Everybody, please post your opinion at this anti-gun article

Shoot45's, I think this is gonna end up closed as a Drive By. Further, since links to outside petitions are prohibbited by our mod staff, I think whis will be doubly doomed without some added conversation. I think your best bet to keep this thread open might be to try to add some content to what in particular you disagree with to promote conversation here on TFL instead of someone else's website...

I'll start, if that's ok with you. The author, in fact, highlights the problem with his argument in one sentence:

I would gladly hand in all of my weapons if I knew doing so would prevent any more gun-related murders in this country.
Click to expand...
(emphasis added)

Aside from the obvious constitutional objections, from a purely practical standpoint, he subtley admits that forsaking private ownership of weapons will not change the actions of others. That's a big IF in that sentence.

The author also seems to have minimal understanding of long arms, despite his supposed bonafides, suggetsing that "assault weapons" and handguns should be banned, but "non-automatic" rifles and shotguns should be legal for hunting. So that Saiga 12 guage is fine, but that J frame is a dangerous weapon. Uh-huh...
 
Last edited:
Interestingly enough, the header photo is that of a Browning (or Browning type) semi-auto shotgun. What a hypocrite.

Someone needs to enlighten him with Ben Franklin's famous quote: “They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.”
 
This is a worthwhile article to post, only in that it has such a ridiculously anti-gun bias for a supposed 2nd Amendment supporter. I hope the OP decides to follow up and edit his post to include a little more info, because I agree that this is a drive-by and should be closed the way it is now.
 
Theohazard said:
This is a worthwhile article to post, only in that it has such a ridiculously anti-gun bias for a supposed 2nd Amendment supporter.
Click to expand...

Theo, I think you might have something there, but I think it's not what you suggest.

There seem to be a number of folks who keep guns for hunting who advocate the "sporting purpose" of handguns and rifles, because that is what THEY use them for. They then identify as pro-2A because they like hunting and don't want to ban guns completely, when what they really mean is "I want to limit guns in a way that won't affect what I like to do."
 
While a drive-by, some staff discussion suggests that the article is worth discussing. Two issues are:

1. The mindless nature of the writer who sees hunting as the only legit use of a long gun. Nothing else is acceptable.

2. The commentary which from my first casual view suggests that many folks from that mag disagree strongly.
 
I'm most pleased that many of the responses to the article are from subscribers who think that Runners World should stay out of the gun debate and who are canceling their subscriptions.
 
1. "Mindless" is a mild characterization of the author of the Runners World article. He wants to ban "automatic" shotguns (technically semi-automatic shotguns) but is holding a Browning A-5 in his photo. He considers hunting and target shooting the only legitimate uses of firearms, and ignores myriads of state laws addressing the subject of self defense as well as well known recent U.S. Supreme Court and Courts of Appeals decisions addressing the 2nd
Amendment right to bear arms.

3. Comments in the first three pages of comments in RW consistently disagree with the article or criticize RW for printing it in a magazine focused on running. I assume the remaining pages are, at least, fairly consistent with the first three. (As a former long distance runner, triathlete, and RW subscriber, and a life-long firearms enthusiast, I agree with those comments.)

P.S. I did not reply on RW.
 
Last edited:
At the same time, allow responsible citizens to own rifles and shotguns. Rifles are for hunting big-game animals, shotguns are for hunting birds; non-automatic versions of these weapons should be available for those with an interest in hunting or target shooting.
Click to expand...
The main problem with his argument is that the Constitution doesn't allow things.

This guy gets paid to run fast. He sold advertising space on his shoulder to Dodge for a tattoo. He dated Paris Hilton.

Come on, would anyone really care what he thinks if gun owners hadn't gotten their knickers in a bunch? We're the ones putting him on the front page.
 
Well, if he'd paid to have a Chevy bowtie instead and dated Kate Upton, then I might care.

As it stands, all I did was take a screen shot of the guy and draw an arrow to the shotgun and sent it as a Snapchat (don't judge me!) to a friend of mine who runs marathons for fun. And is also a budding gun guy.

Reading a running magazine and putting stock in thier take on guns and civil rights is sort of like looking at Soldier of Fortune for christmas ideas for you're little sister.
 
