4 Gun Nut Talking Points Debunked By A Gun Owner

10390953_790340664339299_8435750814812048983_nYes, that is a picture of me. Yes, that is a gun in my hand. In case you’re wondering, that is a Savage 110E chambered in .243 with a 6x18x50 Bushnell scope on it which can hit a target 600 yards or further out in the right hands.

Before we go any further, I am a gun owner and an ex-Republican. I have owned and used guns since I was a kid, and I’m not a bad shot. I hunt coyotes on a regular basis and I know how to skin and dress a deer. Now, moving onwards…

Over the last couple of months, I’ve had my dealings with the unhinged individuals involved with Open Carry Texas. In the event you’ve been in a coma or otherwise out of touch with the news, these gun nuts are the people who strap on various firearms and take pictures of themselves protesting posing in various supermarkets or burrito joints. Supposedly their protest is about their “constitutional right to bear arms” which they interpret to mean that individuals should be allowed to openly carry weapons, in public, without any kind of permit.

I’ve actually run into quite a few “gun rights activists” since I started political writing back in 2010, both online and in real life, and it seems that most of them bring the same old tired talking points to the table over and over again. Here’s four of the most commonly used, and false arguments that they like to bring to the table.

4. A .223/5.56mm round is the same as .22:

This is one of their favorite arguments, and it’s a trap to see how much you know about guns. You see, while the diameter of both rounds are almost exactly the same, that’s really the only thing that they have in common. A .22 round is a rimfire, meaning that the round goes off when a pin hits the rim of the cartridge, not the primer in the center which is how most other rounds are designed. At very close range, a .22 can be both quiet and devastating to soft tissue but it is not the choice of most mass shooters. If a .22 was the same as a .223/5.56 then you would see the US military carrying that around because the bullets are much lighter and cheaper than the .223/5.56 which can reach out to about 600 yards versus 150 yards for a .22 rifle.

3. More guns equal less crime:

I recently made this meme which is based on a study by the Violence Prevention Center. In this study, they found that the states with the loosest gun laws and highest rates of gun ownership also had the highest per capita gun-related deaths.

The VPC analysis is based on data newly released this week and refers to overall gun death rates in 2011, the most recent year for which data is available.

The five states with the highest per capita gun death rates in 2011 were Louisiana, Mississippi, Alaska, Wyoming, and Montana. Each of these states has extremely lax gun violence prevention laws as well as a higher rate of gun ownership. The state with the lowest gun death rate in the nation was Rhode Island, followed by Hawaii, Massachusetts, New York, and New Jersey. Each of these states has strong gun violence prevention laws and has a lower rate of gun ownership. (Source)

Sure, the NRA’s magazine American Rifleman likes to trumpet stories of how a good guy with a gun shot and killed a bad guy, but these stories usually involve a homeowner who stops an intruder with a handgun or shotgun, not a tricked-out assault rifle with a 30 or 100 round clip. I’ve personally stopped a home burglary with a gun, but it was with a concealed carry Keltec .380, not an SKS or other military weapon.


2. If gun laws worked, why does Chicago have so many shootings?:

This is a daily retort from gun nuts who seem unable to grasp the simple fact that if you can’t buy a weapon in one state, you simply bring it home from another state where it is much easier to purchase, and then sell it at a markup. And while the conservative media has made a big deal about the recent shootings in Chicago, the murder rate is at the lowest it has been since the 1960s.

1. Liberals want to take away guns, just like Hitler:

If I had five bucks for every time I’ve witnessed Godwin’s Law in action, I’d be sitting on the front porch of my vacation home in the Bahamas, looking at my 55′ sportfisher tied up to the dock. Almost every gun nut you deal with will inevitably mention Hitler, because gun nuts have been conditioned by the NRA to point to Nazi Germany as proof that the march to fascism and tyranny involves stricter regulation of guns. Except, there’s this one little fact:

In 1938, under Nazi rule, gun laws became significantly more relaxed. Rifle and shotgun possession were deregulated, and gun access for hunters, Nazi Party members, and government officials was expanded. The legal age to own a gun was lowered. Jews, however, were prohibited from owning firearms and other dangerous weapons. (Source)

The fact remains that very few people in America want outright gun confiscation, despite what all the NRA-funded propaganda and Alex Jones-styled conspiracy stories say. Sure, you have some crazy lefties who think all of humanity can get along by enlightenment and enough bong hits around a campfire, but those are a minority.

Not only would gun confiscation be unconstitutional, but nearly 300,000,000 firearms in the hands of private citizens are logistically impossible to seize. The moderate left (myself included) and even some of the moderate right want universal background checks, some sort of licensing requirements for military grade weapons, and other reasonable restrictions on weapons that protect both average citizens and sportsmen.

So, the next time some gun nut tells you that “Obama and the UN are coming for mah guns and freedom,” point them in the direction of this article. They may not believe you, but perhaps it may get them thinking just a little bit. We need to have a conversation about gun violence, and taking the extremists on both sides out of it is a great first step.



Comments

Facebook comments

  • I think therefor I is

    You say “it may get them thinking a little bit” – therein lies the problem, they don’t think. They just believe what the NRA and the right tells them and spout off talking points. That is the only thing most of those people are capable of doing, rational thought is not in their grasp. You could confront them with all the facts in the world and it still wouldnt help, the right doesn’t accept facts or have you missed the last 6 years?. Jesus himself could come down and tell them Obama’s not going to take their guns away and they would just say that it is some liberal conspiracy to weaken their ability to fight back against the tyrannical facist communist socialist (and any other -ist you can think of) government.

    • DavidD

      What you say is very true.You can’t convince people who are inclined to see boogums under every bed.
      What we can do is convince rational people in the middle by using the facts and push the irrational to the margins where they belong.
      Information is power and sunlight is a good disinfectant.

      • I think therefor I is

        I wish that were true, but the irrational “margin” is now their accepted mainstream.

      • DavidD

        Still less than the majority and losing ground every day.The open carry losers here in Texas has gotten a lot of people angry.You can always count on the self entitled idiots to fire on Fort Sumpter.

      • Get it together

        I tried to convince them in simple terms In the infowar forum that it was turning people that were either on the fence about gun control or against gun control to now support gun control. . It is negative attention and they are to narrow minded to see it.

      • Bobloblaw67

        Support for gun control is the lowest in 25 years.

      • Get it together

        I believe that. I also believe we should hold ourselves to a higher standard without being told to.

        Sorry but nothing about open carry looks cool or reasonable. As a kid I was told if I was going to fight to pick the biggest one to hit first. Guess who gets shot first? The one with the gun. Drawing negative attention does not help our cause.

      • CharlieSelf

        If there is a shooting, and you’re standing there with your AR-15 in your hands when the cops arrive, guess who is going to get shot first.

      • Get it together

        In Arkansas this year 2 concealed permit holders stopped some armed guy in the parking lot. Responding police had no issues identifying the good guys from the bad guys.

        With that way of thinking most of my trooper buddies who carry 90% of the time and draw their weapon to stop a shooting while off duty fall into the same circumstances. An unknown weapon holder amidst a violent situation. You don’t see the off duty or under cover officers getting shot.

        My post was with regards to a bad guy wanting to do something bad will remove the priority threats. . The one with the long gun strapped to their back.

        These guys are not going to desensitize the public by bombarding them with open carry long guns. People will merely stay away from them.

      • OrganicForLife

        The irrational margin only seems powerful because our news media hypes it 24 hours. It completely leaves out the rest of us who want to see sensible gun control again… I say again, because we have had it before. Its not evil. I grew up in the south, I used a 22 on the farm to shoot water moccasins in the pond the cattle used, at night, with my cousins with high beam lights. Were our parents crazy? Thats another discussion, but we all survived… 🙂

      • Get it together

        Please tell me how gun laws will stop criminals from obtaining firearms. If they do not get flagged by NICS they are legally allowed to own them. (Did you know there is a law against illegally filling out a NICS form? But the government doesn’t prosecute the criminals who are caught!) So I am asking nicely how you stop a criminal from obtaining a firearm? Criminals are lawless!

      • Pot…Kettle?

        Might as well get rid of all laws then. Criminals don’t respect laws about rape, murder, theft, speeding, assault or what have you. That argument is ridiculous. Putting common sense restrictions into place (background check, licensing, removing gun show exceptions etc.) make it more difficult for people who shouldn’t have guns to get them. Will criminals still get them? Sure, but it will be a hell of a lot harder.
        You license your car, your dog, your business…why not your gun?

      • Get it together

        No they don’t respect those laws. But they do respect when a loaded firearm is pointed back at them.

        Background checks must be done already on all new gun sales through licensed dealers. INCLUDING GUN SHOWS. It’s the private sales that are getting through at gun shows. I am with you on that. I think if you pass the background check there is no need for licenses. When you get your drivers license you don’t have to pass a federal background check. Furthermore there are no more tests once you have your drivers license. It’s a money making item to renew.

      • Mr Mike

        If you let your license expire before renewing you have to take the test again.

      • Get it together

        Hence my money making statement.

      • John Kessler

        Or if you seriously abuse your driving privileges, like by driving under the influence. Right now people orders of protection against them can keep their guns. The recent tragedy where the family was slaughtered was an example.

      • Get it together

        People are losing guns every day. Some places more than others. It’s happening.

