HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Topics » Justice & Public Safety » Gun Control & RKBA (Group) » Very interesting article ...
Introducing Discussionist: A new forum by the creators of DU

Thu Jan 12, 2012, 05:13 PM

Very interesting article from down under. About Gun Control supporters "dodgy logic"

A few "choice bits" from the article.

"Owning one firearm is meant to be a privilege," she wittered, "but owning two is meant to be limited to only those who can prove they have a legitimate special need to have more than one firearm. Victorian firearms laws have made it way too easy to gain a second or subsequent firearm."

She is conceding that legitimate shooters can have one gun - but implies that if the same law-abiding citizens own two or more it's somehow going to turn them into Lee Harvey Oswald.

By this logic, a driver can have one car but becomes a menace to society if he has the keys to two. Which is about as sensible as suggesting that if you have two bathrooms in your house you're going to take twice as many showers. It's absurd.


And from the very end..

He wasn't talking about fox-shooting farmers from Swifts Creek. He knows they don't cause much trouble for anyone. That's why they make easy targets for gun control lobbyists who, unlike Guerin, don't have the grit or the wit to draw a bead on the real bad guys.


http://www.heraldsun.com.au/opinion/shot-down-by-dodgy-logic/story-fnbkrbz6-1226243052195

15 replies, 2109 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 15 replies Author Time Post
Reply Very interesting article from down under. About Gun Control supporters "dodgy logic" (Original post)
virginia mountainman Jan 2012 OP
Atypical Liberal Jan 2012 #1
E6-B Jan 2012 #6
Hoyt Jan 2012 #11
Atypical Liberal Jan 2012 #13
Remmah2 Jan 2012 #12
MicaelS Jan 2012 #2
burf Jan 2012 #3
SteveW Jan 2012 #4
virginia mountainman Jan 2012 #7
ileus Jan 2012 #5
virginia mountainman Jan 2012 #8
E6-B Jan 2012 #9
beevul Jan 2012 #10
Lurks Often Jan 2012 #14
armueller2001 Jan 2012 #15

Response to virginia mountainman (Original post)

Thu Jan 12, 2012, 05:47 PM

1. There is a pervasive idea that the more guns you own the more dangerous you are.

 

Despite the fact that a human cannot reasonably operate more than two firearms at a time, anti-gun people seem to think that the more firearms you own, the more dangerous you must be.

Of course, when you examine their logic, it's easy to see why they think this way. Firearms, they feel, are horrible, horrible mechanisms. Anyone who desires to own even one is suspicious, but if someone had a desire to own more than one, well that person is just downright dangerous. They must have some kind of mental condition to be attracted to such awful things.

Then there is the "theft" canard that is often tossed about as they blame the victims of theft for the theft.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Atypical Liberal (Reply #1)

Thu Jan 12, 2012, 07:27 PM

6. rampant paranoids

 

They are afraid but don't know why.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to E6-B (Reply #6)

Fri Jan 13, 2012, 07:49 AM

11. That always cracks me up when said by folks who strap guns on before venturing out.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Hoyt (Reply #11)

Fri Jan 13, 2012, 10:51 AM

13. Almost as funny as people who are afraid of people who strap guns on before venturing out.

 

Considering how such people are less likely to be involved in crime than they are afraid of.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Atypical Liberal (Reply #1)

Fri Jan 13, 2012, 09:01 AM

12. Try fixing a car with one wrench. nt

 

nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to virginia mountainman (Original post)

Thu Jan 12, 2012, 05:51 PM

2. Prohibtion strikes again.

John Howard's gun law reforms were applauded by most of us after the Port Arthur massacre, but the law of unintended consequences has kicked in. Prohibition has done exactly what alcohol prohibition did in the US: Created a black market that organised crime has exploited to the hilt.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to virginia mountainman (Original post)

Thu Jan 12, 2012, 05:56 PM

3. The banners in Australia are having

a problem. The have disarmed a large sector of the population and now gun violence there is increasing. So, their solution, more laws banning guns. But I guess its easier handling the sheep who will obey the law than the wolves who have the guns illegally and don't give a damn what the laws are. If a person is going to commit armed robbery or shoot a person, why should they care they are violating a gun possession law?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to burf (Reply #3)

Thu Jan 12, 2012, 06:25 PM

4. Gun banners' problem: Look at that coastline...


"...gun control lobbyists who, unlike Guerin, don't have the grit or the wit to draw a bead on the real bad guys."

This is at the core of gun-control efforts: Smear the gun-owner, and give deference to the crims and thugs (who will get guns anyway) because those people will commit mayhem on you if you try to stop them.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SteveW (Reply #4)

Thu Jan 12, 2012, 07:31 PM

7. yep

That REALLY cuts to the core of it.. It is so much easier, to smear and attack the typical gun owner... All the while completely giving a pass to the criminals...

Or even in some cases, blaming the gun, an inanimate object for the reason a criminal committed the crime.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to virginia mountainman (Original post)

Thu Jan 12, 2012, 06:36 PM

5. give them an inch...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ileus (Reply #5)

Thu Jan 12, 2012, 07:40 PM

8. They will call it an "end to incrementalism" and get even more aggressive..

Its ALWAYS "just one more law" until they get it passed..

Notice the date......I wonder what happened less than one month later???

Sara Brady sez back in September of 1994.....

More important, it represents an end to incrementalism. The Brady law has proved a tremendous success in keeping guns out of criminal hands at the retail level.


http://www.nytimes.com/1994/09/19/opinion/l-brady-bill-2-would-overhaul-gun-business-272728.html

I wonder what happened to Brady II ???

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to virginia mountainman (Reply #8)

Fri Jan 13, 2012, 02:16 AM

9. Compromise

 

I would be more willing to compromise if gun control advocates were more honest and intelligent.

For instance when Glocks first came out there were supposedly going to be terrorist guns on airplanes. I remember this getting hammered over and over again. Some how the plastic made it impossible to detect. We know this to be false, but they are basically playing the same game. The new catch phrase is the 'loophole'.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to E6-B (Reply #9)

Fri Jan 13, 2012, 04:26 AM

10. Theres that word again.

"Compromise"

The problem with that word, is the the anti-gun lobby was allowed to define it, and apply it as such.

Heres how it was defined, and applied:

"they give and we take, and what we didn't get this year, we'll be back for next year" "we give up nothing and get something, ain't it great?"

No more.

If they want actual compromise, its going to mean giving something up. They should get nothing for free, anymore.





Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to virginia mountainman (Original post)

Fri Jan 13, 2012, 02:15 PM

14. I wasn't aware that the anti-gun people used "logic"

All I have ever seen is emotion based arguments that ignore facts. And certainly you should never ask a antigun person to back up their statements with unbiased studies like Department of Justice or FBI statistics, that would be rude.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Lurks Often (Reply #14)

Fri Jan 13, 2012, 11:21 PM

15. I think it'd be more than rude..

"Gunner baser toter" rude:c huckle:

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread