The Illogical Musings of a Gun Nut Who Wants More Guns Even After Admitting They Cause More Violence

Not the guy I talked to, but bears an eerie resemblance to him.

I’ll admit, I’m starting to kind of enjoy debating gun nuts.  It’s not that they don’t drive me crazy, but the evidence is so overwhelmingly against their stance that it’s actually amusing to see them try to defend it.

Even if you ignore the vast amount of stats proving that guns lead to more gun violence, common sense and simple logic still isn’t on their side.

But while discussing guns with someone who referred to themselves as a “lover of all guns and hater of all things anti-gun” (aka a gun nut) I asked them a simple question about gun homicides:

If hypothetically we could eliminate all guns within the United States, do you really think the nearly 9,000 Americans who are killed each year by guns would simply have been killed some other way?  In other words, without guns, would our homicide rates rise or fall?

At first, they didn’t seem to grasp how to answer the question.  See, one thing I’ve noticed about gun nuts is that they’re great at spouting off talking points, but struggle when asked to use critical thinking to support their stance.

Then they finally said this scenario wasn’t feasible, making it irrelevant.

I had to inform them that relevancy wasn’t the point – the point is to identify a fact.  What I was asking was if there were no guns, would other weapons simply replace guns causing homicide rates to remain constant or even possibly rise?

Finally they tried to claim that murder rates would actually increase, because people wouldn’t be allowed to defend themselves.  So they believed at this point that without guns, people would turn to knives or blunt objects to murder people.

That’s when I asked, if that were the case, then why aren’t countries like England, Germany and Australia which have much stricter gun control plagued by rampant knife/blunt object homicides?

He really didn’t have much of a response for that, still sticking to his belief that guns make us safer and if we got rid of them crime would increase.  Of course, he cited Chicago as an example of what “tight gun restrictions” will do to a city.  Though I immediately pulled out my phone to let him read an article I wrote showing that by state (which is a much better indicator of gun violence) those which led in gun violence were all fairly pro-gun.

After a little back and forth about how suicides are overwhelmingly committed with guns and it’s proven that in domestic violence cases when the abuser has access to a gun it’s far more likely to end in a homicide than if they didn’t, he finally admitted that homicide rates wouldn’t increase.  Heck, he finally admitted that they would most likely decrease.

A great epiphany had been reached.  His view of guns would be forever changed, right?

Nope.

“Our Constitution gives us the right to own guns and that shall not be infringed!”  

So here we have an avid pro-gun supporter admitting that if we didn’t have guns homicides would most likely decrease, refusing to support any form of gun regulations all because of our Second Amendment.  And even after admitting that without guns our homicide rates would fall, he still maintained that guns make us safer.

And that’s what you call cognitive dissonance.

It goes back to what I’ve said before, just because someone has the right to do something – doesn’t make what they’re doing right.

Just because we have the right to own guns, doesn’t mean we can’t pass sensible regulations to curb gun violence.  Even if we only reduce gun violence by 25% by getting some of these guns off our streets, that’s over 2,000 lives saved every year.

But the “logic” these gun nuts use is astounding.  I’ve always called it an unhealthy obsession.  While many claim it’s all about “self-defense,” I think it’s more a mental insecurity where guns make them feel more powerful.  That’s where this “we’ll overthrow the government” nonsense comes from.

They honestly feel that by having a few guns, that gives them the power to overthrow the government whenever they might feel inclined to do so.  Even though anyone with even the slightest bit of common sense knows that’s a ridiculous notion.

But, to me, that’s what all of this breaks down to.  Many of these people are paranoid and insecure.  Mix that with an unhealthy obsession with a deadly inanimate object, sprinkle in a little bit of an inferiority complex…

And you’ve got yourself a gun nut.


Allen Clifton

Allen Clifton is a native Texan who now lives in the Austin area. He has a degree in Political Science from Sam Houston State University. Allen is a co-founder of Forward Progressives and creator of the popular Right Off A Cliff column and Facebook page. Be sure to follow Allen on Twitter and Facebook, and subscribe to his channel on YouTube as well.