      • CharlieSelf

        Citations?

      • Get it together

        I have a close friend that’s a state trooper. They are constantly confiscating firearms. Those who have had put in background checks on purchases and haven’t received a denial but then receive a final denial have police come and remove the firearm. Do some research. Anytime police arrive on the scene of domestics and such and firearms are found or reported can be taken into custody by the police. If they so choose to do so. What is scary is some states have a no return law. Once taken regardless of the circumstances can not get it back. A recent news story was a legal concealed carry female involved in a car wreck. The police took possession of the legally owned handgun to secure it on the scene. Their law is not to return any firearms. She is now fighting to get it back.

        I would prefer to provide links but this lame a$$ site likes to censor our speech.

      • Aidan Templeton

        The laws themselves are pointless pieces of paper that a criminal doesn’t respect. It’s having a gun pointed at them (in the case of law enforcement with police) that makes the law actually effective.

        So you’re trying to tell me that gun owners should be threatened at gunpoint by police to surrender their legally purchased property that they haven’t used to harm anyone at all, simply because someone along the way used it to harm themselves or another person.

        There is no price on liberty. Your liberty and rights freedom should not be violated because somebody else abused their’s.

      • Get it together

        Amen

      • CharlieSelf

        No one was writing about gun point threats, nor did anyone write of confiscating guns. Your inner Wayne LaPierre is emerging.

      • Bobloblaw67

        What do I need a license/ID to exercise my 2nd Amendment rights but not to vote?

      • So, by your logic, requiring an ID to vote is a great idea as well right? …or does that somehow infringe on your rights when this does not?

      • Get it together

        So you are suggesting there isn’t hoops to jump through to buy a gun? What is so wrong with proving you qualify to vote? My nics check proves I can legally own a firearm. And recent stats on States that requires an ID have had record turnouts.

      • Michael Maynard

        Explain how your ideas would make it harder for criminals to get guns?

      • DavidD

        I worked in Texas prisons for years .Saying that criminals are lawless is like saying rain is wet.That is something we both can agree on.
        Registration of weapons is the first step.Make sure felons with guns do time.Make sure offenses with guns carry more crime.Prosecute the illegal illegal filling out of NCIS forms.Police gun sales better.
        Criminals weigh benifit vs costs not as much as other people do.Not as well either because they tend to be impulsive and the dumb one do incredably stupid things but most go through some kind of process.
        Make it worth their while to not use a weapon and/or shoot them.
        Also treat drug addiction as a medical problem and not a criminal and you would have lots more space and funds to go after and incarcerate the hard cases.
        On the cell bloc the inmates sat,”can’t fade that heat.”
        That means I don’t want to do that because I fear the consequences.

      • Get it together

        Many good points. Getting ready to take the kids to a birthday party. I like your thoughts and will discuss them when I have a little extra time.

      • Get it together

        Change of plans here lol. I think people need to pay attention more. Look around you and what do you see? People preoccupied with their phones. Parents who are not involved with their children are not seeing obvious signs. People need to get their heads out of their you know what and start paying attention to what is going on around them.

      • John Kessler

        You left out closing the gun show loop hole. Private sellers do not need to run background checks. If a bad guy wants a gun he just goes the the dude with the card table in the back of the show rather than the big dealers up front, who will run the check.

      • Bobloblaw67

        I agree. Thugs selling guns in alleys should also run bankground checks.

      • When was the last time you purchased a gun at a gun show? Nothing you are saying is true…but don’t let that stop you…

      • Get it together

        I haven’t been to a gun show. Do they allow private gun owners to sell firearms at gun shows? If so are they doing background checks on sales? Is it the same rules across the US if they are selling them? I know they do nics checks on new sales from gun dealers but let’s be honest, do private sellers?

      • retiredcrewdog

        Not in Washington State, you can’t even get into a show without a CPL or WAC, both of which require a background check to get. Vendors can’t sell any weapons unless they have an FFL, it’s no different than walking into a brick and mortar gun store, which means they record a Bill of Sale with your CPL or WAC. I have had people here spout off “what about the Gun Show Loophole?” When I ask have you ever tried to get into a Gun Show in Washington? I get “no, but they are all alike no background checks.” The only way in the state to purchase a gun without a BGC would be face to face sales, yet even then 95% of the sellers in their ads require a CPL, WADL recorded on a Bill of Sale. So in effect even FTF sellers are covering their asses requiring a BGC, because it’s a felony to sell a firearm to someone who legally can’t own one. The 5% that don’t do the BOS, still want to at least see your CPL and WADL.

      • llcisyouandme

        According to the ATF, the two largest sources of illegally obtained firearms are corrupt gun dealers, and then gun shows. Personally buying a gun at, or even attending a gun show, in no way grants hidden insight as to how they are used to get guns into the hands of criminals and the mentally unstable, and money In the pockets of manufacturers and dealers.

      • Bobloblaw67

        Canadians wouldnt even obey their long gun registration laws. The register was overbudget and was turning law abiding people into criminals. The entire registry was discontinued and the information destroyed. And you think Americans would abide by a registry if Canadians wouldnt?

      • DavidD

        At first you don’t suceed try try again.
        The law was not turning people into criminals ,people refusing to live by the rule of law was turning themselves into criminal.They made that choice and if caught had to live by the consequences.
        Please provide a site for what you are asserting.It would help all of us to better understand your pointsThank you.

      • llcisyouandme

        Were the government ever to actually start “taking away all our guns,” they would not need a government registry to find gun owners. They’re all on Facebook, posing with them. They’re all on Disqus, commenting about their rights and cold dead hands. Of course “all” here is hyperbolic, but probably contains a vast majority of the most radicalized, most obsessive, most deranged, and most dangerous, and in that case the gub’mint would be all about the low hanging fruit.

      • Dave

        Good points, but what makes anyone think that criminals are going to register any weapons? If I HAVE to register my weapons, I will…I am a law abiding citizen, but a national gun registry isn’t going to police anyone but the law abiding gun owners. I could purchase damn near any weapon I wanted right now, off the books, from criminal elements. These weapons are either stolen or purchased from another country and brought here illegal and unregistered (and will forever remain unregistered) to be sold or traded by criminals. The more difficult it is made for people to protect themselves, the softer the targets for those that mean to commit crimes and violence against those people. Run my background, make me take a safety and knowledge test, finger print me…but do not further restrict me from legally purchasing what I deem necessary to protect my family and myself. A large majority of anti-gun and gun control enthusiasts also want Marijuana legalized. I see their point and although I do not smoke, I understand their platform. But, why am I, as a gun owner, pointed out as some right wing, crazy that demands some kind of entitlement but the pro – Marijuana group, that wants to legalize an illegal product, are standing up for their rights and a change that is long overdue? We all would like life to follow closer to our idea of a better world. I have no opinion about abortion (as I don’t believe it to be something government should have their hands on…it’s between a woman and her God), I think that Marijuana is as relatively safe as alcohol, in moderation, and should be legal, and I believe self protection, hunting, collecting, and recreational/competitive shooting without restriction (other than background checks, testing, and maybe finger printing) are a free persons right. Now, if a person gets high as [email protected]€$, steals a gun, and shoots up an abortion clinic or NRA meeting, they should get the chair or lethal injection. But we all know nobody is going to shoot anything up while high on weed, other than the characters in the video game that they are playing .

      • DavidD

        Law enforcement often know when a criminal is operating in their area as they usally have informants out working for them.
        It’s hard many times to catch thieves in the actual criminal act they like to do to make what they consider a living.
        If you can catch them with a unregistered weapon and they are a felon you can least salt them away longer so they won’t be doing harm out on the street.
        If he/she wants to roll on who he got the unregistered weapon you might catch another villian involved in some other nefarious activity.
        If you are an lawabiding type not inclined to shoot people unless you’re directly threatened you should be able to stack weapons as high as you want.
        Weapons for people who by law or by inclinations can’t handle the responsibility should and need to be ridden herd on and registration is one methods to do that.

      • Michael Maynard

        How would registration do any good? Rather than registration, which only burdens the law abiding, why not jsut make mandatory minimum sentences for using a gun in a crime?

      • llcisyouandme

        Stolen weapons and those from abroad are not the chief sources for criminals, those being corrupt dealers and gun shows, #1 and #2. according to the ATF. If everyone had to register their weapons, it could and should be applied to all gun transfers, protecting the sellers from accidentally permitting weapons from entering the criminal stream. I should be legally responsible for my weapon, in every way, until I show paperwork indicating I no longer have it. In my state it’s illegal to sell a car to someone without a driver’s license. Documenting all transfers will greatly reduce illegally obtained weapons, at small cost and ultimate great benefit to sellers. We need to police law abiding citizens, with laws that keep them from contributing to criminals with weapons. Are speed limits only for non-speeders? Do they unduly burden non-speeders? All this, and I never got past your first few sentences.

      • Todd A Omicioli

        first sentence is wrong, majority is stolen, followed by corrupt gun shops, def not gun shows

      • llcisyouandme

        Tell ATF

      • Michael Maynard

        You keep saying that, yet haven’t posted a single link to a site that backs your claims.

      • llcisyouandme

        tell ATF

      • Michael Maynard

        Tell the ATF what? That you don’t know what you’re talking about? Actually, criminals get most of their guns from two sources, friends and family (straw sales), and backroom deals with dirty dealers.

