'Gun violence': why are other forms of violence preferable?

St. Louis Gun Rights Examiner ^ | 19 May, 2009 | Kurt Hofmann

[PreciousLiberty]

“I’d rather live in a society where the old, small and weak can own an “equalizer,” than in one where thugs and gangs rule by numbers and brute strength.”

Yes, having now actually read the article:

‘God made man and woman; Colonel Colt made them equal’
- Ann Coulter’s version of the old saw

[absolootezer0]

Why is "gun" violence treated like something special?

i prefer criminals with guns for lots of reasons.
first, they attack from further away. the further out they are, the less likely they are to hit me, or if they hit me, less chance of it being vital.
second, reaction time. the further out they are, the more time i have to bring my weapon to bear, duck for cover, or retreat if necessary.

third, noise. if someone hears a couple gunshots, odds are they'll call the cops, that will encourage an attacker to break off his assault, or at least present him with other targets.
an assailant using blunt or edged weapon is going to start in closer, will have better accuracy and more opportunity for multiple strikes with less likelihood of retailiation, and will be quiet enough that if he's not seen in the act, he'll be long gone before anyone knows what's happened.
also, committing a crime with a gun usually will put the perp away for longer.

[massgopguy]

Classic Archie Bunker!

[Joe 6-pack]

The mistake many on our side make is our belief that the left has an "irrational" fear of guns. The high practitioners of leftism are tyrants in the making who can and will seize any control they can. Their fear of guns is very rational as firearms in the hands of private citizens pose the ultimate and perhaps only threat left to their end game.

Irrationalism only comes into play as long as we have some semblance of a constitutional republic remaining, and the masses must be worked into a frothing frenzy in order to further their agenda of firearm prohibition.

[ZULU]

Gun violence is egalitarian in nature. It puts everyone on the same footing - which is why guns ended aristocracy in the Renaissance.

Other forms of violence are more restrictive in nature. To kill somebody with your bare hands requires a certain degree of strength and/or training. Ditto to the effective use of most other hand weapons.

The elitists in government fear egalitarian access to avenues of violence for political reasons.

[RoadTest]

True. If they take away the guns they’d better take away the kitchen knives. They’re no less lethal.

[Copernicus]

Why is "gun" violence treated like something special

The fictional Archie Bunker said it best to his fictional daughter:

"Would you rather they get pushed out a window little girl?"

Best regards,

[Copernicus]

“Would you rather they were all pushed out of windows?”

Gads! You beat me to it!

Best regards,

[Ruy Dias de Bivar]

**The implication is that Mayor Bloomberg’s anti-gun jihad has been successful, despite an increase in murders, simply because fewer of those murders were committed with guns.***

Many years ago some lib run city instituted a handgun waiting period to buy a firearm. the purpose was to “prevent suicides”.

IT WORKED! The law was declared a success because several suicidal people tried to buy handguns but had to wait.

Each of those people still killed themselves, they just didn’t do it with a gun.

[TC Rider]

At least there are ‘winners’ of gun fights. There are usually no winners in a knife fight.

[GYL2]

They're intent is to Disarm the law-abiding, using the term ‘Gun-control’ implies that the criminal element can be controlled - which by definition can't be done.

Therefore, they should be called what they really are.

[blackie]

Be Ever Vigilant!

[wastedyears]

A swan-dive is sometimes followed by a belly flop, which isn’t a pleasant experience at all.

[Hardastarboard]

Reminds me of the old Archie Bunker comment. When Gloria is decrying the number of people killed by guns, Archie asks her “Would ya’s feel better if they was pushed outa windas?”

[Blood of Tyrants]

Obama has wet dreams about a country where the federal government has a total monopoly on power.

[Travis McGee]

“If wishes were horses, beggars would ride.”

He can wish all he wants. Disarming us would be bloodier than he knows.

[oyez]

The anti-gunners are no different that the temperance societies that led the way from prohibition. Making alcohol illegal was going to do great things. When booze was finally banned consumption didn't stop and the ethanol market was still there so a new age of crime was ushered in.

Passing such laws does little to change human behavior. The old saw, "The road to Hell is paved with good intentions", still applies.

[HammerT]

One can only imagine the lawlessness of banning guns.

No matter what the Criminals will still get their guns – even if they could confiscate them all – an Impossibility in the first place.

Criminals would still be able to manufacture or import whatever they needed, the resulting crime wave would make the lawlessness of prohibition look like a walk in the park.

[<1/1,000,000th%]

I believe you are correct.

[Kevmo]

“If wishes were horses, beggars would ride.”
***I recently heard this expression in a different vein: If shoulds and buts were beer and nuts, we’d all have a great party. Or, “we’d bring cold cuts and stuff our guts” may round out the rhyme better.