Why Do Gun Control Arguments Boil Down to Silly Analogies

I read a quote on Casey Bisson’s blog of a quote from Andy Skelton’s blog. It went like this: “Gun control is like trying to reduce drunk driving by making it tougher for sober people to own cars.”

A more proper analog would be that gun control is like trying to make it harder for drunk people to drive cars. Or even better, gun control is like trying to make sure people can drive safely before giving them a driver’s license. Of course that doesn’t sound so crazy so it is a lot harder to make gun control seem like a bad thing.

Personally, I think that gun ownership is stupid. Guns don’t stop crime and all it takes is looking at other countries with strict gun laws to see what the result is. It isn’t defenseless families killed by maniacs, but a safer country to live in with less violent crime. If people insist on owning guns then that is their choice, but as a country everyone in the US should take a stand and say certain people should never be allowed to buy guns: over the internet, if they have any history (ever) of mental sickness, or if they have ever been arrested. These three rules alone would likely decrease violent crime. What I find most interesting about the analogy is that it hits on something I believe people should consider, and that is that gun ownership should be a privilege just like a driver’s license is.


107 thoughts on “Why Do Gun Control Arguments Boil Down to Silly Analogies

  1. Terry Evans says:

    If you check statistics, you would find that most (not all) firearms used in violent crimes are not bought and paid for, but rather gotten from a friend or family member or stolen. You would also find that more crimes are deterred in the United States because law abiding citizens are armed.

  2. Jim says:

    What you are seeing is a difference in how you view your gun control activity and how gun owners view the same activity.
    Simple fact: Crime is already illegal. Thus, any further laws you pass by necessity will apply to those who already obey the law.
    If murder is illegal, why are you trying to make objects illegal? Why not prosecute those who commit crimes?
    You have in mind a peaceful society, in which people NEVER hurt each other, or have the tools to injure or kill.
    It cannot happen.

  3. Mark P says:


    Correlation does not equal causation.

    1) Statistics are not necessairly comparable as some countries have differing criteria on what constitutes a crime.

    2) Those same EU nations with strict gun control also have proportionally lower rates of other types or murder too. Therefore, gun control cannot account for the difference.

    3) Japan is a monoculture and an island nation, the US is the opposite of one. Not to mention the war on some drugs.

    If you really want to cut the US Homicide rate by twothirds, end the war on some drugs as about 2/3rds of US homicides are drug related.

  4. Dave says:

    Britain banned all firearms years ago…as a result, only the military, certain police officers and criminals have guns…crime is rampant there.

    Look at California, New York, Chicago and Washington DC…rediculous crime rates in those cities…what do they have in common? They banned firearms…

  5. To add:

    Gun control is like fixing a leaky boat by draining the entire lake.

    Is is an inefficient attack of a sympton instead of the underlying root cause. A misallocation of resources and a misdirected effort I.E. a red herring.

    That is the point of analogies, they break things down in simple terms so simple people can grasp complex concepts that put things in their proper perspcetive.

  6. Jonathan H says:

    An inanimate object caused crime ? wow, one way to let people off the hook, guess no violent crimes in jail (GUN FREE ZONE). Common Sense some have it Others Vote Dem.

  7. Dsparil says:

    very very wrong. Countries with stronger gun control such as England and Luxembourg have a SERIOUS problem with not only violent crime but with gun crimes in general. The majority of firearms were banned and required to be turned in for destruction in England in 1997. When this was done, over the next five years, according to New Scotland Yard, their violent crime rose over 300%. Luxembourg also has this problem. Places like Slovakia, Switzerland and Finland, where it is perfectly normal to own things from handguns to fully automatic military weapons have very LOW crime rates. You can also compare states such as New York and California to places like Arizona(where you can LEGALLY walk around with a gun on your hip with no permit what-so-ever) and Texas and you can see the difference. Texas is about to enact similar law to AZ’s in that it will be lawful to carry an exposed handgun wherever you go.

    In the end, it’s also very very important to understand that laws do NOT stop criminals from doing things. They simply impose penalties if they are caught. Gun laws will NOT stop determined people from obtaining firearms. England is SOLID proof of this. Furthermore keep in mind, if development and production were banned, it’d simply lead to underground illegal manufacturing. Japan has this problem as does the Philippines. In Israel during the 1950s, one of the more popular illegal activities was the manufacturing of ammunition. There was a group of individuals who actually did this by hiding the factory underneath a laundromat. It would not be hard at all to substitute the manufacturing of ammunition with the manufacturing of firearms. In fact, firearms are EASIER to make than ammunition is.