Comments

Facebook comments

  • Stephen Barlow

    I was thinking about the great “Cars Kill..” defense. When it occurred to Me… it’s not that the GUN CONTROL FREAKS are wanting guns regulated that matters. GUN FREAKS will counter with yada yada…

    Let’s UNREGULATE cars in the manner of NRA lobbying. No seat belts, air bags or bumpers required. ZERO SAFETY REGULATIONS NO car seats for children. ZERO RESTRICTIONS! Just the way the gun nuts want it for DEATH MACHINES.

    That also mean no more traffic lights, speed limits, no curve warnings on windy roads. Take down all directional and Route # signs as well. Just as we have with KILLING TOOLS. Guns don’t even have a “pull” sign on the trigger. So why do we need RR crossing signs, you can see the tracks right?

    i know you need to be 18 to buy a gun, but there is no age limit to shooting one. they even make miniature AK-47’s for those little terrorists in training to have @ agr 6 or so. “Little Tommy Gunn, Can hit a bird in the eye s with a BB @ 50 yards, but can’t spell his own name yet because he’s only in kindergarten!!!”

    SO imagine 7 year olds behind the wheel, driving to get Ma smokes and a 6-pack for breakfast before school.

    THAT would be an equivalency between what the NRA and GOA want and automobile regulation. Cars don’t kill people, People in cars kill people.

    PS. How many times a year does the average gun owner fire his weapons? Less than 10 rounds, on two days? How many times does a driver start his car (the equivalent of chambering a round) a DAY?

    SO the # of auto deaths compared to gun deaths is REALLY a bull*hit argument. 90+% of adults drive, less than .5% of adults shoot more than once a year. Less than 10% of adults own a gun, although many of that 10% own multiple weapons.

    NOw ask your self this: “if gun owners were as universal as licensed drivers, and they fired a round as often as driver’s take a drive… How many gun deaths would we have per year?”

    “If every jackass who ever said “I’m gonna kill you!” had a pistol with him in that fit of rage, how many gun deaths would we have?”

    THAT is why you regulate cars, and guns are MUCH more dangerous because they have ONLY one purpose. And like cars, have as many as you want, just have them registered and insured so we can find the owner/user if something goes terribly wrong.

    • Cars are designed to transport people. Guns are not. Where have I heard that before?

      • Stephen Barlow

        WOW! That is ALL you managed to glean from this? Why even BOTHER to wake up?

      • To get on your nerves.

      • Reynard Vulpes

        “I agree with regulation.” Oh, me TOO.

        I have decided your right to speak freely on this issue be more intensely regulated. In fact, I insist you be arrested for lying.

        Now aren’t you glad you have the First Amendment?

        If I actually tried you could sue me for a civil rights violation.

        And I could sue you for the same, via the Second Amendment.

        It’s going to come to that if you keep lying to yourself.

      • Thank you for picking me as the proud recipient of your insults. I am honored.

      • Reynard Vulpes

        “Guns are designed to kill.” Using and historical example as funny as they were, is rather pointless when you add in time as a factor.

        The design and purpose of the gun has changed, bunky.

        They are designed in different forms for different jobs, and some do those well, and some do not.

        Although they kill the most, a paradox easily explained by the numbers of instances compared to other guns, the handgun is about as poorly designed to kill as one might imagine.

        A rifle is far better, a shotgun far better than that.

        Handguns are good defensive weapons because they intimidate.

        Ask yourself, which would you prefer to face in a violent confrontation, a pistol or a shotgun?

        A target rifle would be total crap for defensive or offensive use, but for one design only, the sniper rifle. But they are of little use outside their designed purpose in general battlefield use, just as the common battle field “assault rifle,” the real one, not the cosmetic one civilians can buy here, is nearly useless as a sniper rifle.