      • sherry06053

        Nicely said.

      • DavidD

        Thank you for your kind reply.

      • FD Brian

        criminals aren’t the ones going into movie theaters and shooting a 100 people, it’s crazy, unstable people with mental disorders.

      • Get it together

        I think most can agree there is a mental health issue in America.

        So you are proposing penalizing everyone?

        I’m lost. Where were 100 people shot in a movie theater? That’s why we are having this discussion in the first place. People throwing bogus numbers out and hoping they stick.

      • Charles Vincent

        “criminals aren’t the ones going into movie theaters and shooting a 100
        people, it’s crazy, unstable people with mental disorders.”
        When you shoot someone you are a criminal mental illness or not.

      • FD Brian

        I think you know what I mean. It’s not the usual felons that are killing multiple people in one setting. It’s people who hadn’t had a criminal back ground or a limited one.

      • Aidan Templeton

        Except that Aaron Alexis passed a background check and Adam Lanza stole his weapons rather than legally bought them. You can’t prove someone’s intentions or mental state with a piece of paper, and you certainly can’t stop someone from stealing from someone else with the background checks. They don’t actually do anything to stop the shootings that have taken place, and would also prevent lawful shooters and people seeking to defend themselves from legally being able to buy guns if they had a bad mental record at some point in their past and have since recovered.

        Let alone through background checks you seek are already in existence and at to be conducted by law.

      • Charles Vincent

        BG’s are all the same. the Aurora shooter passed his BG as did 95% of the other mass shooters.

        “It’s not the usual felons that are killing multiple people in one setting” tell this to the people who are victims of drive by shootings done by Gang members.

        “It’s people who hadn’t had a criminal back ground or a limited one.”

        Felons do not get BG’s the buy from criminals who stole the weapons.

        “Supply sources can vary in different parts of the country. An NIJ funded study of the Los Angeles illicit gun market noted: “Results showed that many crime guns were first purchased at local—that is, in county—licensed dealers, rather than from out of state. That is, contrary to the conventional wisdom that crime guns were being trafficked across state borders from places with less stringent regulations, such as Arizona and Nevada, we found that a majority of the guns used in crimes were purchased in Los Angeles County.”Thus, gun markets can be highly local.”

      • retiredcrewdog

        Really? Pretty sure they are defined as criminals after walking in the door of a theater with a firearm. They don’t even have to fire a shot. But I understand your confusion, there is a serious mental health issue in America.

      • Boba Fetish

        By that logic, let’s just make burglary legal. Burglars aren’t going to stop just because it’s against the law.

      • Get it together

        Come on. Burglary is not a constitutional right. So please use common sense. You want to have a common sense conversation. Then let’s do that. I’m saying if you want to start screwing with the constitution you better be ready for other rights to be taken. How would you feel to have your 1st Amendment Rights to be screwed with. And understand plenty of people have been killed by words spoken.

      • Boba Fetish

        I did not say, nor imply that they are the same thing. The point (which I’m pretty sure you willfully skipped over), is that “people are going to do it anyway” is not a real argument. And I AM a gun owner. I am not for “taking guns,” (which is a strawman argument itself, since outlawing guns isn’t even on the table in any real way). But I am also not afraid of a mandatory background check or a psychological evaluation, or whatever else I need to do to prove that I am fit to own a weapon.

      • Get it together

        I understood what you were trying to say. There was no confusion. I don’t think your analogy was a just comparison. I don’t think more gun control will help what is already in place. I am not advocating a free for all. However making it difficult for good people to protect themselves should be a crime in itself. Many believe any adjustments to the 2nd Amendment is infringing. I think what we did so far is enough. Drugs are illegal and people buy it everyday. I am not saying legalize drugs. It’s just an example that shows people who want to do or get bad things will.

      • Boba Fetish

        My comment wasn’t a comparison in the way you’re thinking anyway. So, yes, apparently there IS confusion. It was satirizing the “people are going to do it anyway” comment. You can’t open a dialogue that begins with a statement that isn’t a valid argument. While there may be valid talking points, that isn’t one of them.

      • Get it together

        While it may not be a valid argument it is reality. Which apparently isn’t on the table with some folks.

      • Charles Vincent

        Argumentum absurdum

      • Julie Echo Tyler

        Perhaps the same way we track car registration; if you buy a gun legally, register it, but don’t register the sale or theft of that gun, you remain responsible for anything that the gun is used for.

      • Get it together

        I can agree with you on that. We DO need to be more responsible. That is a common sense suggestion.

      • retiredcrewdog

        Actually, that is all ready true. If you sell a firearm that you bought from a FFL dealer without transferring it out of your name to the new owner, the LEO’s go to you the original buyer. Hope you have some proof you sold it, and an air tight alibi for the time of the crime. Most states do not have a registration process, but do have a transfer process on the books. Penalties vary from nothing to oh my god we are so going to hang you.

      • jllutseck

        Yeah, gee, we should just legalize murder, because you’re not going to stop criminals from killing people. You’re a genius, you are.

      • Get it together

        You are the genius my friend. It’s a tool that many people in this world use responsibly. Just like a car, hammer, and any other item an idiot wants to use to commit murder. Then there are idiots like yourself that can’t get past the fact that of the items mentioned, mine is protected by the 2nd Amendment. My point is not to legalize murder. That’s ridiculous! We don’t take cars, hammers, and other similar items away from law abiding citizen so get off the gun grabbing BS. Go after criminals. Oh, they have rights. New York does away with the pat down law and low and behold gun crime sky rockets. Gee. Who’d a thunk it.

      • llcisyouandme

        How do you stop a chronic speeder or drunk driver? They’re also criminals.There exists a whole cascading set of repercussions. Assuming that nothing can be done, about gun violence or about anything, because it won’t be perfect is beyond absurd. It is deranged.

      • wodaji

        Why aren’t the criminals using automatic weapons when they want to? oh yeah…. gun control.

        Got automatics?

      • Get it together

        I could if I wanted to. They are not illegal. I just don’t have a need for one nor feel like paying the tax stamp for one. I could easily purchase one with my background.

    • LL11

      They’d want to see that foreign-born Jesus’ birth certificate too.

      • Maurice

        Foreign-born Jesus hasn’t attempted to perpetrate lies and deceptions on the American people, as a certain politician has. You know, the one who SAID he was going to have a “transparent” administration; the one who is forcing the ACA on us, even though it is anything but affordable; the one who says everything is Bush’s fault.

    • Maurice

      I just posted three websites that had several facts for you, but your moderator obviously deleted it. I momentarily forgot that your side is against free speech. There were no foul words, no name calling; no reason to delete it, except they don’t want you to know the truth!

      • Charles Vincent

        you have to modify links this site will delete them.

        mod the link like so;
        http://www DOT robinsonwins DOT com/wordpress/?page_id=49

      • Maurice

        Thank you Charles. I really appreciate your help. I had never tried to post a link before, but since I was going against the grain of most of the posts I read on here, I didn’t think anyone would just take my word for anything.

        I agreed with point #4 of the article, but the other three are very suspect. Mr.
        Schewitz Schewitz doesn’t seem like a very credible author.

        Some have suggested that we gun owners are incapable of thought. I think they know that’s not true, but they feel the need to insult us. I assure you that we DO think, and we’re every bit as concerned about the safety of all Americans as anyone on this site is.

        Instead of fighting among ourselves all the time, we should be working together on solutions that will really work for all of us.

        We see all the lying and deceit that the leaders of our own government (both parties) perpetrate upon us daily, and we have a huge problem believing anything they tell us. You on this site think we’re conspiracy theorists on a few different issues. But nobody has ever PROVEN us wrong, except in your own liberal minds.

        We gun owners think you’re excessively naive and gullible. If this IS a deception, you are buying into it, hook, line and sinker!

        Some of you seem to think we’re racist for wanting Obama to show his LEGAL birth certificate. Millions of Americans are required to show proof of who they are every day, for things far less important than determining the legal eligibility of a candidate for president of the United States. To NOT require proof in that case is insanity and a slap in the face to all Americans! You are free to give up your right to that proof, but don’t demand that I give up that right too!

      • Charles Vincent

        I am not a liberal as you seem to be saying.

      • Maurice

        I’m sorry Charles. That wasn’t really my intent, nor was the comment about being excessively naive and gullible aimed at you. I have noticed that you seem to be the voice of reason here. I reread my post and I can see why you thought that’s what I was saying. I’m sorry for any misunderstanding.

      • Charles Vincent

        No worries just clarifying.

  • DanthePeacenik

    Apart from the slight on nonviolents (we’re not all potheads, thanks) this is a great article and I’ll be saving it for future reference.

  • June Goetz Lynne

    A conversation … even saying that word brings out hate from the other side! 🙁

  • Get it together

    While I agree that these open carry stunts are not a good idea for us gun owners, it’s idiots on both sides that make the issue tense.

    Yes the .223/ 5.56 round is not the same as a 22lr. Same diameter .224 but different cartridge all together. 22 can be 22lr, 22 short, 22 mag, 22 hornet (center fire).

    Most AR’s a are fed with magazines, not clips. And my AR’s happen to have been built for Coyote hunting.