    While lawful, this is an example of how easy it is to make them. http://www.cncguns.com/ Blueprints for weaponry are readily available and floating around.

    I definitely understand peoples’ frustration with gun violence. I myself have been shot so I can say firsthand that it’s not a pleasant thing to experience and is emotionally detrimental. However, in order to solve the problem of violence, this issue needs to be dealt with intellectually, not emotionally. Furthermore this is such a politically hot topic that information and motivation concerning it has been severely corrupted. People are more than willing to support gun bans simply because it’s the “liberal” thing to do or they’ll support gun ownership simply because it’s the “conservative” thing to do and they will not consider why. As long as it hurts the other political “team” it’s perfectly fine with them despite the fact that it does nothing and destroys the constitutional integrity of America and the REAL source for individual protection.

    And to answer the obvious question, NO, you are not guaranteed individual protection and safety by Law Enforcement. They are NOT there to protect you. They never were.


    Bowers v DeVito
    Warren v D.C.

    I’ll wrap up with saying this: No Law is ever going to protect you. EVER! Law is simply a provision for penalty. Nothing more. Do not buy into political hype. Go research information for yourself from non-biased organizations such as the Center for Disease Control, the Uniform Crime Report or the National Crime Victimization survey. Quit looking at the NRA or the Violence Policy Center. They are politically motivated and are corrupt sources of information. Furthermore try to develop an understanding of Human nature and also understand that our society is not as simple, organized, closed in and uniform as we like to think it is. It’s VERY easy to get away with things in this society. Unlike television or movies, the bad guys can and do get away with things quite REGULARLY. if guns were outlawed today, and I was a criminal, it would not be difficult for me to get a couple of power generators together, go out into a wilderness area away from down and set up a small shop designed to manufacture firearms. It’s much the same issue as we have no with underground(literally) meth labs.

    An armed society really is a safe society. Police and criminals will ALWAYS be armed, why not you?

  8. Jay says:

    The nations of Western Europe are upheld as paragons of what gun control can do to increase public safety but Western Europe had very low violent crime rates before enacting their gun laws. For example, the UK had very low rates of violent crime a century ago before they tightened their gun regulations over the course of the 20th century. A century ago in the UK guns were readily available and legal and keeping and bearing them was a common practice.

    In places like Mexico or Russia the gun laws are much tougher than in the USA. They have very high crime rates and aren’t very safe places to live though.

  9. Jim says:

    It is already illegal for felons to possess a gun. It is already illegal for someone who was involuntarily committed to a mental institution to own a gun.
    Your work here is done.

  10. Jim says:

    Almost forgot.
    What’s your argument against handguns and automatic weapons, which makes you want to make them impossible to obtain?

  11. “ps Mark P I removed your link to that insanely one sided website using statistic from the 90’s. If you’d like to post a link to someplace that is up to date and can at least feign some low level of impartiality your welcome to post to, but I won’t point folks towards a website filled with half-truths and lies.”

    And what, pray tell, did you find wrong with the information provided at guncite? Instead of trating your readers as children not intelligent enogh to make up their own minds, why don’t you at least make some minimal effort to deconstruct them?

    You sure seem to casually dismiss any counterarguments you find inconvient.

    As far as the 90’s go, some data really is not much newer than that.

  12. George says:

    Gun control does not work and it’s morally wrong. Here we have once again the worn out comparison to gun ownership and driving. I’ll break out that pesky constitution and show you YET AGAIN the 2nd amendment. EVERY SINGLE regulation of guns of any kind affects ME! Not the gang banger, ME! Not the lifelong criminal, ME! Not the parolled felon, ME! If you don’t like guns don’t buy one. You are a fool to believe gun control = crime control. Just one more dangerous fool who continues to display a gross misunderstanding of our rights as free americans. You promote gun control against ME and I will NEVER give in or compromise. You sir are an idiot…George

  13. Jim says:

    If mentally ill people can get guns in violation of the law, why is your solution another law?

  14. Jim says:

    Did I just see you confess that gun control is based on HOPE? Did I just see the disclaimer of “no promises though”?
    If gun control does not equal crime control, wouldn’t you think that in itself is enough to make you reevaluate the entire concept?
    How can gun control have nothing to do with crime, and yet not impact the law abiding in any significant way?
    Cho is another subject entirely, but his example mainly indicts the lack of care he should have recieved.