        IN fact it’s designed for rapid UNAIMED fire to suppress the enemy advance, and when a hit occurs to WOUND not to kill. A wound takes out three opponents, reducing the enemy ranks by that number. This is a well thought out design. It’s not a flaw.

        That it can be deadly at close range shows that the design can be versatile, but it’s not primarily a close quarter weapon. There are other gun designs for that.

        You glib throwaway statement just suggests you are ignorant, or lying. I simply suspected the latter, given the other nonsense you spewed.

        Now I’m changing my mind.

        Have you any actual PROOF your speculation is accurate? The first “gun,” was the Chinese Fire Lance, and it might or might not be loaded with shrapnel, which was pretty poor at producing death.

        Try again.

      • Stephen Barlow

        See, nonsensical word salad from the Sarah Palin School of Journalistic Drivel.

      • Stephen Barlow

        This guy is a bot. he’s interested in deflection. He will never make a point, just argue with you. The only way to kill the infection is iggy it. Don’t feed it.

        Unless you ENJOY writing the truth viciously about bots… hehehe.

      • Stephen Barlow

        No wonder you don’t hear the echo in your colon when you speak! Feces not only make your every breath foul, so much of it is in your head it’s cemented in your ears.

        The 2nd Amendment does NOT give you the right to sue anyone. if you would read the whole deal, you might have known that.

      • Stephen Barlow

        NO, because NO ONE can BUY a tank, unless it has been VERY SPECIFICALLY decommissioned.

        I am with you, except that the first gun was invented to fire a projectile. What it was aimed at isa mystery, but modern firearms development most assuredly went hand in hand with martial arts development.

        But the 2nd A Holes want them for sale in the checkout line of the Grocery. Available to anyone with cash, no questions asked. Kinda like buying a car.

      • Precisely, and as I said, cars are not weapons unless incorrectly utilized as such. Guns are not privy to that distinction, hence the unanimity of a single classification.

      • Stephen Barlow

        DO you understand WHY

        “Comparing guns to tanks would have made much more sense. Comparing guns to cars at all is like comparing meat to cement. They are related in no way other than they exist.”

        makes so little sense?

      • Depends upon which side of the fence you feel comfy in. Enough. I’ll post no more. I do not want or need guns.

      • Stephen Barlow

        if you REALLY wanted to be RAPIDO STUPIDO,
        YO STOP!

      • I agree. This has become a rather one sided conversation.

      • Stephen Barlow

        you sure don’t keep your word very well. YouMUST be a closetublican.

      • What ever works for you Steve. Just go with it. You are so fucking annoying.

      • Stephen Barlow

        You just can’t keep you word, can ya money slit.

      • noah vail

        it must make you feel good to hide behind the “guest” moniker to spew your garbage…man up and identify yourself, coward !

      • Stephen Barlow

        But ALL guns ARE!! They are NOT sex toys!

      • Red Eye Robot

        Are you sure about that? This isn’t a tank but can destroy a tank and it shoots, and is privately owned

        http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8tTBbpiEm-o

      • usorthem3

        Says the alcoholic.

        You have issues to resolve with your therapist.

      • Stephen Barlow

        AND WHERE’S THAT COME FROM?

      • He doesn’t strike me as terribly cognizant, either. Oh well. Back to work. I have a deadline.

      • Red Eye Robot

        30,000 ppl are killed in car accidents, murder and gun accidents killed fewer than 9000. Proof that cars are infinitely more dangerous than guns

      • The difference is guns are not designed to do anything but kill. Guns are not involved in accidents. They are involved in intended deaths and irresponsible discharge.

      • Red Eye Robot

        Wait, guns are designed to kill and they kill less than 1/3rd the people that cars do? You don’t think that’s odd? Do you realise the number of people killed in drunk driving accidents yearly is nearly as many as the total number of people murdered? Think about this, people misusing alcohol and cars killed nearly 2000 more people annually than people misusing a device “Designed to kill”

      • You didn’t click the link, obviously. This argument never changes.

