Gun nuts' have no real excuse(gun grabbing weenie barf alert 4 bags minimum)

dailycampus.com ^ | 2 1 05 | Robert Schiering At first glance, the term "gun nut" would appear to be nothing more than an ad hominem against the more enthusiastic weapon owners of this country. However, as one reads the literature espoused by gun nut organizations, the reasoning behind this term becomes startlingly clear. Gun nuts are called as such because they are incontrovertibly insane.

The gun lobby has adopted the same attitude toward politics as Rush Limbaugh: "Don't confuse me with facts, I've got my mind made up!" Gun nuts are so obsessed with opposing gun control laws that no amount of factual evidence against their position will sway them. Some call this "sticking to your guns." I call it "deliberate stupidity."

Ahhh, but what will you call it if gun control laws prevent any teachers from being able to stop a suicide bomber or team of gunmen (Russia's recent attack, anyone?!) from raiding your school and killing you for publicity for their radical Islamic cause?

Oh, you'll be dead, so you won't be able to call it anything...

Well, here's a much, much better idea than your plan of being cannon fodder for terrorists:

ARM SCHOOL TEACHERS NOW!

Let me say a few things about this. First, although I personally don’t see the need for a true assault weapon, such as an AK, H&K, or AR 15, the fact that the State of New York is trying to make it illegal to own them, to include non-firing replicas, goes against me, and if I were a citizen of New York, I would fight that bill with all the resources I could muster. Remember, I’m also a gun owner and when anyone’s rights are violated; my rights are violated as well. I hope that the bill is defeated.

That having been said, what scares me the most, and should scare you as well, is the justification that New York is using for the passage of this bill: ”Given the current heightened concerns regarding terrorism, and the danger posed by these military-style and large capacity weapons, this bill repeals the assault weapon grandfather clause and prohibits the sale and possession of all assault weapons in an effort to protect citizens and law enforcement personnel.”

You may say that I am wrong, and I really hope that I am, but I truly believe that this is a backlash to the NRA’s intractable positions on assault weapon ownership, registration, and waiting periods. I also believe that this hostile response has broad-based backing from conservative elements as well as liberal. Remember, not every conservative soccer mom owns a gun or ever wants to, but she does have children and her perception about their safety is her reality, and no amount of spin will change that. My prediction in an earlier post appears to be gaining validity, and that concerns me as well.

Sample bias - sorted on deaths not uses of firearms. Naturally, people who are only trying to defend themselves or their property are much less likely to kill a perp, than to just scare them away. The rest is similar hash (e.g. "victims who resist are typically killed" is not borne out by any of the facts cited, nor is it remotely true on facts we do know from elsewhere). Anybody submitting this sort of reasoning in a statistics class would get a failing grade.

There is another element that is forgotten in the issue of firearm deaths. A criminal or person who is engaged in a criminal act with a firearm has brought that firearm with them with the intent of using it on the victim(s), if necessary, not just as a threat. In many cases, the intent is to use the weapon regardless if a threat exists. In Florida, under the Three Strikes law and the 10-20-30 Law, if a criminal commits a third felony within a specific period of time, or uses a firearm in the commission of a crime, he/she can get from 10 years to life. http://www.knightridder.com/papers/greatstories/tally/justice21.html Therefore, what incentive does a criminal have not to use their weapon?

JasonC wrote, . . .people who are only trying to defend themselves or their property are much less likely to kill a perp, than to just scare them away.” I disagree, based on my personal discussions with all of the men in my family who own firearms, my neighbors, and my comrades at both the VFW and American Legion. Those of us who know how to use a firearm will not hesitate to fire at center of mass if we or our family is threatened. As I don’t own a shotgun, which is really the best home defense weapon, I don’t believe in taking a chance. However, you are probably correct if only personal property is threatened.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.