  15. Jim says:

    To address violence to the satisfaction of the average joe just going about his business, you have to FIRST address criminal activity which victimizes him.
    What makes gun control such a political grenade is exactly that: it does not differentiate between the law abiding and the criminal.
    Assault weapons? Saturday Night Specials? Sniper rifles? countless other examples.
    All of those should be perfectly okay to own with no objection if the owner is a law abiding citizen. Gun control says: No.
    Legally, I am innocent until proven guilty. Gun control as I see it presupposes that I am a murderer and I need to be denied ownership of certain classes of weapons you see as “exceptionally dangerous”.
    I do not require other people around me to own a gun. I rely on myself and the tools I own.
    I “hope” that other people owning a gun and knowing what to do with it and when, makes them safer.

  16. Jim says:

    So what solution are we dancing around here? What we’re really talking about is trying to predict future actions, and prevent harmful ones, by taking away someone’s personal freedom or an object.
    Impossible at this time, AND a violation of the philosophical approach that I am responsible for my own actions. We go back to innocent until proven guilty.
    Are we going to reject the pro freedom approach that people can do what they want until they hurt other people?
    GC calls th

  17. Jim says:

    The solution, if there is one.
    Interesting choice of phrase.
    Gun control has been proven in this country to have no effect on crime, just as gun ownership has been shown to have no effect.
    So you’re left with mounting philosophical arguments in favor of it.
    If you want to reduce violence, gun control is not the method you want.

  18. George says:

    Gun control doesn’t affect me? EVERY SINGLE gun control law affects me. EVERY SINGLE ONE! “Hopefully.” and “No promises though.” Are you f-ing kidding me? You want me to surrender my rights and my guns on a maybe? And who said anything about machine guns or automatic weapons? While we’re on the subject… I don’t care if a law abiding taxpaying citizen of the U.S. owns a God dam BAZOOKA! He isn’t the problem is he? In spite of my unwillingness to compromise, I can think quite well thanks. I think I will NEVER trade away my liberty. It was bought and paid for so dearly in blood by those who came before me. I happen to know if need be YOU will not be there to defend me or my family. I also know, neither will the cops. “Hope” will not save you either. YOU can cower in fear, and “hope” all you want. I’ll be reaching for my trusty felon repellant. By all means keep posting. The more you do, the more your misunderstanding of your rights as an american show.

  19. George says:

    Yes, I can be talked to. You haven’t exactly impressed me either. You state gun ownership as not being as intrinsic a freedom as speech is to you. I guessed you stopped reading the bill of rights when you were done with the 1st amendment. It’s the 2nd amendment that protects the rest. As far as…. “Finally, I want to say that if every single gun law truly effects you, including the laws taking away the rights of criminals to own guns, then I am very glad for that effect.” What? Now I’m a criminal? You completely miss the point. I’ll spell it out slowly for you. Gun… Laws… Only…. Affect… the… Law… Abiding… Thus, they affect me. It is you who does not get it. No sensible gun owner thinks it’s ok for criminals, or the insane to have lawfull access to guns. You just want to expand the no guns rule to all of us. I am a husband, father, veteran, and a 9/11 fireman. I have seen the ugly world up close. I know that disarming us so we’re all equally helpless and defensless is a very very BAD idea. Want to fight crime? Knock yourself out. Find and lock up the bad guys. Want my guns? No way.

  20. George says:

    I know what intrinsic means professor. You don’t get more natural than self defense. Every animal on earth will fight or flight to preserve it’s life. I did ansewer your questions you just didn’t like the ansewers I gave. I also notice how you won’t argue any points with me. Just how I make them. I have guns. You don’t. Fine by me. When you want to excercise your free speech that’s fine by me too. I simply totally disagree with what you say. When it comes to lawfull private gun ownership in america. I THINK YOU ARE WRONG. Thanks for letting me go on my way though I’m going to pick up some ammo and head to the range…