        Keep your guns. Pat yourself on the back. Give yourself a medal.

      • noah vail

        oh, now there’s a sane and reasonable argument…recess is over back to your chalk and crayons and when your dick gets to be like the big boys ‘ you won’t need a gun

      • Red Eye Robot

        The compulsive obsessive fascination with the genitalia of strangers continues unabated.

    • BilbySA

      You said more or less what I’ve been trying to say. If only your car analogy was used more often; we might actually start seeing common sense employed in the gun control issue.

      • Reynard Vulpes

        If the car analogy worked you could buy machine guns without a background check (it takes over six months now)

        You could buy as many as you wished, and of the kind you wished, from pea shooters to monster 18 wheelers, without any special bg check for your mental health or criminal history.

        You could cosmetically modify your gun to look like a military one, and even own and BUY a military one if you wished. And still no background check, unless of course you had one when you tried to buy a Hummer or surplus military vehicle.

        You could add all the magazine capacity you could stack on a gun, just as you can add gas tanks to your pickup until the springs creak.

        You could even own a machine gun, the most modern battle rifle, if you went by car buying rules. NO BACKGROUND CHECK OR MENTAL HEALTH CHECK.

        Or have you had to produce form at your auto dealers that would result in felony charges if you lied about your criminal background or mental health background?

        Are you just stupid, or is it only programming from The Man you have fallen for. I can’t help you with stupid, but I can with the lies. Just start doing your own research on the claims of the gun prohibition gun control folks.

        If you are honest you are in for a giant surprise … or do you like being lied to?

      • Stephen Barlow

        No, because you can’t buy a Tractor without insurance that you can only get from a company who will sell it to you. And without a CDL or an ICC permit, the loan and the insurance will NOT go through.

        And people as stupid as you have NO business with a BB gun, let alone ANYTHING with a cyclic rate of fire.

      • Red Eye Robot

        All you need to buy any vehicle in the US is cash. No state has a requirement of insurance to buy.

      • Stephen Barlow

        Sorry about that. I only thought of when I sober up this morning. LOL

        Thank you for seeing how the whole car Bull*hit comes back to the same result, Gun control works better than gun proliferation. At lease if you are looking to MINIMIZE the body count.

    • Red Eye Robot

      1/3 of all people arrested for drunk driving have a previous drunk driving conviction.
      Commit 1 felony you lose your right to own a gun FOREVER. It doesn’t even have to be a gun crime.
      still want gun laws to be like car laws?

      The average drunk driver drives drunk 80 times before an arrest.
      Furthermore, 50% to 75% of convicted drunk drivers continue to drive on a suspended license.
      Commit a felony they take your guns. They don’t take your car for drunk driving.
      Still want gun laws to be like car laws?

      Each day 300,000 people drive drunk only 4000 are caught
      Guns are used in crimes less than 400,000 times a year
      Still want gun laws to be like car laws?

      • noah vail

        with decent gun laws perhaps the 400,000 can be reduced to 100,000 or would that inconvenience the tiny dick gun owners

  • guest

    guns don’t kill people-people kill people. so therefore nuclear weapons don’t kill people-people kill people. poison gas does not kill people-people kill people. so can I have nuclear weapons and poison gas please

    • Guest

      Paper doesn’t cut your thumb, wait, what?

      I agree, Guest.

  • Reynard Vulpes

    If gun laws were the same as car laws.

    Have you ever had a criminal background and mental health background check to buy a car? Private or retail store? LOL

    Have you been told you may only buy, by law, one car a month?

    Have you been told that you cannot own, unless you register with the ATF, or other government agency, a car that can go from 0 to 60 in three seconds (the Machine gun of cars)?

    If you brought someone to drive the car away for you, the owner, did you have to produce YOUR driver’s license?

    Did you have to register your car if you had no intention of driving it on public roadways?