    I personally think that writers and the media should be held accountable for their actions. AR style weapons are not the weapon of choice for mass murders. Handguns still lead the list. The fact is long rifles of any kind have not been the weapon of choice for murders. Including MASS murders. It’s the constant pounding by the news driving the perception that gun violence is going up. So keep pounding the idea to use AR’s for mass murders.

    I’m going to be nice here. When you lump idiots together murders will happen. If you are not advocating confiscation, the criminals will travel to the ends of the earth to get firearms. Do you not see that no law next to confiscation is going to prevent a person with a clean record from buying a firearm. So these criminals hopping out of Chicago and supposedly going to more relaxed law areas still have to have a NICS background check. If they are buying them legally they have a clean record. More likely they are getting them right in Chicago from the black market. No background check. Straight from one criminal to another.

    Confiscation. Unconstitutional? Watering down any constitutional right is a trap. Once you give a little they will keep taking. You know that is true.

    All gun sales made in the US from legal gun stores require a background check. ALL! Military grade weapons? I wouldn’t go to war with an AR 15 or any other semi automatic weapon. The misconception of the AR 15 is it’s the same as our military service weapons. It is not. Our military uses select fire weapons with burst options increasing the rate of fire substantially.

    There are many reports online giving examples of AR 15’s and similar weapons being used to protect people’s homes. Just this year in Detroit a woman protected her kids from 3 thugs with a semi automatic style weapon and thank God for her having a large capacity MAGAZINE because she missed with all the rounds she shot. One thug had a pistol and decided to go back in. Thankfully she wasn’t reloading and had enough ammo to send him out the door a second time. Her and her family were safe. My point is it is not your place to tell me how to protect my family. With your train of thought we shouldn’t have corvettes, sports cars in general. Why should they be legal? There are much more reasonable means of transportation. Who needs a car that does 150 mpg?

    Obama and the UN? This is the US of A! We shouldn’t be giving ANY of our rights or control away to anyone. PERIOD! We already look like a bunch of imbeciles with Obama’s foreign policies and local policies for that matter.

    Sorry but our country’s population has skyrocketed and so has the gun purchases. And no matter how you spin it gun violence has dropped. Take the career criminals out of the figure (because they are the true issue) and gun deaths plummet below any country in the world.

    So when some idiot decides to run his or her mouth about gun control and not common sense solutions to go after the career criminals I will send them this way to see a non solution.

    • Get it together

      Not all of us believe all the chest pounding BS the Media and NRA puts out. Some of us are quite informed and like to read information from multiple places and make a conclusion based on that and life experience. I find it difficult to have a reasonable conversation with both sides. You have to insert common sense some where. Just the other day I attempted to discuss the open carry topic with some “gun nuts”. And yes I wanted to pound my head on the wall when I was done. Sometimes you just can’t fix stupid. And trust me both sides represented have them. Spouting off claims such as being a hunter and throwing in incorrect gun terminology doesn’t make the article or points truthful or unbiased.

  • circeherbivora

    Thank you, Mr. Schewitz for explaining the difference between the .22 and the .223 in a way I could understand it. I actually DO believe in “good guys” with guns, but I’d like to see a LOT more safety training (and licensing and regulation) and maybe creative solutions, like outreach grief counseling and intervention when tragedy strikes a registered gun owner or special “Welcome Baby” gun-safety parties with free safety devices and training when gun owners become parents. (Maybe a surprise inspection from a respected “Gun Mom” in the neighborhood and prizes when they pass muster for safety.) I really think education, awareness and responsibility are the answer. Hopefully we’ll get back on track again!

    • Get it together

      I think education and awareness is the answer. We throw money away for so many other less pressing issues in this country. Most gun safety courses are money making scams. Add substance to it. Make it worth while to take. Make it a government funded course if it’s government mandated. Actually use the locks the come with every new gun or buy better locks or safes with easy access for the owners.

      But even then we still are not addressing the population that is driving the statistics. We can make a difference with the things we listed for law abiding citizens. But the numbers will continue to be there and this will continually be a fight that divides our nation. Good people should not have to fight every year to defend their constitutional right. Not when the majority is criminals committing the crimes.

  • JudgeX X

    I’m a liberal gun owner. I believe that buying a gun should be much more difficult than it is, but I also don’t agree that other people should have authority over my personal security if I haven’t broken any laws or done anything wrong.

    • Get it together

      That’s the hard part. I agree. So the question remains how do we make it tougher without infringing on law abiding citizens? I don’t know the answer.

      • circeherbivora

        Make it tougher, but also make it more rewarding. Make that gun certificate MEAN something. People should be PROUD when they pass a real gun safety course. The certificate should be worthy of framing. I would love to see marksmanship classes in all sorts of different caliber weapons, and people who want to pass the courses because they know it will prove their proficiency. I hated that movie “The Brave One” when it showed her buying a gun (illegally) and the guy showing her how to shoot it in 30 seconds, and then she uses it successfully to kill a robber. That just feeds into the MYTH. You couldn’t use a dremel tool with any real proficiency in 30 seconds and you certainly couldn’t be trusted to take a car on the road. Why is a gun treated like something we’re born knowing how to use? It is a tool- a VERY POWERFUL and DANGEROUS tool. We should take time- MAKE time, to learn how to use it correctly.

      • Get it together

        There is some common sense input to address the issues on law abiding side. Very well put.

      • Janice Rael

        Totally agree with you here. I took my gun safety course and got my hunter’s license when I was an 11-year-old girl. I was proud that I got a 100% on the written test. I felt that everyone should be taught gun safety.

        Open carry scares the living crap out of me and if these open carriers think that they are convincing me that open carry is a good thing, they are mistaken. Their unsafe gun handling makes me wish for stronger laws against carrying weapons in public.

  • Get it together

    While I agree that these open carry stunts are not a good idea for us gun owners, it’s idiots on both sides that make the issue tense.

    Yes the .223/ 5.56 round is not the same as a 22lr. Same diameter .224 but different cartridge all together. 22 can be 22lr, 22 short, 22 mag, 22 hornet (center fire).

    Most AR’s a are fed with magazines, not clips. And my AR’s happen to have been built for Coyote hunting.

    I personally think that writers and the media should be held accountable for their actions. AR style weapons are not the weapon of choice for mass murders. Handguns still lead the list. The fact is long rifles of any kind have not been the weapon of choice for murders. Including MASS murders. It’s the constant pounding by the news driving the perception that gun violence is going up. So keep pounding the idea to use AR’s for mass murders.

    I’m going to be nice here. When you lump idiots together murders will happen. If you are not advocating confiscation, the criminals will travel to the ends of the earth to get firearms. Do you not see that no law next to confiscation is going to prevent a person with a clean record from buying a firearm. So these criminals hopping out of Chicago and supposedly going to more relaxed law areas still have to have a NICS background check. If they are buying them legally they have a clean record. More likely they are getting them right in Chicago from the black market. No background check. Straight from one criminal to another.

    Confiscation. Unconstitutional? Watering down any constitutional right is a trap. Once you give a little they will keep taking. You know that is true.

    All gun sales made in the US from legal gun stores require a background check. ALL!

    Military grade weapons? I wouldn’t go to war with an AR 15 or any other semi automatic weapon. The misconception of the AR 15 is it’s the same as our military service weapons. It is not. Our military uses select fire weapons with burst options increasing the rate of fire substantially.

    There are many reports online giving examples of AR 15’s and similar weapons being used to protect people’s homes. Just this year in Detroit a woman protected her kids from 3 thugs with a semi automatic style weapon and thank God for her having a large capacity MAGAZINE because she missed with all the rounds she shot. One thug had a pistol and decided to go back in. Thankfully she wasn’t reloading and had enough ammo to send him out the door a second time. Her and her family were safe. My point is it is not your place to tell me how to protect my family. With your train of thought we shouldn’t have corvettes, sports cars in general. Why should they be legal? There are much more reasonable means of transportation. Who needs a race car or motorcycle that does 150 mph? I mean that is what the professional drivers use.

    Obama and the UN? This is the US of A! We shouldn’t be giving ANY of our rights or control away to anyone. PERIOD! We already look like a bunch of imbeciles with Obama’s foreign policies and local policies for that matter.

    Sorry but our country’s population has skyrocketed and so has the gun purchases. And no matter how you spin it gun violence has dropped. Take the career criminals out of the figure (because they are the true issue) and gun deaths plummet below any country in the world.

    So when some idiot decides to run his or her mouth about gun control and not common sense solutions to go after the career criminals I will send them this way to see a non solution.

    And just to be clear. These open carry long gun folks are idiots!

    Reposted because my other post is awaiting moderator approval.

  • Get it together

    Speaking for myself and a few friends. What frustrates us is we are watching the gun control folks chase their tail. It’s always going to be something. Rid the world of all dangerous objects! It takes a mentally ill person or heartless criminal to use any object to kill people with. But when it comes to discussing solutions the blame always falls on the inanimate object and not the person who uses it. Why is that?

  • Asuri Kinnes

    Andrew Cuomo proposed confiscation of (so called) assault weapons as part of his post Sandy Hook campaigning.

    So I guess Cuomo is part of the liberal fringe now?

    O.o

  • Matthew Reece

    More guns do not necessarily make everyone safer. In order for everyone to be safer, those guns must get into the hands of more people, especially the hands of poor people and those of ethnic minorities. I do not expect this to happen soon because liberals will oppose arming more people and conservatives will oppose arming poor people and those of ethnic minorities.