  21. George says:

    Ok, here goes. From your post. “At some point in every debate about freedom one must discuss where the line is drawn between one person’s freedom inhibiting another’s. We have never lived in a world with absolute freedom and that is because we, as a society, agree that some “freedoms” cause harm.” I’ll start with a question. Wich “freedoms” cause harm exactly? Next, where do I draw the line? I draw it at criminality. Or insanity. Felon? Nope, no guns for you. Commited to a mental institution? It’s a bit of a generality but no guns for “crazy” people. You say you don’t want my guns but if you are for gun control, you are. Gun control affects me not the people you don’t want to have guns. They are already barred by law from having them it’s as simple as that. As for cops. Short story. I had to run down the street to save my neighbor who was being beaten in the street. My sister in law runs in and tells me as she’s dialing 911. I put a stop to it in less than 60 seconds by my appearance. (no, did not bring gun) Cops got there FORTY MINUTES LATER. I have plenty of friends who are cops but they’ll tell you themselvs. They are a majority of the time an AFTER THE FACT ARRIVAL to the problem. In 40 minutes they could have beat her to death 5 times over. So no, the cops WILL NOT defend my family. Untill they arrive, me or my wife must do so.

  22. George says:

    Separate post to add to the discussion. Since you are here excercising your freedom of speech. Who’s permission did you get today to do so? It’s commonly held that you can not fradulently yell FIRE in a crowded theater. However, you are still fully capable of doing so. Either you have the right to keep and bear arms or you do not. The US Supreme Court has very recently said that in fact, YOU DO. So just as you need no permission from anyone to excercise your free speech. No one should need permission from anyone to excercise their right to LAWFULLY bear arms. Gun control is like forcing you to wear a ball gag secured with duct tape to the theater.

  23. Jim says:

    Indeed, in every freedom discussion, we must balance one person’s freedom against another’s.
    But isn’t the line where one person starts to harm another?
    A good 95% of gun control fails to actually protect the people it purports to. Who was protected by the “Assault Weapons Ban”? Any gun registration or overall bans? Did the criminals comply?
    Realize that the criminals already were prohibited from owning guns.
    I reread this debate, and I realize again that the pro-control side MUST turn to a philosophical foundation for their arguments. Reality doesn’t provide support.

  24. George says:

    You mean a philosiphical “high ground.” The passengers of the good ship lollypop look down their nose at us barbarians. Whatever you do don’t confuse them with the facts.

  25. Jim says:

    Gun show loophole? Did you realize that the “loophole” is there because our legislators wrote it into legislation that you must have an FFL to use it? If I wanted to sell a gun to a friend, it would be illegal to call up NICS and get the buyer checked.
    The Gun show loophole is artificially created, by “professional” lawmakers.

  26. Jim says:

    Indisputable fact: The AWB was a tightly written law, banning both specific models, and features.
    Soon after the ban, manufacturers started releasing new rifles for sale, which lacked the banned features. Despite complying with the law, the Brady camp painted the gun industry as “making a mockery” of the law, and “skirting the law”. However, I have not been able to find any reports of a manufacturer being prosecuted for violating the law.

  27. Jim says:

    What I consider arguably good gun control is registration of full auto, and the national instant criminal check system. Those two items DO something. In reality, NICS isn’t gun control. It is criminal control which everyone who buys from/through an FFL has to go through.
    The rest? We endlessly debate the definition of assault weapon, saturday night special, cop killer bullets, etc ad infinitum, ad nauseum.
    The gun control side – the ones wanting the CHANGE – demand reasons why it shouldn’t be changed.
    My standard? Demonstrate theoretically or practically that criminals will see maximum impact and the law abiding will see minimum impact. I just reread the several AWB webpages, and saw that criminal behavior was used to argue that NOBODY should have an “assault weapon”. Any request for data regarding impact on criminals is immediately turned around into a demand for the gun owner to prove need for an assault weapon. Is it THAT hard to prove the case for one of the most cherished control laws after TEN YEARS?

  28. Jim says:

    I keep seeing the comparison between Iran and the individual person drawn. I want to find out what you really think.
    Are you coming to this issue with the idea that the average person cannot be trusted with a gun, because he is looking for innocent people to kill?
    Your perception of Iran is that they are looking for a reason and a place to use their nuclear weapons against the nonmuslim world.
    How close am I?

  29. Jim says:

    Saturday night specials are an issue because they show up disproportionately in police traces, however the real weapon of choice for homicides is a well made, large caliber, easily concealed revolver.

  30. Jim says:

    Sniper rifles is one issue that is particularly puzzling. The objection to them is that they are made for the express purpose of killing people, but the control side has no problem with hunting rifles.
    However, sniper rifles are usually modifications of hunting rifles. Study them and the model numbers, action, etc are substantially the same.
    How do you ban sniper rifles and leave hunting rifles legal? It can’t be done, as far as I’ve seen.