    Is there a law or Amendment to the Constitution that protects your right to own a car and use it on the public roadways?

    Can you convert your car from stick to automatic, or are you restricted, as gun owners are, to having ONLY one kind of transmission (as per converting a semi auto to full auto firing in guns)?

    Can you cosmetically alter your car to look like a military vehicle if you wish?

    In fact, can you buy a car that looks like one without having a special permit?

    Can you add a gas tank to your pickup (as per gun’s additional capacity magazine)
    without a special license?

    You see, the analogy starts to break down when you get out of magical utopian thinking into the real world.

    There is more, much more than just this short list that makes the limits on cars one you do NOT want on guns. ATF bless your pointy little heads. LOL

    • Stephen Barlow

      In many states, you can only purchase or sell 6 (varies) vehicles a year WITHOUT a dealer’s license.

      ALL vehicles must be REGISTERED with the State, MOST require insurance AND NONE can be used without a proper license.

      And the bottom line, Vehicular Accidents occur because of the VOLUME of vehicular traffic, not because the vehicle is SPECIFICALLY DESIGNED TO BE LETHAL as all guns are.

      How many INTENTIONAL Vehicular homicides or suicides are there annually in the US?

      • giankeys luvs shemale porn

        good stuff Stephen,,,im using this!

  • Kameron Krause

    I like how, and both sides of this issue do it, you seem to find the most hill billy redneck looking, uneducated person you can and ask them about guns. I mean look at this guy. I know a lot of people that own guns. They don’t parade around with them like in this photo here, they are suit and tie guys. You wouldn’t even know they had a gun. And like I said, the people pro gun always have a very uneducated looking babbling fool to interview as well. You both take the extremes on the issue and act like that’s the only kind of person representing the issue. Like taking a total religious fanatic and acting like all people of that faith are that extreme or ignorant. I think if both sides would sit down and stop arguing and showing the extreme ridiculous people on both sides act like adults and have a mature conversation things could get better. But not like this

    • Reynard Vulpes

      The pic isnt’ real. It’s a setup to make a humorous point. It fails by going too far overboard. There are knuckleheads that own guns.

      Of course I know of few large demographics that doesn’t sport it’s share of knuckleheads including gun control folks as a group.

      • Stephen Barlow

        How do you KNOW some cousin of yours isn’t as proud of THIS as he is of “Rolling Coal”?

        What groups can YOU think of that are MOSTLY guys like this? With brandished weapons? Standing in checkout lines in target, smiling as he buys a teddy bear for the kid he most likely owes 7 years of back child support for.

    • Reynard Vulpes

      They don’t want to face the real work to be done to reduce gun violence, as it has nothing to do with guns at all.

      It has to do with violence, it’s causes and possible fixes, some of which have been proven, but dumped by politicians as being “unattractive,” for vote getting.

      I mean after all, mental health is so untidy, brrrrrr…..

      And community programs to uplift the people and institutions there, so expensive. My oh my.

      We might have to stop sending jobs overseas. And the oligarchs are having none of that so they encourage arguments such as we find here. Based on a long string of lies dating from the attempted assassination of Ronald Reagan.

      You can think the Brady Campaign. More lies in a WEB page than ticks on a hog.

      I loved their “Three Children a Day are Killed by Gunfire,” when it was exposed that their “children,” killed taken from an FBI database, included “children,” form 14 to 24, the age range that brackets the historically well researched group that has the highest death and violent crime rate in the population.

      Hell, back in those years child abuse deaths at the hands of parents and legal caregivers was running about 2,000 a year, no gun deaths, hands, feet, negligence and starvation. We are at about 1600 a year even now.

      Nothing like a diversion, and wasted resources to gain votes, right?

      • Luke

        Agreed.

        The real way to reduce gun violence is to reduce violence. Violence is the ugly offspring of poverty and/or mental illness.

        Poverty is brought about largely by extreme wealth and income inequality. (Inequality itself is inherent to the system and actually serves a positive end. Extreme inequality is dangerous.)

