Monday, December 13, 2010

The Gun Control Network

Gun Control Network has a fascinating take on what I would call one of the most legitimate DGU stories I've ever heard. After viewing the video in which the 80-year-old John Wayne fan describes how he shot his attacker after being badly cut himself, the author of Gun Control Network has this to say:

The story above is just one example of how gun lovers in the US have corrupted the elderly and those who are most vulnerable to respond with violence.
Now that's pretty hard core, but I think I know what they mean. Being less fanatical myself, I have no problem accepting legitimate defensive uses of a gun, but what I believe is, overall they do more harm than good. On the whole, guns like this little .22 in the hands of civilians will be misused far more often than they'll be used to save the day.

I think this is what's meant by "corrupting the elderly," convincing vulnerable people that they'll be better off with guns, when that's just not the case.

What's your opinion?

15 comments:

  1. Wow, that site is some hard core dumbass.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Is that a satire site or serious?

    ReplyDelete
  3. Instead of the "little .22" are you saying he should have used a .45? I read the original article and was convinced the author was being satirical. But as you have taken this as a serious argument against self defense I can only conclude you also must view the elderly with distain. What both you are the author fail to address is exactly what do you think the elderly are supposed to do if attacked in their homes.
    As to using the “little .22”, you might want to consider that an 80 year old might not have the hand strength to handle a larger caliber. The good guy is safe and the thug isn’t, that’s a happy ending.

    ReplyDelete
  4. There's no reason for a gun. They only murder. That's all they do.

    Truth.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Ban,

    I have dozens of guns and hundreds of other inanimate objects that have never committed murder.

    ReplyDelete
  6. It is my hope that all elderly and vulnerable people become corrupted in this fashion.

    Criminals should face great physical danger, regardless of who their victims are.

    ReplyDelete
  7. FatWhiteMan:

    But first, and foremost, the sole purpose of the gun is murder, annihilation, and a aid for pillaging.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Jim, Thanks for you comment. You must have missed it when I said this is one of the most legitimate DGU I've ever heard of.

    In other places I've said if someone lives in a bad neighborhood perhaps they should have a gun for protection.

    I'm not the extremist here, are you?

    My position is that on the whole, guns do far more harm than good.

    ReplyDelete
  9. GCN is from the UK- so yeah, I think they are being serious.

    ReplyDelete
  10. MikeB: “In other places I've said if someone lives in a bad neighborhood perhaps they should have a gun for protection.”

    How do you reconcile this with your support for pre-Heller laws in DC and Chicago?

    ReplyDelete
  11. MikeB: “In other places I've said if someone lives in a bad neighborhood perhaps they should have a gun for protection.”

    How about Mexicans?

    ReplyDelete
  12. "In other places I've said if someone lives in a bad neighborhood perhaps they should have a gun for protection. "

    I think if you live in a good neighborhood, you should have a gun for protection. Criminals don't loot in their own back yard. They go to the good neighborhoods where the nice stuff is.

    In fact, the neighborhood you live in shouldn't matter.

    ReplyDelete
  13. MikeB also believes that the wealthy and famous are worth more and have a better reason for self defense because of that.

    ReplyDelete
  14. TS asked, "How do you reconcile this with your support for pre-Heller laws in DC and Chicago?"

    That sounds like a weird question. I like the restrictions in place in those cities. If anything there should be more of them and they should apply everywhere else.

    People who are seriously in need of a gun will meet the requirements to do so. I have no objection to that and I reject outright the paranoid suggestion that the real goal of all this is to disarm the innocent people.

    ReplyDelete
  15. MikeB: “I like the restrictions in place in those cities. If anything there should be more of them and they should apply everywhere else.”

    So you think training at a gun range should be required, but ranges should be banned everywhere? ;)

    Those cities did not allow guns to be ready for self-defense, regardless of whether or not children are in the home. They did not allow the choice of handguns- which is a valid choice for home defense given the close quarters. Mexican citizens have to resort to the black market for obviously needed protection, and then you blame the USA.

    ReplyDelete