  31. Jim says:

    The compelling argument for gun control arises when you stop making a distinction between the law abiding and the criminal, and start looking at society as one homogenized unit, in which everybody has the same express and implied agenda, and everybody abides by the rules set up.
    No, you are not an idiot, any more than I want to watch babies die. Yes, I was told that when I wondered what the purpose of a total gun ban would be, when criminals don’t obey the law.
    That was in the spring of 1999.

  32. George says:

    If we let Iran build the bomb it could mean trouble. They have been at war with us since 1979. They openly declare their intention to wipe Israel off the map. They are up to their eyeballs in terrorisim. We have caught Iran’s agents operating in Iraq engaged against our troops. If the potential of a nuclear Iraq was enough justification for toppling the Iraq govt. We already have way more than that to do something to Iran. We owe them a huge kick in the teeth for many reasons. Furthermore, there is no ambiguity about their intentions. I don’t care that they say it’s for peacefull purposes. I guarentee you as soon as they can they’ll be popping out nukes like PEZ. The price tag for AL-Quida to get one or two will be a free-0. Who do you think they want to try their new toy on? The Jihadist’s want to hit at LEAST 6 large American cities all on the same day. All they need is their asshole buddies in Iran to cook up the nukes. For the gun discussion. Jon. Find and read A NATION OF COWARDS by Jeff Snyder. Tell me what you think.

  33. Jim says:

    You intelligence is not an issue here, as there is NOTHING in the violence problem which is out of your ability to cognitively comprehend.
    However, the discussion is far too often based on emotion, which is used to make a philosophical argument.
    If you can understand that the law should target for punishment those who harm other people, then you can philosophically identify with those who don’t like gun control, and control arguments.
    I also generally leave comparison between domestic policy and foreign policy out of it, as two different concepts of laws apply. Like you said, it is not easy at all to run down the discussion to its logical end and still find the arguments intact.
    I have difficulty with hypothetical future scenarios, as I like concrete facts.

  34. You liken gun control to automotive licensing, but that would garner almost 100% support from gun rights advocates, and strong opposition from most of the gun control freaks.

    Let’s have gun laws IDENTICAL to the laws regarding automobiles. It makes sense, since vehicles kill more people per year, even though there are only half as many of them as guns:

    Anyone can own ANY car, with no licensing of car or owner at all, as long as they ONLY keep it on private property.

    Anyone can OPERATE any car, all they want, with no licensing of car or operator, as long as it’s only on their own/private property.

    EVERYONE is allowed to own ANY kind of vehicle they can afford, license it.

    EVERYONE can be licensed to OPERATE any vehicle, as long as they take a relatively simple, short test that can be learned in a matter of hours. Worst-case, you might need to take a short class for a semi tractor-trailer license, but you CAN get one.

    ALL vehicular licensing laws are STATE imposed, none Federal.

    There is no limit to the number of vehicles anyone may own.

    There is no limit to the speed of buying any vehicles…no monthly limit, no annual limit, et cetera.

    Yes, I’d say you’d get nearly unanimous pro-choice-on-guns support for such licensing.

  35. So does that mean you support the parts that you admit ARE true?

    Be more specific about which ones you’re denying, too.

    In many, or most, states you can own any vehicle, as long as it’s on private property, and not even register it. You certainly don’t have to qualify, to own ANY kind of vehicle, other than licensing it.

    Likewise, I doubt there’s a single state that regulates the driving of vehicles on private property in any way. You can let your kid drive your SUV around the field you own behind your house to practice driving, for example. No age limit, no requirement of a license.

    And Real ID is about identification, not actual driver’s licensing.

    Also, are you suggesting we should concentrate more on regulating sharks than pit bulls? What is most harmful is what should get the attention, whether it’s actually more dangerous per-contact or not.

    Ultimately, though, my point stands: The article glibly cites automotive licensing as proof of how gosh-darned foolish pro-choicers are, yet in fact the author would probably be the first to oppose it, because in fact gun licensing/registration is already FAR worse than automotive licensing/regulation.

    And that’s all aside from the fallacious interpretation of the quotation…”Gun control is like trying to reduce drunk driving by making it tougher for sober people to own cars” refers to the fact that only non-criminals are going to be concerned with obeying such gun laws, disarming potential victims and making violent crime safer to commit.

  36. Jim says:

    Jon, how would your ideas have prevented that premeditated murder?
    I share your horror at the crime, but if you want to prevent future crimes, you must examine very carefully whether your efforts will be effective.

