality of my physical constitution."

That is a marvelous summary of the British viewpoint.

I have always thought it the height of absurdity that one would keep behind the door one of every conceivable weapon that an intruder/assailant might bring with him, so has not to violate the principle of "proportionate" force.

I say, old Bean, what ho! Do be a good chap and tarry there a moment; I find myself somewhat over-equipped for our engagement. In the interest of fairness I have to ask you, since I have only a cricket bat and yours is a baseball bat, do you want to call it even, or shall I use my cudgel -- actually a variation on the Shillelagh? Your call: I want to be completely fair about this.​

It feels so . . . Monty Python.

Are you sure you wouldn't rather set up housekeeping on this side of the pond?

Aah, but sir I am a South African, through and through

Ahh, and a damned fine purveyor of prose in the bargain.

 

[Odd Job]

@ Arfin

Thank you sir. You should see me when I get some momentum

 

[Hokkmike]

"As far as America is concened the NRA refuses to recognise the difference between deer hunters, farmers and their shotguns and the sacred right to own an AK 47 in a city. They argue that any restrictions on gun ownership are the road to tyranny, which is absurd. "

Regrettably, most people don't realize that there is no difference between a "military" styled semi auto vs. one that might more commonly be used for hunting. Action styles are an irrelevant argument in a gun debate. What's next, chrome receivers?

 

[Scorpiusdeus]

Ah our cousins from across the pond.

I recently had one stay at my home for about a week. As I expected it would the subject of firearms ownership came up.

This young man of about 21 years is either very sheltered despite having been to university and living abroad or most Brits are greatly misinformed and are almost childlike in their understanding of America's "gun culture".

Some things that I learned or occurred to me that may help you.

1) They all seem to believe that EVERYONE in America has a firearm and that we carry them everywhere we go (from his mouth to gods ear). They also seem to believe that ALL Americans will shoot you if We feel offended.

2) The young lad that stayed with us constantly commented on the great distances we had to drive to go to another town or even to work. I quote " This country is bloody massive". Uh, yes, it is and so despite what the moron you are fighting with believes, we still live great distances away from others and more importantly from police protection.

The concept that it can take the police as long as ten to fifteen minutes to respond to a deadly encounter seems foreign to them.

In a nut shell, we are misinformed about them and they about us despite or somewhat common language.

To point this out to my young friend I told him that up until his visit I thought all brits drank their beer warm. He was stunned that I could be so wrong and asked where I heard that nonsense from.

3) While not a usual concern, The UK has no land borders with any other country. We in the US have two. I don't expect Canada or Mexico to invade anytime soon, but if they do...

 

[davhina]

PILMAN,
Give this website a try..plenty of ammo here
http://www.a-human-right.com/

 

[Stretchman]

There's people in Britain that want to outlaw swords too. Swords are the reason that there is a Britain. Heck, theirmost obscene gesture relates to their archers having kept their fingers. Ask a Brit to explain it to you. Take away their swords? Are you mad?

If anyone could obey firearms rules it would be the Brits. I think it's insane not to let them keep weapons. In fact, were I King, I would make it madndatory, God and Country, and all that sort of rot, but it ain't up to me.

I had the pleasure of serving with the USAF on an RAF base for 3 years during the height of the cold war. I simply cannoty see these people flying off for no good reason, and resorting to a weapon. It took a lot to get them angry. I know, because the yanks and blokes made sport of it. Normally resolved with a shot of scotch and a pint. Sometimes I really miss those days.

 

[Leedavisone]

Don't be so hard on the poor British. They have not always been like this. Even Churchill understood us, but then he went through several wars, aided by American arms. And, he said that "nothing is more exhilerating than to be shot at, without effect". George Bernard Shaw understood too... "England and America are two countries separated by a common language".
I was in Stornoway, Scotland having a pint with a Brit schoolteacher. Since we were off our Sailboat, tied to the dock (flying an American flag) he asked "What kind of guns do you carry?" He was Amazed to find that we had none, especially since we were from the 'Wild West'- New Mexico. I assured him that it was a common thing for hunters, competition shooters, collectors and Police to have guns, you just didn't see them as a routine. He was wary, and unconvinced. I didn't try to persuade him... he is British, after all.
Since the CCW laws have been enacted in New Mexico in 2003, only one fatal shooting has occured... a CCW permit holder killed a man that was attacking a woman (ex-wife) with a knife in a Wal Mart. Seems to me that it speaks very highly for the right to bear arms. But, I am a liberal. I suppose that makes me a minority... a Liberal that thinks guns are a good thing.
I think the Brits still have a lot of resentment for Americans, and mourn the loss of empire... there are the often repeated lines "Americans are overpaid, over sexed, and over here"... countered by Yanks with: "The British are under paid, under sexed, and under Eisenhower". Kinda says it all...


Fortunately, I always keep my feathers numbered -Foghorn Leghorn

 

[iapetus]

The concept that it can take the police as long as ten to fifteen minutes to respond to a deadly encounter seems foreign to them.

If a Brit can't believe that it can take 10 to 15 minutes for the police to respond to a deadly encounter, then he doesn't just have no idea of what things are like in America.

He has no idea of what things are like in Britain.