    • Get it together

      Funny, sounds like most of the gun violence in this nation is from ethnic minorities. At least that is what the MSM reports. Doesn’t sound like they are the ones needing the guns. Poor folks do need guns.

  • Eg Kbbs

    Although I’ve found it useless to instruct a true RWNJ on gun statistics, Chicago has more shootings because it has so many more people. A city of 10 million is expected to have more shootings than a town of a few hundred. If you look on a per capita basis, Chicago isn’t even in the top ten.

    the CDC gathers statistics on firearm injuries, you can look there for the raw data. but there is a nice analysis on citylab titled “The Geography of Gun Violence” (sorry, but FP balks if I post a link).

    Author finds that poverty is a major determinant of gun violence (hence Detroit is high on the list since the Auto industry crash). Surprisingly (/sarcasm) places with anti-gun violence measures and laws in place have a lower rate of firearm injuries and death.

    • Charles Vincent

      “Surprisingly (/sarcasm) places with anti-gun violence measures and laws in place have a lower rate of firearm injuries and death.”

      Then why is it that these states have some on=f the highest gun violence numbers;

      Camden New Jersey 60.6 per 100k they have strict gun laws
      Newark New Jersey 33.8
      Trenton New Jersey 27.0

      Baltimore Maryland 31.3 per 100k they have strict gun laws

      Oakland California 26.3 per 100k they have strict gun laws
      Stockton 19.7
      Compton 17.4

      Hartford Connecticut 21.6 per 100k they have strict gun laws

      Chicago 15.9 per 100k they have strict gun laws
      Washington DC 17.5 per 100k they have strict gun laws
      Lets also keep in mind that the national average is ~4.5 per 100k

      “Author finds that poverty is a major determinant of gun violence (hence Detroit is high on the list since the Auto industry crash).”

      This is an argument for guns not against them.

      “Although I’ve found it useless to instruct a true RWNJ on gun statistics”
      Instruct… really… I don’t think you know your ass from a hole in the ground and your condescending attitude doesn’t help you get your point across

  • sanjuro

    4. People who own AR-15’s, the most common rifle that fires a .223, know that there is a conversion kit to fire cheaper .22LR rounds. They don’t say it is the same bullet.

    3. “More Guns, Less Crime” by John Lott is not exactly a masterpiece in statistical analysis. Ultimately, many of the states with lax gun laws becomes the source for gun traffickers in states with restrictive laws.

    2. Many of the Chicago guns traced are from Indiana. However, the restrictive laws in Chicago do not stop shootings.

    1. The first thing the Nazis took away was the right to free speech. If that happens in America, I guarantee everyone will want a gun.

  • Fulibtard

    You were never a rebublican you libtard troll…, nice try douche!!!

  • Charles Vincent

    Wait do I see a circular argument manny?

  • SLP

    You forgot the talking point of the “God given right” to own guns. Where and when did God say this?

    • Get it together

      I was never taught or read that in the Bible. I do think I have every right in the world as a Law Abiding Citizens to protect my family with any item I so choose within reason. But the liberal media has labeled AR15’s as the anti Christ.

      Did you know there was such thing as an AR 10? It is a near duplicate of the AR15 in every way. What is so different? It’s more powerful! It normally shoots a 308 Winchester cartridge that makes the 5.56 look like a baby. Furthermore it can shoot various other cartridges such as the 6.5 Creedmoor, 260 Remington, and other Ultra Long Range Calibers. How far? 1000 yards easily with the 6.5mm class bullets.

      So what pisses me off about folks that jump on the AR 15 bandwagon is they have zero clue. It isn’t the choice weapon for mass murders as the media tries to make it. There are far more deadly firearms that the government has no issues with. It’s all a fallacy.

      • SLP

        First of all, I have never heard anyone in the media label an AR-15 as the anti Christ . Ever. If you are using that as a euphemism, it’s the wrong one. What I have heard from gun nuts over and over is that it is their God given right to own a gun. THAT is the absurdity. Yes, you have the right to own a weapon, but it wasn’t granted by God. That is my point.
        I don’t care what the difference is between an AR-15, an AR-10 or whatever. What I do care about is the ridiculous need for the average homeowner having these high powered weapons in their homes along with multiple 100 round clips. Why is it necessary to have military style weapons? If you need a semi automatic to shoot a deer, you are a piss poor shot. (Not you personally, but the collective you.)

      • Get it together

        I appreciate your opinion. Most states have magazine restrictions. Mine is 10. Local States to me 30 rounds.

        I use my AR’s for coyote hunting. Yes you don’t need to know all about the AR 10. I don’t understand folks with regards to the deal with AR’s period. Because they look like military style weapons does not make them anything similar. But how I choose to hunt or defend my family is not your concern, just criminals. Those are the only ones who have to be concerned with getting shot.

      • SLP

        I think the families of the children killed in Sandy Hook might have some concern.

      • Get it together

        So once again because of a few psychopaths we shall condemn everyone? When Muslim terrorists attacked the twin towers our President and many others asked us not to condemn the entire group. Why should we be held to a different standard? I can answer that. Because it’s a firearm and that just sets certain people off.

      • Get it together

        Maybe it’s the wrong example but the media has folks so scared of the fearful AR when in reality it is a crappie round. My whole point of the AR10 was it brings one quality to the fight the M4 or military style weapons don’t bring. Better terminal performance! The military rifles have multiple fire control selections that the AR doesn’t have increasing it’s rate of fire substantially.

      • Get it together

        The words firearms and God given right have NEVER crossed my lips. Ever!

        Protecting my family from criminals that don’t play from the same set of rules as myself is a right that I will fight for. But it’s not a God given right.

    • Charles Vincent

      “You forgot the talking point of the “God given right” to own guns. Where and when did God say this?”
      Actually it says so in the constitution. You know the Supreme law of our country.

      It also states right are unalienable and come from our creator(god) in the declaration of independence.
      And if you read the federalist papers it clearly states the same there.

      • Get it together

        I learn something new every day. Thanks man. ☺

      • Charles Vincent

        Anytime.

  • SLP

    I also hate when I read constantly that.cars kill people, hammers kill people, bats kill people? Why don’t we ban cars, hammers and bats? Isn’t it logical to say those things are not intended to kill? Only a gun is made for that specific action. To KILL.

    • Get it together

      So your logic is that as long as the item is made for something else other than killing it’s ok that it gets used to kill people? Interesting where our priorities are.

      • Laura Hurt

        that’s not what she says. She says it’s idiotic to answer ‘let’s be a bit more careful who we let buy guns’ with ‘but cars kill people too’.

      • Get it together

        I understood what she was saying. Just bringing more to the table.

      • SLP

        Twisting someone’s words is not bringing more to the table. That’s a typical GOP tactic.

      • Get it together

        I didn’t twist your words. It’s a matter of how each of us perceive death and how they got to that state. I think the good Lord has a plan for all of us but some people do stupid stuff to speed those plans up. Chicago this past weekend. Where were the parents when many of these kids were killed at late hours of the night or early morning? Drunk driving the driver gets blamed, kids drowning the parents get blamed, fatal vehicle accidents the human did it. Person shot! That dang gun!

      • Charles Vincent

        Do I really need to point out the UCSB kid that used his car as a weapon? And who coincidentally stabbed 3 of his victims to death.

      • SLP

        Sigh…….are cars and knives made for the purpose of killing? I can use corn on the cob to stuff down someone’s throat and choke them. I can use a pillow to smother someone. Are those items made with the intent to kill? What is the singular purpose of a gun?

      • Charles Vincent

        Knives have been made for killing for a long time. And drunk drivers kill plenty of people every year;

        In 2010, 10,228 people were killed in alcohol-impaired driving crashes,
        accounting for nearly one-third (31%) of all traffic-related deaths in
        the United States.

        Now contrast that with gun related homicides in the same year;

        8,874 total gun related homicides from the FBI violent crime statistics.

        http://www DOT fbi DOT gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2011/crime-in-the-u.s.-2011/tables/expanded-homicide-data-table-8

        “I can use a pillow to smother someone. Are those items made with the intent to kill?”

        Yes in the context you provide they are designed to kill.

        “What is the singular purpose of a gun?”
        Guns have more than one purpose infact they have three purposes. Defensive weapon offensive weapon and provider of food to sustain life of people and their family.

      • Get it together

        Holy cow we have some common sense going in here. Lol. Good post. Thank you!

      • SLP

        A drunk driver doesn’t set out to kill. That’s nonsense. Weapon of choice. Please.

      • Get it together

        No, killers will use whatever means to kill. Period! And by any statistics you can dig up guns are not the weapon of choice. Hammers, blunt objects, etc., are. I don’t know what to say to you being they were not designed to kill as their original design. Because that obviously makes a difference.

      • Charles Vincent

        soon as he gets behind the wheel its a done deal whether he set out to or not dead is still dead.

      • Get it together

        Charles,

        Don’t you know there is a difference between the two? It’s not that they are dead but how they got to that state.

        I’m sorry but gun control will not fix the inner city killings. And throw in an occasional idiot who sees this crap on the news and copys their predecessor so they can be on the news.

        If all of this energy were put into college drinking and other means that surpass firearm deaths we could really do something here. Sure there could be a few loose ends tightened up on guns that could be worked out but come on.