  37. Jim says:

    You are right where most gun control supporters REFUSE to let themselves go: the awareness that we don’t really know how to prevent sudden (to everybody but the perpetrator) violence.

  38. Eric J says:

    Gun control is never going to be realistic while America’s criminal class can obtain weapons as easy as buying a used pda or other ubiquitous item. Guns in the hands of responsible citizens do stop criminals. I also believe gun control to be fundamentally opposed to the freedoms our country holds sacrosanct. How would colonists have ever defeated the English without equivalent arms. And while it seems far-fetched, the idea that, “it [again] becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them,” must be held on to by the citizenry. If not, and the more rights we relinquish, the more we are enslaved by our ever-growing federal government; Enslaved in essence, if not in reality. I for one do not trust the federal government to do the right thing more than two or three times in ten. Witness the recent and ill-conceived/devised actions on behalf of Wall Street. That smooth move certainly didn’t restore the 15% loss my family’s savings incurred these last 2-3 WEEKS! Aside from national security, don’t offer me federal government answers to problems. Ever!
    I encourage any who doubt these assertions to at least read a little history of what happens when the US Govt. “lends a helping hand.”
    The article dates from February 25, 1926. It covers a lot more than our govt’s establishment of the Department of Education. Read it, you’ll at least expand your bank of knowledge.

  39. Jim says:

    Can we keep the page for gun control/gun rights, and not everything else under the sun?

  40. Jim says:

    When all you have is a hammer, everything starts to look like a nail.
    When the only idea you have about crime is gun control, everything is subject to a ban.

  41. Jim says:

    I’m not looking for a magic bullet, but I get the impression a lot of gun control supporters are. It seems disturbing that I’m seeing primarily government solutions. We have a problem with individuals loosing control. The solution lies within the individual.
    What about teaching people actual problem solving skills, so that people use their intelligence to government themselves?

  42. Jim says:

    How can you teach people how to properly percieve, created, and use resources to the best of their abilities, when your basic premise is that they NEED government?
    I submit that your premise is fatally flawed and self sabotaging.

  43. Jim says:

    I didn’t say any of that.
    Let’s go back to the original problem: We’re put in the position of trusting people who are so lost that they cannot even ask for help, and they end up turning to violence.
    Notice that I didn’t rule out one person helping another, and in fact this is a critical resource.
    I can teach people how they can use and create resources. People teach me. Almost every day I learn another method to do something.

  44. George says:

    I have been busy but I’m glad to see you guys are still at it. It’s amusing. Jon where are you from? What college do you teach at? Or, from what one did you graduate? You don’t have to ansewer if you don’t want to. I’m just curious. You seem to have great faith in our .gov and not very much in the individual. Did you read A NATION OF COWARDS by Jeff Snyder? Everyone now, google it and enjoy. I’ll check back for the discussion…G

  45. Jim says:

    What good is opportunity, if the people do not know what to do with it?
    I’ve seen this theme over and over. Workplace shootings occur, DESPITE the presence of job sponsored helplines. People turn to crime, DESPITE the presence of meaningful jobs.
    There are thousands of government programs to help people, and thousands of private sector programs, yet the poverty problem persists. Why?
    One of the most fascinating interviews I ever saw was of a homeless man, during the time of Austin’s tech boom. The homeless man claimed there were no jobs to be had.
    You can lead a horse to water, but until he figures out how to drink, your effort is wasted.

  46. Jim says:

    Another entry on the “Lack of awareness does no constitute nonexistence” list: I’ve watched presidential candidates promise to pass gun laws which already existed.
    specifically: Prohibition on juveniles buying guns.
    It was applauded by common sense people everywhere, who didn’t know we already had it!

  47. Jim says:

    “One could argue that gun control is the same as a preemptive attack. ”
    I did that, though not quite in the military terms. Reread this discussion.

  48. Denis says:

    I live in Switzerland, and here you can buy preaty much any type of weapon you want. Officialy if you buy from an armorer you need to have a clean criminal record. If you want automatic weapons you need to get a license from the police, which is quite simple if you have a clean criminal record. Sale of arms between individuals is allowed, and required no reregistration, a simple contract is signed between two persons that contract is keept in case of questions from authorities. Due diligance for checking criminal records is up to the seller. Oh, and hunting (bolt operated, non semi) arms can be purchased without a permit by any Perminent Resident or Swiss Citizen. The problems you run into in Switzerland is that there are actualy not that many places you can shoot with what ever you want. Most ranges are Federal, so you are only permited to use sports arms, and swiss ordanance weapons. You are only alowed to use full auto on military ranges, so unless you are part of a military course or exerise you are not allowed to shoot in full. The largest issue with guns in Switzerland is not crime, but suicide. Most crimes involving firearms are commited using illegally aquired arms. Dont forget that a lot of Swiss house holds have a fully automatic SIG 550 rifle at home while they are in the mandatory military, and they are allowed to keep it after as well in Semi.