        Poverty itself can be a contributor to mental illness.

        The systemic reining-in of extreme inequality and the provision of mental and other health care to the masses are both central to the progressive agenda.

        The diversion is that mud is slung all over the progressive agenda, despite that it addresses the core causes of gun violence.

    • Stephen Barlow

      LMAO!!! Because those inbred cousinfu*kers as the ones most likely to use your ovaries for sport.

      Honestly, if you did the polls at suburban branches of banks, malls, or in a park outside an office building, 85% would want gun control, SPECIFICALLY for the guy you mentioned and his ‘kin’.

      And those 85% of the people are not the problem. but 1 in 6 (I am guessing) is a real menace to society ABOUT guns. The WORST, are the elected officials who voted better than 60/40 AGAINST Universal BackRound checks even though more than HALF the pawn shop owners, 60% of the gun dealers, 70% of hunters, 80% of fathers and 90% of mothers who ELECTED them WANTED gun control.

      • Stephen Barlow

        I see that chud mouthed Kameron has nothing to say about Democracy being usurped by GUN NUTS!

  • Kameron Krause

    And what exactly is a gun nut? An average person that’s law abiding and owns a gun? Anyone who owns a gun? Anyone who opposes gun control, does that mean they must be a “gun nut” ? Anyone who doesn’t agree with your view that we need gun control? Is that a nut? So if my opinion differed from yours am I a nut? Just wondering?

    • Stephen Barlow

      Average, law abiding people, seldom troll Malls armed with loaded assault rifles. ALAP seldom need a strapon to feel macho enough. ALAP seldom need to argue about whether they are a nut or not.

      ALAP’s are never a danger to themselves or others concerning firearms. ALAP’s usually DO NOT wanna use a strapon in a church, school, store, office or public place.

      Is that a little clearer hon?

      • usorthem3

        Such condescending judgement from an alcoholic, Fascinating.

      • Stephen Barlow

        thanks for the PARTIAL labelling.

        A reality check would most likely find YOU a FELON.

      • usorthem3

        Projecting? Fuck you.

      • Stephen Barlow

        Actualy, I am ‘worse’. I am a lawyer.

      • usorthem3

        Then of coarse you are an alcoholic and leech like scum who don’t fight for justice but whore yourself for the $$$ that you worship.

      • Stephen Barlow

        Actually, i have a 33 year AA chip. Thanks for showing HOW much of a meth addled skinhead you are.

      • usorthem3

        Looks like you need to give your chip back you falling down DRUNK. How often do you beat your wife and kids? On the daily?

      • Stephen Barlow

        Sold all three. Got a good price for the 14 year old girl on Craig’s List.

        Is that where you mother sold you?

      • noah vail

        congratulations, you win the “ULTIMATE TROLL OF THE DAY” award

      • noah vail

        then climb back up the ass you came from you worthless POS

      • giankeys luvs shemale porn

        it wasn’t condescending; in fact it was colorfully accurate
        ,,,,,,have u seen him drink? NO? then U are a small brained crybaby passing inaccurate “judgement” ( see: JEEEESUS)

      • noah vail

        but i’ll bet he’s a “good christian”

    • modera8

      A gun nut is someone who sees no reason for guns or the ownership of them to be regulated. S/he likely owns many of them and uses this fact to reinforce his/her low self-esteem. Typically uneducated, low-income trash who believes the Republican party has his/her best interest at heart. Did I miss anything? Oh, they also cannot spell or punctuate properly. Generally. Kameron, in your second sentence, “that’s” should be “who’s” (note: not “whose”, “who’s” because it is a contraction and means “who is”) because it refers to a person rather than a thing. Fourth sentence: “they” should be “he or she”. Fifth sentence: “that” should probably be “on”, but I’m not sure if it’s incorrect or simply sounds awkward. Sixth sentence: “that” should be “he or she”. Seventh sentence: insert a comma after “yours”. Seventh sentence: end with period. This is not a question, unless you are asking us if you are wondering. Hmmm – I’m going to bet that you’re a gun nut, based solely on your inability to grasp the English language.