        30+ years in fire rescue I can confirm Charles is correct. Dead is dead.

      • Charles Vincent

        “I’m sorry but gun control will not fix the inner city killings. And throw in an occasional idiot who sees this crap on the news and copys their predecessor so they can be on the news”

        This is a product of environment both in poverty and the disintegration of the family unit.

        “If all of this energy were put into college drinking and other means that surpass firearm deaths we could really do something here. Sure there could be a few loose ends tightened up on guns that could be worked out but come on.”

        Gun control isn’t the answer its part of the problem in that its doesn’t address the underlying issues that cause violence.

      • Get it together

        I agree with you Charles. Those are the points I was trying to bring out. A couple of my replies to you have a little sarcasm in them because we think similarly. Lol

      • Charles Vincent

        This is probably true. this video sort of covers most of the problem;
        https://www DOT youtube DOT com/watch?v=g9bRDNgd6E4

      • Get it together

        I hear what you are trying to say. If firearms did not serve a real purpose in America why would it be added to the constitution in the first place? It was not added to the constitution for hunting. Our forefathers had enough intelligence to see what a corrupt government could do. AR’s and similar firearms are the best choice next to an actual assault rifle. Which most of us do not have access to. It is difficult to bring that up while talking to many of you because quite frankly many of you are walking around blindness believing that couldn’t happen here. Do I think there should be background checks, sure. And there is. So why is that continually brought up? Yes I think private sales should be put to the same standard. For free if you wish to see people comply. I agree with many things you have to say and I do understand people’s concerns. My last question. If we instituted all of the gun laws you propose and criminals continue to drive the statistics, where do us gun advocates say enough is enough. The issue is a continuous fight that is dividing this nation. Frankly I do not think adding laws that will not be followed any better than the ones we have now will fix the issue.

        Offer gun safety. Safes at a reduced price. Hold parents responsible for not securing their firearms. Hold the police responsible for not doing their job. Any gun sale must have a NICS check to go with current new gun sales.

        My thinking may not be popular here but it is valid. You guys won’t stop until confiscation. The inner city crap and occasional crazy is going to do something stupid. And the fight will continue. We are told we are nut jobs but quite frankly SOME of you guys are right there beside our idiots.

      • Get it together

        And how about people just paying attention to their kids and recognizing a problem. I have a 1200 lb safe because I have kids. My handguns are locked up in a quick access safe. If more gun owners would do there part it would give you guys less ammo but I think some would just fine something to complain about.

      • SLP

        NO, that is NOT what I’m saying. Where did I say it’s ok to use a car to kill? Don’t be obtuse

    • Master-Shake

      I don’t know what type of logic they are using. You will see this all the time. When you talk about the minimum wage they explain how if you want to raise the minimum wage why don’t you raise to $50 or even $100. None of this is adding anything constructive to the discussion about the minimum wage.

      They use this same argument for gun control laws. You had the Isla Vista shooting where some of the victims were stabbed to death and even one person died who was hit by the killers car. Now you have conservatives pointing out how he was able to kill people with knives and his car. We should also have to ban knives and cars because they can kill people to. Why does it matter how he killed is victims? They obviously haven’t put much thought into what they are saying. It’s a lot harder to kill someone with a knife. Having a gun makes it much easier to kill someone.

  • Michael J McGee

    last year Chicago had more deaths from handguns then soldiers dying in Afghanistan. it is on the news every day. I don’t think the murder rate has gone down at all.

    • Get it together

      Everyone else’s numbers are decreasing. Speaks volumes on Chicago’s laws and a percentage of the people.

    • warddorrity

      If you want to address the ‘root causes’ of which the Left is so fond of citing, take a long hard look at black thug culture – and those who aid, abet and cheer it on.

      • Get it together

        Easy, if we break into the truth the racist card will be dealt. Happens every time.

  • Julie Echo Tyler

    Love hearing from the truly “reasonable and responsible” gun owners! I know there are many out there, but we only hear from the NRA and the tea party crazies. Thank you!

    • Get it together

      Typical stereotype when you get people who provide valid information that the left wing doesn’t like.

    • Get it together

      That’s helping the problem. Nice contribution.

  • Chaosfeminist

    Why hunt coyotes? That’s the only problem I have with this. You can’t eat them, and I don’t believe they’re doing anything to you personally, so I just don’t get it. It actually makes me a little sad

    • Get it together

      Because they are shredding the whitetail deer population, my buddies goats, chickens, cats, and even his dog. Even had a calf attacked by something that definitely wasn’t a bear. In fact the states here offer bounties because of what they are doing to the deer population.

    • Charles Vincent

      Actually you can eat them where did you get that idea.

    • warddorrity

      So – do you live in an area where packs of coyotes are free to roam? Do you have horses, dogs and cats that may prey to them? I do. I leave coyotes alone unless they menace my livestock. Then I shoot them without remorse. Haven’t had to do it often, thank heavens.

      • Get it together

        Did you not read my post stating just that? Guess not.

      • Chaosfeminist

        My cats stay inside because I am a responsible pet owner. My dogs stay within a fenced area because I am a responsible pet owner. I don’t own a horse property but plenty in my area do and they haven’t had a problem because for the most part they keep their horses in a fenced area. I understand that people who own livestock have to keep them outside but the dairy farms in my area haven’t had much of a problem because again, fenced area. I have heard that the people who keep chickens sometimes have difficulty and need to scare coyotes off, which isn’t really hard to do. They are skittish little dogs. I cannot fathom having that much of a problem with them, unless they run in front of your car, which they do all the time out here, so I drive slow in their area.

  • Tanner

    You can’t have a rational discussion about anything if you are constantly referring to the people that you are debating with as “nuts.” As I try to read through your article and see you repeatedly demeaning anyone who disagrees with as a “gun nut” I lose all interest in reading your article as it feels like I am simply listening to someone bitch on the school quad or reading a facebook post. Seriously if you are ok with your published article being nothing more than a simple facebook rant than we have bigger problems in America than gun nuttery.

  • Bobloblaw67

    More guns has equaled less crime in the US. Since 1988, the number of states with CCW laws has increased from 1 to 50. Meanwhile the murder rate has fallen 33% over that period. In Chicago the murder rate is the lowest since the 1960s DESPITE more relaxed gun laws. It is no longer illegal to own a handgun in Chicago and Illinois now allows CCW.

  • JoeThePimpernel

    If someone who believes in the Second Amendment is a “gun nut,” is someone who believes in unlimited abortion an “abortion nut?”

  • getreal5

    Gun Control that makes sense.

    In 1865 a Democrat shot and killed Abraham Lincoln, President of the United States .

    In 1881 a left wing radical Democrat shot James Garfield, President of the United States, who later died from the wound.

    In 1963 a radical left wing socialist shot and killed John F. Kennedy, President of the United States .

    In 1975 a left wing radical Democrat fired shots at Gerald Ford, President of the United States .

    In 1981 a registered Democrat shot and wounded Ronald Reagan, President of the United States .

    In 1984 James Hubert, a disgruntled Democrat, shot and killed 22 people in a McDonalds restaurant.

    In 1986 Patrick Sherrill, a disgruntled Democrat, shot and killed 15 people in an Oklahoma post office.

    In 1990 James Pough, a disgruntled Democrat, shot and killed 10 people at a GMAC office.

    In 1991 George Hennard, a disgruntled Democrat, shot and killed 23 people in a Luby’s cafeteria.

    In 1995 James Daniel Simpson, a disgruntled Democrat, shot and killed 5 coworkers in a Texas laboratory.

    In 1999 Larry Asbrook, a disgruntled Democrat, shot and killed 8 people at a church service.

    In 2001 a left wing radical Democrat fired shots at the White House in a failed attempt to kill George W. Bush, President of the US .

    In 2003 Douglas Williams, a disgruntled Democrat, shot and killed 7 people at a Lockheed Martin plant.

    In 2007 a registered Democrat named Seung – Hui Cho, shot and killed 32 people in Virginia Tech.

    Nidal Malik Hasan (born September 8, 1970) is a former United States Army psychiatrist and Medical Corps officer who fatally shot 13 people and injured more than 30 others in the Fort Hood mass shooting on November 5, 2009.[3] At his court-martial in August 2013, Hasan admitted to the shootings.[4][5] A jury panel of thirteen officers convicted him of 13 counts of premeditated murder, 32 counts of attempted murder, and unanimously recommended Hasan be formally dismissed from the service and sentenced to death. He was a registered democrat who was also on Obama’s transition team in 2008

    In 2010 a mentally ill registered Democrat named Jared Lee Loughner, shot Rep. Gabrielle Giffords and killed 6 others.

    In 2011 a registered Democrat named James Holmes, went into a movie theater and shot and killed 12 people.

    In 2012 Andrew Engeldinger, a disgruntled Democrat, shot and killed 7 people in Minneapolis .

    In 2013 a registered Democrat named Adam Lanza, shot and killed 26 people in a school.

    As recently as Sept 2013, an angry Democrat shot 12 at a Navy ship yard.

    One could go on, but you get the point, even if the media does not. Clearly, there is a problem with Democrats and guns.

    And just a few weeks ago an angry puerto-rican leftist democrat killed 4 people on fort hood!

    And yet ANOTHER leftist 22 year old virgin stabbed 3 and shot another 3 people to death in california,

    No NRA member, Tea Party member, or Republican conservatives were involved.