  49. Jim says:

    “Patrick has been charged with murder, three counts of assault and battery with intent to kill, and one count of assault with intent to kill.”

    This is why I can’t really figure out gun controllers. There’s an ex con out of prison, he murders somebody on Halloween night using very faulty concepts of “self defense”, there’s obviously a lot more to the story, the suspect and another man are being held without bond and you think “nobody needs an AK”.
    where does this stuff come from?

  50. Jim says:

    You are right: a long gun is a poor choice for up close self defense.
    But here’s the question: What makes the AK so much worse than another rifle in a similar caliber, such as the M1 Carbine?

  51. George says:

    Jon it’s FREEDOM plain and simple. NEED has nothing to do with it. The AK isn’t THAT imprecise. For defense of home or self it will do. It will definitly be better than nothing. It is exactly the kind of weapon one would want during times of civil unrest. If you lived in LA during the riots I bet you could have made a pretty good case for NEED though. I’ll say it again. WE’re free here. For now at least. That freedom comes with a cost. There will always be crime. There will always be crime with guns. Gun control is wrong, immoral, and does not work. If one were ever to achieve imposing of a total civilian gun ban you would still have the crime and gun crime. Only, we would no longer be free. No thanks. Read A NATION OF COWARDS YET?

  52. Jim says:

    We argue freedom, you say “You’re right”, then give us the same tired needs-based argument again. What’s it going to take before you THINK more than you FEEL?

  53. Jim says:

    The limit of rights is the point where they become destructive to other people. IOW – actions.
    Show me how mere ownership of any firearm is a harmful action.

  54. Jim says:

    RE: LA Riots.
    Korean shopkeepers holding rifles stood on the roof of their businesses.
    The rioting mob did not touch their shops. Everything else got damaged or destroyed.
    Recall that the riot was so big the police did not enter the area.
    for DAYS.
    I don’t think your morals include letting a mob kill you or destroy everything you’ve worked for.

  55. Jim says:

    Do you have an alternative?
    It WOULD be “Call the police”, but the police abandoned the people.
    I hold up reality as an example. You need to look up information on how riots behave in order to give effective solutions.

  56. Jim says:

    Would you also tell me how requiring people to show need to exercise freedom, is compatible with freedom?
    If you don’t, we flat out reject your rights model.
    Why do you think gun control in America is such a limp corpse?

  57. George says:

    Ok, You say… “Need is where the argument is. You say you need the freedom to own an assault rifle. I say you probably don’t.” WRONG. Need has nothing to do with it. If you have the right,then you do not have to justify need to anyone. Only gun banners focus on “need.” They frame the discussion with this flawed mentality and totally miss the point. Next. You point out again how rights aren’t unlimited. Then you list a host of activities that are criminal or unlawful. DUH! Gun control = FAIL precicely because it only affects LAW ABIDING people. You simply refuse to get it. Or you say you do then cling to your flawed logic again and again. Gun ownership in america is both a right and a freedom. No one is saying they have a right to mayham and murder. Furthermore no one is saying that when they’re being robbed the ansewer is to spray indiscriminately into a crowd. Generally I feel it better to shoot the individual/s who are robbing me. Lastly… “I don’t think there is an answer to this question of whether people should be allowed to own guns and if it’ll make things better or worse, so I’m willing to accept that people can have them. But I am unwilling to be indoctrinated by the cloud of fear that seems to surround the arguments for gun ownership. Nor am I willing to accept that it is truly an inalienable right.” How generous of you to accept that people can have guns. Thank you your higness. Gun owners are NOT trying to indoctrinate you. We’re trying to get misinformed people like you to leave us the fuck alone. Stop blaming us for the acts of violent criminals. Stop trying to strip us of our rights and freedoms. Stop advocating laws that affect us and not the criminal. Stop blaming the gun but not the felon. Show me a responsible lawfull gun owner. I’ll show you some liberal jerkoff who want’s his guns taken away. You may not be that liberal jerkoff. If that liberal jerkoff is in a poisition of .govt then you are one of his “usefull idiots.” Still didn’t bother to read A NATION OF COWARDS did you?