Last edited:
Anyone who starts off with "I love my 2nd Amendment rights" and ends with "ban all handguns, assault rifles, etc." has no concept whatsoever of what the 2nd Amendment is all about. It has nothing to do with protecting your right to hunt animals.

I don't believe the person who wrote the article is a hunter at all. I think the author of the article is just an anti-gun shill who knows little to nothing about handguns, rifles, shotguns, or anything else gun related. Please do not ASSUME that the author is who he/she says he is, or even that he is one and the same as the person in the picture holding the semi-auto shotgun. There are far too many inconsistencies to make the article believable.
 
Last edited:
I'm wondering if a crowded airport would have fared any better had the shooter been using a Browning semi-auto like the one he advocates.
 
Others have already noted the obvious logical, historical and Constitutional failures of the article. I'm going into the weeds just to assuage my personal issues.

Author:
Christopher was one of us, and we owe it to him and others to make sure his death wasn't in vain.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...

This sentence rankles my soul especially b/c I am reading it today, on Veterans Day. It indicates to me that the author is conflating tragic demise with tragic demise while trying trying to achieve some sort of greater goal for others. I find it unexplainable and tragic that Christopher Lane was shot simply for kicks by crazies while he was jogging. However, to attempt to make this tragedy an emotional burden to force his readers into action is a cheap (and not very accurate) rhetorical tactic. Was Mr. Lane jogging to fight a house fire? Was he jogging to deliver medicine to invalids? No.
I'm sorry, but running for fitness is not serving the greater good, regardless of Mr. Lane post-mortum induction by the writer into the cool-club known as "one of us."
This writer has a serious, serious misconception of relative social values.

His logical progression, as I understand it, would be:
1. Mr. Lane was a runner jogging on a public road.
2. Mr. Lane was shot while running
3. All guns should be banned from all of society, for the greater good of "one of us."

Ok, well, the author appears to want to make this issue a voting touch stone, so I guess we could take the logic of democracy and counter-propose a solution like this:
1. Mr. Lane was a runner jogging on a public road.
2. Mr. Lane was shot while running.
3. Each day more people own and use guns within the constraints of the law in the US than jog on any given day in the US.
4. Since more people use guns legally than run, we should ban people from running in public places.

Ok, end rant...
 
So thit idiot had trouble catching his flight now he thinks we should all give up our semi auto rifles and all handguns.
 
Actually, how would it have played if the progression was this:

1. Mr. Lane was a runner jogging on a public road.
2. Mr. Lane was hit by a reckless/drunk driver while running
3. All cars should be banned from all of society, for the greater good of "one of us."

The author would have been laughed out of the room for asserting that. However, firearms are apparently a unique product, and blanket statements are apparently perfectly logical if we apply them in that case.
 
You have to remember one thing about articles like this.
1. He IS the only one correct.
2. He doesn’t care what you think, see #1.
3. If you disagree with him, YOU are wrong, see #1.
 
I wrote to the Editors of Runner's World, explaining why after Symonds subjective, emotionally driven rant about Gun Control, I will no longer buy their Magazine.
Social media can work to our advantage too!
 
Actually, how would it have played if the progression was this:

1. Mr. Lane was a runner jogging on a public road.
2. Mr. Lane was hit by a reckless/drunk driver while running
3. All cars should be banned from all of society, for the greater good of "one of us."

The author would have been laughed out of the room for asserting that. However, firearms are apparently a unique product, and blanket statements are apparently perfectly logical if we apply them in that case.
Click to expand...

I couldn't agree more with your statements Tom. I also agree with Skans, any anti gun person could make themselves look like a hunter, and say that they have a long hunting background. He could be a real hunter, but it's just so easy to borrow someone's shotgun and dress up like a hunter to appeal to people. OR, it is definitely possible that the picture is not even of the author.
 
Apologies

On behalf of Boise's "Responsible Citizens" I'd like to apologize for that article. It may be just me but I've noticed a trend in recent years that many articles/opinion pieces seem to start out in similar fashion as if having simply touched a firearm gives one complete insight and therefore makes one a credible authority on such matters. Another troubling thing is the growing distinction between Hunters and the rest of the shooting community. Has the Sportsman become the new "Noble Savage" while anyone else that uses a firearm for any other reason a blood thirsty heathen?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top