    SOLUTION: It should be illegal for Democrats to own guns because they are all mentally ill to begin with.

    • Get it together

      If every word of that is true it speaks volumes.

      • getreal5

        sad. it is.

      • Get it together

        I find that to be one of the most thought out, well written, direct and to the point, posts I have ever read. It’s something I have heard said before but to read it is mind blowing.

  • Crazylegs_CarloCruz

    One of the most ridiculous arguments I have seen from the right is that Hitler was really a left wing liberal, and because liberals secretly want to ban guns, that somehow we have something in common with Hitler. I guess it’s been so long that people are starting to forget.

    • Get it together

      None of us here have stated that.

  • JoeThePimpernel

    Britain has a low homicide rate, but it has the highest violent crime rate in the EU, a violent crime rate that is higher than South Africa, and much higher than the United States. The only first-world nation with a higher violent crime rate than Britain is Australia, a nation that also banned and confiscated firearms, stripping its people of their ability to defend themselves from violent criminals.

    But for people who only care about body counts, all the muggings, rapes, home-invasions and carjackings that happen to deliberately defenseless citizens is of no consequence.

  • Rodrigo

    I’ve lived a long time (so far) and here is what I remember about the plans for guns.

    Here is what I remember from those days.

    1962 Thomas J Dodd and Emanuel Cellar proposed the first federal law on handguns.

    1962; “We don’t want to take away your guns, we ONLY want to register handguns! Rifles and shotguns will not be affected”.

    1964: “We only want to register ALL your guns, not ban them! Only Army surplus guns will be banned.”

    1968: “We only want to register your guns, and ban “Saturday Night
    Specials” and small foreign handguns along with army surplus rifles!”
    (They got the ban on 5 shot bolt action army surplus rifles and handguns
    and small foreign pistols)

    1970: “We only want to ban Saturday night specials! Large handguns and rifles will not be affected!”

    1971: “According to the SCOTUS, Miller Decision, RIFLES are protected under the 2nd Amendment, handguns are not!”

    1976: “We only want to ban all handguns! Long guns will not be affected!”

    1981: “The NRA is a rifle organization! They should give up their handguns, and they can keep their rifles!”- Lee Grant on GMA

    1984: “We must ban “assault Rifles, unsuitable or hunting!”

    1989: George Bush bans import of some foreign made “assault rifles”.

    1992: Assault rifle ban passed by Clinton.

    2000: first calls to ban single shot .50 cal rifles…

    2012 calls for MORE bans on semi auto rifles and handguns.

    And so it continues.

  • Rob

    THAT’S a debunk? That’s it? Sarah Brady, is that you?

    Let’s see, you start out debunking a claim that no American I know of has made, that .22 is the same as .223. Any fool knows it isn’t.

    Then you jump into a an intentionally misleading non-sequitur argument. Of course gun deaths will be lower in places where gun ownership has been illegally infringed upon to the point where it’s reduced or nearly eliminated entirely. Replaced, of course, by MORE deaths of other means, as well as considerably higher violent crimes overall. The last I checked, victims really don’t seem to care what they’re killed with. More victims are created when guns are absent to prevent them.

    Then Chicago. What a mess. “..being necessary to the security of a free state..” Chicago is the best example of what they were talking about. Again, when you deprive good people the use of arms, bad people who don’t care win the day. Thomas Paine said it best, “The supposed quietude of a good man allures the ruffian; while on the other hand, arms like laws discourage and keep the invader and the plunderer in awe, and preserve order in the world as well as property. The same balance would be preserved were all the world destitute of arms, for all would be alike; but since some will not, others dare not lay them aside… Horrid mischief would ensue were one half the world deprived of the use of them….” But go ahead and think you’re smarter than better men. And keep counting bodies and wondering why what you’re doing isn’t working. With concealed carry now forced upon Illinois, you’ll see the gun deaths drop dramatically as soon as it goes into full effect.

    And liberals wanting to take guns. I’ll give you that one – to a point. I’ve got endless quotes from liberals admitting exactly that. And while you point out the fact that just outright taking guns would be as impossible as it is foolhardy, they know this too and have adjusted the strategy. They know, as WE know, it will take time and incrementalism to achieve that goal without sparking a massive armed uprising. Little by little is the key, and liberals have alluded to that as well. Your newfound “reasonableness” isn’t fooling anyone. I constantly get the mental image of a big-eyed little child going, “But it’s JUST a little one, an itty-bitty eensy one.” Yeah. Not buyin’ it. But, as we look at the previous points, the strategy is a bit more advanced in liberal areas, isn’t it?

    The fact is, gun violence is the lowest it’s been since the Wild West. Not AS low as the Wild West, but getting there. Almost immediately after the passage of the Gun Control Act of 1968, gun homicide rates went sharply upward, hitting 7 per 100,000 and never falling below it for 25 years, hitting highs over 10 per 100k in the 80s. At that point, concealed carry was introduced and expanded. As more states relaxed laws burdening the Second Amendment, the rate dropped. We are now at 3.6, and seem to have plateaued, likely because high gun control areas such as major cities continue to drive the numbers. You’re attempting to solve a problem that’s no longer a problem by reinstituting the measures that made it a problem in the first place. Like Chicago, the idea that the measures didn’t work obviously because we don’t have enough measures, let’s make more. It’s ignorant.

    The Second Amendment works – if you let it.

    But I really have a hard time granting credibility at all to an article written by someone using a nom de guerre of a company that makes matzo balls. Americans aren’t fooled by your backstory, either. We’re not as subject to weak-minded group-think as your side is, it’s an underestimation as foolhardy as it is ill-fated. You are NOT one of us, owning a gun doesn’t make you one of us. An uncompromising insistence that the government obey the Constitution without exception is what we are about. You either demand the Second Amendment be obeyed, or you don’t, there is no middle ground.

    Debunked. Psh.

  • Bill White

    Stupid Article “.22 is the same as .223….” yeah and a Bike is the same as a car, right? Clearly this is written for people who have no experience with firearms.

  • retiredcrewdog

    Wow… 1. I have never heard anyone who’s actually fired a .223Rem or a 5.56Nato and a .22LR confuse them or compare them to one another. And 5.56 Nato and .223Rem are not the same rounds, similar in that a .223Rem can be fired in a rifle bored for 5.56 Nato, but it is absolutely stupid to fire a 5.56 Nato in a rifle bored for .223Rem. Unless, you like shrapnel in your face and hands, then go for it. Your points 2 and 3 can be spun the other direction using the 2013 FBI statistics. Point 4 you contradicted yourself there or maybe you discount WWII and the Holocaust a hoax. Pretty sure all the disarmed non-Germans the Germans murdered might have an issue with it though. But please don’t let any facts get in your way of writing more I like fiction.

    • Get it together

      I am all for what you are saying but the reality is they are interchangeable. It’s not recommended to shoot 5.56 in. 223 bolt guns but most newer bolt guns can handle the pressure. The major difference is the 5.56 is loaded a few grains heavier. The case specs are identical. The military also measures pressure at a different location then saami.

      • retiredcrewdog

        I’ve seen two AR’s chambered in .223 Remington come apart at the range, both times 5.56 NATO surplus was what the shooters said they shot exclusively. That said, both shooters were runner ups for Darwin Awards for various reasons, IMO. Not a contradiction at all, in properly built rifles using correctly loaded ammo, and the rifle being setup for that ammo. Then for all practical purposes you are 100% correct. It’s when people don’t understand that there “are” differences. Thats is where “stupid” rears it’s head.

      • Get it together

        Wow. Really! I’ve been loading for both for a few years now. Worked up my loads in ladder steps. Must have been short throats or tight crimping the necks.

      • retiredcrewdog

        To be fair, after seeing the condition of both weapons, I doubt that the end result would have been different if they’d have been shooting .223 Remington. It would have just take longer and more rounds down range for it to happen. DIY, sometimes isn’t a good thing.

      • Get it together

        I did both myself. Aero precision products and stag. All high end parts. Bravo Company, whiteoak armament, etc. All shoot 3/4″ or better at 100 and 1 shoots 1″ at 200. I even have a good 16″ with 3x Multiplier and eotech shooting sub moa at 100.

      • retiredcrewdog

        Just think dremel, visegrips, much, much beer, and you get the idea of what these things looked like.

      • Get it together

        Oh that’s not good at all. Lol.

  • Tench Coxe

    First, the VPC is not even remotely a reliable source. They use total “gun deaths” as opposed to homicides or firearm-related homicides because it provides an entirely different ranking that masks issues in anti-gun states. If you look at either homicides or firearm-related homicides, you would quickly see that gun control laws do not correlate with lower rates of violence. Some of the safest states per capita have high gun ownership and “lax laws,” and many of the states with violence problems have severe gun control. This is why VPC, Brady, and so on use purposely misleading “gun deaths.”

    Second, the murder rate for the US is at the lowest it has been since the 60s, and that is despite more guns than ever and more people carrying than ever. It is misleading at best to highlight the decline for Chicago while ignoring it for the rest of the country.

    Finally, Hitler relaxed gun control on Aryans, and he relaxed them relative to the gun control laws implemented by the Allies after World War I. He still kept certain groups from owning arms entirely, and relaxing them compared to be disarmed by one’s enemies does not somehow mean Hitler was a friend of private ownership of arms. Again, Mother Jones is not some sort of independent and unimpeachable source. This is a case of either being ignorant of the facts, or being purposely misleading to achieve a goal.