  58. Jim says:

    George, I’m not sure there’s any point, because he’s rejected EVERYTHING we’ve said.

  59. Jim says:

    George didn’t mention bazookas.
    The RKBA applies to arms. Bazookas are ordinance.
    Pretty much everything you don’t want people to own are considered ordinance and not arms.
    You should focus more on labels, instead of less, because they describe what we already understand and categorize. That’s a LOT.
    You do not have to reinvent the wheel just because you feel like an individual.

  60. Jim says:

    I looked for bazooka ref. Failed to spot it. Oh well.
    Why do you keep rejecting philosophical profreedom arguments? Why do you keep coming up with stories involving what you believe are objectionable guns?
    You’ve received both factual and philosophical information.
    What’s the sticking point?

  61. Jim says:

    The news stories are the most basic information to give the uninformed reader something of an idea what is taking place. They cannot be used as an authority. In the specific case, they fail to cite the law, and provide an excerpt. I don’t know what you’re studying in school, but most articles about gun control wouldn’t be accepted in an English class. They’re that pathetic.
    You also make a fundamental error about the government: lawlessness IS the default position. Men existed in freedom, then they agreed upon limitations on behavior. Because government cannot be everywhere at once, I believe it is wise to approach the situation asking “What’s the minimum of government action which will correct the problem? Is there a better approach than government involvement?”

  62. Jim says:

    Government can work long term only if it gains and keeps the consent of the governed. This means that any given law must be the logical solution to the problem, and full disclosure of the facts will support the need for the law. The law needs to have the support of the majority, or it will fail, simply because people will refuse to obey. They refuse because the law was argued from emotion, instead of facts.
    You get into this territory, because you let the term “assault weapon” lead your opinion to the predetermined conclusion: That the guns are so bad that they need to be banned.

  63. Jim says:

    But in order to convince the reasonable person, you must argue from reason.
    Define “assault weapon” in such a way that the problem gets solved, what you want banned gets banned, nobody’s rights are trampled, and such a ban is the perfectly logical solution.
    After the ’94 AWB, gun manufacturers removed the ban features IAW the requirement of the law, and released the “new” firearms for sale.
    The gun control camp accused the manufacturers of violating the spirit of the law.
    How’s this possible? I mean physically and legally possible. How’s it possible to follow the letter of the law and violate the spirit of the law? How’s it possible to conform to the requirements of a law, and “circumvent” it at the same time?
    The entire concept of gun control is emotionally based, and cannot be logically encapsulated. Making a law requires logical thought in order to make it work. Gun control fails.

  64. Jim says:

    In order to write a gun control law that makes sense, emotion must be removed from consideration. Why?
    The law applied to all citizens equally, and it must convey the same message to everybody, regardless of education level, preconceived notions or any emotion about anything.
    If you must feel a certain way about guns in order to comprehend gun control, gun control is fundamentally flawed.

  65. George says:

    Just got back from hunting. Had my 1st bear encounter. It was cool as hell! Now, where’s my dam bazooka?

  66. George says:

    Well I think we can stop beating up jon. Since…. “I don’t want someone to own an assault rifle, because I don’t think anything but tragedy will come of it, but I have to balance that against the wants of others. In other words, I know it isn’t fair to force my views on others.” <—- He finally gets it !!! Don’t worry so much about those so called “assault rifles.” There are plenty of people who own them for a lifetime who are never visited by tragedy, accident, or violence. Now, who wants to hear my bear story?

  67. Jim says:

    Since this page is for guns, control and related issues, your bear story has to involve a gun somehow.
    It’s the rules.

  68. George says:

    I was sitting in my ladder stand monday holding my GUN. Out of the brush walking right at me came a Bear. When I first spotted him there was a couple of seconds of “oh shit.” Then I remembered I was 16ft in the air holding a 44magnum. So I just held my best statue impression and decided to see just what a bear actually does in the woods. He walked rigt up to me. It was all very, very cool. He scented on me or the quad or who knows what, changed direction and ambled off up the hill next to me. He never saw me. I hunt in NY zone 7S. Bear season in that zone is closed or I would have a very interesting rug for the living room. He gave me several great shots. All in all it was a great experience. This bear was in the 300 -400 lb range and it stood up between 5 1/2 to 6 feet. Next time I’ll have a camera as well as the gun…George

Comments are closed.