      • Beau West

        Hear, hear……

      • noah vail

        you hit that nail on the head

    • Those kids running around the neighborhood packing heat or the ones packing heat while begging for seats at Chili’s restaurants. Those. This isn’t rocket science.

    • Jillz

      A gun nut is someone who thinks that your child’s right to life does not trump a gun owner’s right to own and carry a gun wherever and however they want to.

      • Stephen Barlow

        OR! shoot them in the FACE!!!!!!!!

    • noah vail

      yes, you’re a nut

  • Matthew Reece

    Forget the data. Empiricism is not the correct method for analyzing sociological questions like this because it is impossible to use empirical methods to see what the world would look like if conditions were different. Rationalism is required here.

    • giankeys luvs shemale porn

      unless the bad guys wasted 15 and the good guys killed the initial force-provider ( see: shooter)

  • Larry McDaniel

    This article is spot on . My older brother believes that, someday, we will all have to take up arms to defend ourselves against the tyrannical government. He’s not a right wing nut. He’s actually an old hippie. But he is paranoid about the government wanting total control, and he believes a movement to take away guns is so that there will be no resistance. As long as guns are readily available, it gives him a “sense” of security against tyranny. That is what fuels gun nuts. The “sense” that they are powerful as long as they own guns. It’s ridiculous.

  • Guest

    A gun nut is someone who wants no regulation of guns or ammo, at all ever. Does not want nor favor a sensible approach to the topic. Someone who loves their guns, more than their own family, friends, pet, neighbors, co-workers, etc, etc. Someone who thinks it’s okay to carry a rifle into any store, restaurant, bar, church, etc, etc. Openly, proudly. Thinking that it’s okay, that it won’t scare, frighten, or upset people. That no one might call the police about it.

  • usorthem3

    Some times you feel like a nut, Some times they just show it right out front and center, CRAZY ammosexuals.

  • Max power

    Maybe if we use Mexico as a model, we can curb gun violence just as well as that peaceful country.

  • giankeys luvs shemale porn

    ya’ gotta ‘ give ’em credit(??) as they do stick 2 their (talking points) “GUNS”

  • Gearmoe

    The majority of firearm owners do not fit the suggested stereotype. Stick to facts, pragmatism. Following your emotions may feel good but it does none of us good in the long run.

  • Red Eye Robot

    More guns cause more gun violence? Consider; The US has seen record gun sales for the last 10 years. The FBI’s UCR states that in 2005 there were 10,158 murders committed with guns. In 2013 there were 8,454, gun murders. 1,704 FEWER gun murders in a period where gun ownership increased by almost 100,000,000 guns

  • Red Eye Robot

    Consider the following, in 1987 there were fewer than 1,000,000 people with a permit to carry a gun concealed in the US.
    1987 Was the year Florida pas the nations first “Shall issue” concealed permit law. Shall issue or show cause laws reversed the previous situation where you had t demonstrate a specific need to one where the government had to demonstrate a legal reason why you should be denied.
    Since that time 38 states have passed show cause laws. And half a dozen have passed permit less carry. Meaning no permit what so ever is required.
    Since 1987 the number of individuals with concealed carry permits has grown to 13,000,000+ and when you include the permit less states it exceeds 14,000,000 carrying guns.

    In nearly every state where show cause was passed the gun grabbers warned, it will be the willd west!

    Not only did these dire predictions not come to pass, but the homicide rate nation wide dropped 49%

    Let’s be clear here, about 1 in every 15 adults you pass on any given day is carrying a gun.

    Early reports indicate that when the FBI releases the 2014 crime report Americas homicide rate will have dropped below. 4.7 per 100,000 people. With more 3X guns and 14X more people carrying guns.

    Now tell me again how more guns = more gun violence.