Local news reports
The Rev. said the first line of defense is a gun in the home not the police. But, couldn't there be an even earlier line of defense? By preventing the bad guys from getting guns in the first place, we'd all be better off.
Of course, the pro-gun folks have a lot invested in the lie that we can never prevent criminals from getting guns. If that were true, they'd be right about the first line of defense. But, it's not and they're wrong.
The other falsehood in this video is the very popular idea that more armed good guys is the answer. This comes from Wayne La Pierre and is repeated faithfully by the non-thinking dupes who follow his lead. The truth is that every single day we see lawful gun owners misusing their guns. I realize it's not most of them, but the numbers are too high to ignore. The more armed good guys we have the more of them turn out to be hidden criminals or mental cases or rageaholics.
Unless we implement sensible gun laws, first and foremost, universal background checks, things will never get significantly better.
What's your opinion? Please leave a comment.
Ah, but there's an earlier line of defense than what you suggested- prevent criminals from walking freely amongst us. That way you don't have to worry about them harming you in other ways and we won't have to worry about who has guns. We'd all be even better off, yes? And since your logic os to use the earlier line of defense instead, it only makes sense.
ReplyDeleteBy the way, things have been getting significantly better over the past couple decades.
The problem that ails society is not the FACT that more civilians are choosing to arm themselves as a rational preparation for a possible event, but the fact that many people still go unarmed or that those who are wise enough to not venture out in public naked (unarmed) do so vastly under-equipped in comparison to today's criminal. Long gone are the days of the lone felon armed with a switchblade, bat, or the occasional .25 ACP. Most criminals come in packs (including up to a dozen members in my experience), and are packing REAL assault rifles, like Ex-Soviet Bloc AK-74s, FAMAS, QBZ-95 and H&K G3 (not the civvie legal toys) and such firepower simply cannot be matched by a common handgun (let alone an unarmed victim). I have even stumbled upon the occasional Pancor Jackhammer and even a sawn-off Barrett M82. We are losing the arms race, having long ago traded the tried and true .38 cal Model 10s for Beretta 92Fs and Mossberg 500s, and finally for Glock 18s and (c3 permit) SCARs. It is time for the rest of society to step up to the plate. Those who arm themselves must obtain REAL firepower (at least two pistols in States without open carry) or some form of PDW (Personal Defense Weapon for all you newbies) in States with sensible gun laws. Pistols need a MINIMUM of 15 rounds to be effective and ought to have more stopping power than your average pea-shooter (I'm talking .45 acp .357 sig, 10mm auto, or .44 mag in a IMI Desert Eagle or an AutoMag) If your state doesn't trust you to open carry a SCAR, H&K G3, or an AR15, or bans effective magazines (especially the 7 round limit in the Peoples Republic of New York) then you need to be carrying a MINIMUM of two sidearms of reasonable caliber.
DeleteOnly when you can outgun your attacker will you cease to be a victim. We are partners now. CARRY your responsibility.
Oz, you sound like a paranoid nut to me. No offense.
DeleteWhen gun-rights advocates say something that Wayne LaPierre also said, we're unthinking dupes, but when gun control freaks repeat things said by the Brady Bunch, that's a thoughtful discussion of ideas? And you wonder why I call you biased, Mikeb.
ReplyDeleteBut the fact is that we can never prevent criminals from getting guns. There are too many in this country, and we have long and porous borders. Until you address those two points, your claim that we can stop criminals from being armed is bogus.
'Hidden criminals' ?? lol, wow.. a new catch phrase with which to demonize those who have done nothing wrong. I have open carried for years now, I thoroughly enjoy the free exercise of my rights.
ReplyDeleteAll people who open carry are not hidden criminals, just some.
DeleteMike suffers from severe paranoia.
ReplyDeleteI currently live in the Crap state of Commiefornia and I am astonished at the stupidity here. I can't openly carry a gun, and it's a serious pain to even try to get a CCW, but I can openly carry a fixed blade of any length I want. Dead serious here. I can carry a sword, but not a knife. This is so stupid. It's actually the law here that you can carry any size folding knife concealed and any fixed blade of any length openly. What's to stop random knifings? Oh yeah... the fact that you can see the other guys knife. I miss my gun when I'm out on the street after hearing gunshots the previous night and see a bunch of Thugs walking down the street with their pants around their ankles talking about (direct quote here) "Man, I jacked that mofo's shit up with my glock!" So..... the criminals here can have glocks, and I get a knife? This is what you want isn't it Mikeb? No illegal guns, go tell these guys that they're criminals and can't have their guns. Go on, I'll pay money, good money, to watch you enforce your stupidity without an army. You and your stupid gun control friends can come here, and see first hand how well it worked. Just tell me what kind of casket you want when you try and enforce it on the people just down the street from me.
ReplyDeleteyou twit.
It is legal for you, a mere citizen to carry a sword? Thank you. I will see to it that that glitch is fixed.
DeleteIt is within the foreseeable future (although based on what my doctors tell me, I personally may not live to see the day, although you almost certainly will) that all forms of lethal arms will be collected from the common subjects (including criminals) and increasingly punitive measures (later including the implementation of capital punishment) will be utilized to enforce these (inevitable) statutes.
In the mean time however, it would be advisable to relocate yourself to a more secure location, as opposed to "arming" yourself with sharp objects.
Well, E.N. after reading your comment I had to wait about 20 minutes for my astonishment at your stupidity to fade. I'd be more than happy to relocate to a more secure location, where more citizens have guns, but I have a job here, a rarity among americans. That being said, if you're willing to pay my living costs and relocation fees, sure, I'll move to a gun loving secure area.
DeleteOh, and as far as your confiscation plans go, they may try, but crazier people than I will fight back, I have no desire to pay for the training of an entirely new police force, so I really hope they don't. I will simply state that I will only turn over my weapons directly to a legally elected president of the united states, seeing as we don't have one, I think I'm ok.
Anonymous, you should move.
DeleteI repeat, when one of you liberal leaning, Gun Grabbing, Low I.Q'd twits pays for me to relocate, I will. Until then I will carry a weapon to defend myself. I realize that none of you confiscation wanters understands the desire to defend oneself, but I have no desire to die quietly.
DeleteI'm sure you guys believe the ideas that women assualted by a rapist should pee on themselves, I believe she should put the rapist 6 feet under. You're barking up the wrong tree. Join the right movement, carry a weapon. Exercise your rights!