Gun Owners = Child Molesters?

[actaeon277]

I generally prefer to make up swear words. If I have had a frustrating time at work for days on end, I will take that frustration out on some paper targets at the range. Never a person.

I truly believe a lot of this ridiculousness boils down to a fear of the unknown. I have a very good friend who is very anti-gun. More than anything it's because she hasn't been around guns...ever. In her mind a gun is something that, if used in the wrong manner, can have devastating effects. Therefore no one should have them lest they lose their temper and go on a rampage. Let me be the first to tell you I lose my temper a lot. I have NEVER gone on a rampage killing people. I have never even drawn my gun on someone out of frustration or anger. The left often tries to paint us as uneducated and cowardly rednecks instead of realistic people who understand that there are bad things in this world and we need to take necessary measures to protect ourselves.

Ask your friend how guns are different than knives.
She's probably familiar with those.
Then show her a video of how devastating a close range knife attack can be.

 

[actaeon277]

And ask her about the uneducated and cowardly rednecks.
We have docs, lawyers, school teachers, etc.
Heck, I used to be a reactor operator.

 

[cobber]

I'm trying to remember the last time I used my guns to vent my frustration on anyone.

Gun ownership affects the memory as well!!!

 

[Doug]

In fits of anger, the gun owner will routinely take out his frustrations on anyone who gets in his way.


As there are not piles of bodies at every traffic jam and every checkout line longer than three people, this statement is obviously false.
I believe it is a result of projection. Projection occurs when a person projects onto another the attitudes and actions they think they would have if they were in the other person's situation. What the author is saying is that, if he had a gun, HE would take out his frustrations on others by shooting them.
Of course, the fact that his actions are ruled by his emotions has no bearing on those of us with appropriate self-control.

 

[OakRiver]

I generally prefer to make up swear words. If I have had a frustrating time at work for days on end, I will take that frustration out on some paper targets at the range. Never a person.

I truly believe a lot of this ridiculousness boils down to a fear of the unknown. I have a very good friend who is very anti-gun. More than anything it's because she hasn't been around guns...ever. In her mind a gun is something that, if used in the wrong manner, can have devastating effects. Therefore no one should have them lest they lose their temper and go on a rampage. Let me be the first to tell you I lose my temper a lot. I have NEVER gone on a rampage killing people. I have never even drawn my gun on someone out of frustration or anger. The left often tries to paint us as uneducated and cowardly rednecks instead of realistic people who understand that there are bad things in this world and we need to take necessary measures to protect ourselves.

That's because it is easier to mock a false stereotype than to deal with an actual person. Same way in which facts are ignored for emotional "won't someone think of the children" outbursts.
Every time a State relaxes the laws to carry a firearm we have the same old shrieking that it will be the Wild West all over again, with shootouts and the streets running red with blood. And yet it never happens.

We're constantly told that gun owners are gun fetishists who ascribe magical powers of protection to their guns. The irony is that the majority of gun owners know that their firearm is a tool for self defense. It is those who favour gun control who truly give guns magical powers. They think that the presence of a gun can corrupt the mind and make someone a killer, or that guns have free will and can just "go off" and kill someone.

 

[jamil]

That's because it is easier to mock a false stereotype than to deal with an actual person. Same way in which facts are ignored for emotional "won't someone think of the children" outbursts.
Every time a State relaxes the laws to carry a firearm we have the same old shrieking that it will be the Wild West all over again, with shootouts and the streets running red with blood. And yet it never happens.

We're constantly told that gun owners are gun fetishists who ascribe magical powers of protection to their guns. The irony is that the majority of gun owners know that their firearm is a tool for self defense. It is those who favour gun control who truly give guns magical powers. They think that the presence of a gun can corrupt the mind and make someone a killer, or that guns have free will and can just "go off" and kill someone.

My sister-in-law hates guns. She told me that guns make people want to do bad things, all the while I had my shield safely in my pocket. Yet she still breaths. I must have jedi like powers to resist the strong lure of the gun.

 

[OakRiver]

It is complete dereliction of responsibility. Rather than face the fact that there are people in the world who would not hesitate to inflict harm on others some will make the excuse that it is not their fault; the gun made them do it.

 

[DoggyDaddy]

And ask her about the uneducated and cowardly rednecks.
We have docs, lawyers, school teachers, etc.
Heck, I used to be a reactor operator.

 

[actaeon277]

And ask her about the uneducated and cowardly rednecks.
We have docs, lawyers, school teachers, etc.
Heck, I used to be a reactor operator.

Where did you get my picture?

 

[BrewerGeorge]

Do we really need to worry about simpletons who type "piece of mind"?

They are fools. Laugh at them.

LOL. I was going to say the same about" How come"

...
Heck, I used to be a reactor operator.

Me too! CVN-71.

 

[actaeon277]

LOL. I was going to say the same about" How come"

Me too! CVN-71.

Rosie?

SSN-611

 

[blink]

I'm a gun owner and I used to ask my friends if I could borrow their underage daughter. Not to molest her, only so I could go watch Harry Potter movies without looking like a perv. The gun I carried was to protect her from others who had less than honorable intentions.

 

[RedneckReject]

Ask your friend how guns are different than knives.
She's probably familiar with those.
Then show her a video of how devastating a close range knife attack can be.