  • getreal5

    ex republican? you know this guy is just waiting like a democrat to shoot up dozens of innocent people. it’s what they do.

    • Nick Wride

      Most mass shooters are conservatives and Christians, as well.

      • getreal5

        name one.

      • Nick Wride

        Eric Rudolph.

  • FormerDevil

    You point out the difference between rim fire and center fire cartridges, and how people confuse the two, but then you referred to a magazine as a clip? That’s where you lost me and, frankly, your credibility. If you’re going to talk down your nose at people for their lack of specific knowledge, you had better have your poop in a group, too.

    • Get it together

      I pointed that out as well. Lol

  • mike

    This whole thing would be much easier if we had no guns. You dont need guns to defend your family or anyone else. Thats what cops are for. I honestly dont know why the second amendment is still in the constitution as we dont need it anymore and would help prevent anyone who shouldnt have a gun from getting one even if you were “legally” allowed to own any

    • Adam L

      Cops primarily perform clean-up. They’re not sitting out there protecting you. If the 2A is obsolete, amend the constitution.

  • Twominuteplank

    I am a liberal, a gun owner, and i work in lawn enforcement and I’m a member of the Army Reserve.

    This article is spot-on. Confiscation is political suicide. no matter how “liberal” you thing a mainstream political candidate may be, I guarantee you he is not going to try to take anyone’s guns. Individuals and organizations that claim “it’s coming” are just stoking the fires of paranoia.

    Yes, my department has some confiscated legal guns. Most are take under some kind of mental health act, where the owner has done something to warrant a seizure. And most of those guns will be returned to the owner unless he is convicted of a major crime.

    All we’re talking about is a common-sense approach to gun ownership and carrying, and it’s a conversation that is long overdue.

    Use your effing brains – don’t leave your guns unsecured/unsupervised. Don’t use them to intimidate people. Just because you *can* do something doesn’t mean you *should* do it.

  • Rose Bounds

    Well said. We need to have some honest conversations about what responsible and protected gun ownership needs to look like rather than flinging ourselves to the rhetorical extremes of media pundits from the left and right. Most people don’t really that way when it comes right down to it.

  • Sparks13

    Quit shooting coyotes jackass. they are a necessary part of the ecosystem. May you be overrun by all the rats that should have been eaten by the coyotes you’ve killed.

  • Adam L

    Kind of straw man/irrelevant arguments.
    Point one is basically that totalitarian regimes are enabled by disarming the
    resistance. This is true. It doesn’t always go from disarming to
    totalitarian in one step though- often well intentioned people just make
    things easier for future Ill intentioned people. 2 & 3 are
    basically saying that disarming the law abiding emboldens criminals.
    This is true. 4…I don’t even get the point of. I’ve never heard anyone
    claim a similarity beyond bullet caliber (diameter), or understand what
    point this supposed argument is trying to make beyond that. That said,
    .223 is the least powerful center fire round commonly available

    Whatever ones position on gun control, however, it’s important to begin with a constitutional amendment. Reinterpreting something to mean the exact
    opposite of what it has always meant (beginning with the NFA) renders
    the concept of a constitutionally protected freedom meaningless. Making
    certain guns illegal without amendment is like reinterpreting freedom of
    religion to mean you get to choose between being catholic or
    Protestant.

  • Monthope

    This was NOT a debunking of pro-ownership talking points.

    First….a .223 is the same as a 22? I’ve never heard nor made that argument. That was made up.

    Second….more guns equals less crime. The writer cites as his source a think tank that has skewed the numbers to fit the gun grab desires. This source itself is a faulty source. Australia….has done the gun grab. Now they are inundated with crime….enough said.

    Third….Gun laws in one state but not another means Chicago has guns…if we all had gun control, this wouldn’t be a problem. For decades all states had marijuana illegal. That didn’t work nor did it put a dent in marijuana usage. Prohibition of anything won’t work. Chicago murders down? Maybe…but they are still the highest in the country as ALL murders are down across the nation.

    Fourth…Hitler. Hitler took guns from Jews and they were the ones he killed. This loser makes no mention that EVERY country that has instituted gun control has then killed large segments of their population within 20 years of the gun grab: Stalin, Mussolini, Pol Pot….the list goes on. Further he mentions “military grade” weapons and limitations on them. But there are NO military grade weapons sold to the public now. He must mean those that look like them but in operation are nothing like them. He’s ignorant and comparing apples to oranges.

    Finally….Pelosi and others from the liberal side of this oppression have stated the ultimate goal is total gun confiscation. He argues that is not what is desired but it’s a bold-faced lie. This is not a “conservative constitutionalist” as he self-describes…but instead a wolf wearing sheep’s clothing. Run the other way!

  • RogerB Hovik

    So, to jump out of the echo chamber, this is about the most indirect pro gun article I have read here. His first point is about the .22 being the same as a .223. I have never heard this. I have heard a comparison as to the diameter, which is roughly correct, but never have I heard someone claim they were equal in power. So, nice straw man. His second point cites a study that if I am correct includes self defense use of firearms that result in a death. As a result states with high rates of gun ownership post higher numbers. His third point concedes that criminals simply disobey laws by going out of state to exploit market advantage. As a result they are breaking state and federal law. And lastly the Nazi thing. He points out that the Nazis relaxed gun laws for party members and forbade Jews from owning. That makes a pretty strong case for protecting your right to own firearms. Just sayin.

  • RogerB Hovik

    Oh, and before I forget it’s a 30 round magazine. Not a clip. And your picture is creepy, in a Lee Harvey Oswaldesque sort of way.

  • getreal5

    Gun Control that makes sense.

    In 1865 a Democrat shot and killed Abraham Lincoln, President of the United States .

    In 1881 a left wing radical Democrat shot James Garfield, President of the United States, who later died from the wound.

    In 1963 a radical left wing socialist shot and killed John F. Kennedy, President of the United States .

    In 1975 a left wing radical Democrat fired shots at Gerald Ford, President of the United States .

    In 1981 a registered Democrat shot and wounded Ronald Reagan, President of the United States .

    In 1984 James Hubert, a disgruntled Democrat, shot and killed 22 people in a McDonalds restaurant.

    In 1986 Patrick Sherrill, a disgruntled Democrat, shot and killed 15 people in an Oklahoma post office.

    In 1990 James Pough, a disgruntled Democrat, shot and killed 10 people at a GMAC office.

    In 1991 George Hennard, a disgruntled Democrat, shot and killed 23 people in a Luby’s cafeteria.

    In 1995 James Daniel Simpson, a disgruntled Democrat, shot and killed 5 coworkers in a Texas laboratory.

    In 1999 Larry Asbrook, a disgruntled Democrat, shot and killed 8 people at a church service.

    In 2001 a left wing radical Democrat fired shots at the White House in a failed attempt to kill George W. Bush, President of the US .

    In 2003 Douglas Williams, a disgruntled Democrat, shot and killed 7 people at a Lockheed Martin plant.

    In 2007 a registered Democrat named Seung – Hui Cho, shot and killed 32 people in Virginia Tech.

    Nidal Malik Hasan (born September 8, 1970) is a former United States Army psychiatrist and Medical Corps officer who fatally shot 13 people and injured more than 30 others in the Fort Hood mass shooting on November 5, 2009.[3] At his court-martial in August 2013, Hasan admitted to the shootings.[4][5] A jury panel of thirteen officers convicted him of 13 counts of premeditated murder, 32 counts of attempted murder, and unanimously recommended Hasan be formally dismissed from the service and sentenced to death. He was a registered democrat who was also on Obama’s transition team in 2008

    In 2010 a mentally ill registered Democrat named Jared Lee Loughner, shot Rep. Gabrielle Giffords and killed 6 others.

    In 2011 a registered Democrat named James Holmes, went into a movie theater and shot and killed 12 people.

    In 2012 Andrew Engeldinger, a disgruntled Democrat, shot and killed 7 people in Minneapolis .

    In 2013 a registered Democrat named Adam Lanza, shot and killed 26 people in a school.

    As recently as Sept 2013, an angry Democrat shot 12 at a Navy ship yard.

    One could go on, but you get the point, even if the media does not. Clearly, there is a problem with Democrats and guns.

    And just a few weeks ago an angry puerto-rican leftist democrat killed 4 people on fort hood!
    And yet ANOTHER leftist 22 year old virgin stabbed 3 and shot another 3 people to death in california,

    No NRA member, Tea Party member, or Republican conservatives were involved.

    SOLUTION: It should be illegal for Democrats to own guns because they are all mentally ill to begin with. sad

  • Phil Ossiferz Stone

    My birth rights, my privacy, and my property are not yours to dispose of in small reasonable-sounding increments. Full stop.

    Maybe you people should dig up Hunter S. Thompson, Abbie Hoffman, MLK, Booby Seale, and Malcolm X and ask those old-school lefties what they think of your fascistic bullpucky.

  • Glitter Outlaw

    unfortunately gun nuts dont want to talk even civilly about this at all…. we have hoard people trying to repeal a law that gives deeper background checks something that will help everyone and hurt nobody with a gun.

  • Kim Serrahn

    I like this guy. We need a lot more like him to speak out.