You're right and I have brought up that issue. But so many of the antis ignore facts because they want it to be worse than it is. They want to have something to believe in and something to crusade for. That, in itself, is admirable to a degree. The problem is that what they are fighting for and what they believe so strongly in is not the magic answer that they think it is. Gun control is not an end to violence.

 

[Roadie]

Even math and logic does not appeal to the antis..

The antis say there are about 100,000 shootings a year overall. Murder, robbery, suicide, accidental, etc.
There are 260,000,000+ guns in the US.
Now, if my math is right, that is about 0.038% of guns.

If guns were, indeed. "The Problem™", wouldn't logic dictate the percentage be MUCH higher?

 

[handgun]

This deeply sickens me. Two completely difference cognitive mental differences. I don't know many gun owners that want to actually have to use their weapon in self defense.
The gun Owners I know are calm collected and cool. Who created this article again?

 

[LarryC]

Why waste one moment of your valuable time on an anti-gun Liberal loon? There's no real facts on which they spew their venom, just mindless psychobabble regurgitated from failed groups like MDA and the Brady Campaign.

Their numbers aren't growing, all statistics prove that, unquestionably. Their feeble claims to the contrary are an act of desperation, a vain "death knell" attempt to legitimize themselves and induce fellow (democ)rats to stay on the sinking ship. MDA at the NRA Indy Convention this year proves there's not many (democ)rats left on that ship.

Perhaps we 'empower' them too much in trying to reverse their level of stupidity. Like all forms of ignorance retardation, they can only educate and help themselves, something they've chosen not to do.

At this point, maybe the best thing to do with this group is not to 'just ignore them', but to treat them like the simpletons they are. 'Pat them on the head', point & laugh, and relegate them to the basement with the rest of the lunatic conspiracy fringe.

AMEN: Arguing using truth and common sense against a Liberal nut is like wrestling with a pig --- I was taught a long time ago ~ never fight with a pig, you will both end up muddy and the pig likes mud...

 

[OakRiver]

Ask your friend how guns are different than knives.
She's probably familiar with those.
Then show her a video of how devastating a close range knife attack can be.

When you bring that up you'll hear how you can out run a knife (ignoring one being used against you in the close confines of your own home by an intruder), that you can easily disarm someone who has a knife without injury (because everyone is a trained expert in martial arts), or that knives aren't used in mass killings (ignoring the murderer in California, and all those attacks in China)

You're right and I have brought up that issue. But so many of the antis ignore facts because they want it to be worse than it is. They want to have something to believe in and something to crusade for. That, in itself, is admirable to a degree. The problem is that what they are fighting for and what they believe so strongly in is not the magic answer that they think it is. Gun control is not an end to violence.

Even math and logic does not appeal to the antis..

The antis say there are about 100,000 shootings a year overall. Murder, robbery, suicide, accidental, etc.
There are 260,000,000+ guns in the US.
Now, if my math is right, that is about 0.038% of guns.

If guns were, indeed. "The Problem™", wouldn't logic dictate the percentage be MUCH higher?

I believe that you have both touched on a core issue. Those who favour gun control don't deal in objective facts. If they did they would see that their position is not sustainable, that more lives are saved and more harm is avoided by the private ownership of firearms. Instead their tactics are emotional based arguments designed to provoke a reaction.

 

[jamil]

Even math and logic does not appeal to the antis..

The antis say there are about 100,000 shootings a year overall. Murder, robbery, suicide, accidental, etc.
There are 260,000,000+ guns in the US.
Now, if my math is right, that is about 0.038% of guns.

If guns were, indeed. "The Problem™", wouldn't logic dictate the percentage be MUCH higher?

I think there are two main components to the anti's opposition. One is the purely emotional one. These people don't really care much at all about guns one way or another. But they can be easily swayed by appeal to emotion into blaming a fictitious villain (gun owners, NRA, whatever), and hating an object.

The other is the the ideological component, which I don't think all antis agree with. The people at the top of the anti-gun movement represent the ideological component. They just don't think a civil society needs to be armed. They develop strategies to achieve their ideological goals. And I'm sure they do look at those numbers and do the math. And from that they use emotional appeals to get support from the emotional component.

What a lot of them claim is that fewer guns in the hands of any American will mean fewer murders. So of the 260,000,000 guns, if 0.038% of which shoot 100,000 people a year, then cutting that number of overall guns will result in fewer shootings, right? Heh. And so they concoct "common sense" benign sounding laws that the emotional non-gun owners support, you know, because they're "common sense". And these laws ridiculously restrict the use of guns in hopes the gun owners will just give them up.

But there are two major problems with that reasoning. One, humans are pretty imaginative creatures and we tend to figure out ways to fulfill the letter of the law while getting close to what we want anyway. It might make for some interesting looking guns, but they still have the features though the cosmetics look different. The second problem, and this is the real fly in the anti-gun ointment, their reasoning depends on that ratio being fixed.

Reducing the guns that can be owned by law abiding citizens doesn't mean that criminal ownership--criminals do most of the shooting--will decrease. Even if they could somehow reduce the number of guns owned by Americans by 90%, it is not reasonable to think that 26,000,000 guns would necessarily translate to a reduction in shootings by 90,000. Likely the ratio of shootings to number of guns available would shoot up from the 0.038% to something much higher.

 

[actaeon277]

You can't sway everyone, but some you can.

 

[theslasher]

Somebody should put this on the NRA's Facebook page.. The guy who made that comment must be a molester himself since he understands them so well..