Handguns only good for killing people?!

Do not ever let these people make you defensive or evasive. That is what these people are trying to accomplish. They win with the audience when they do so. Each and every compromise is a defeat for us. They have accomplished the passage of 20,000 gun control laws at every level of government. Not one truly controls a single criminal's actions. They control us-the law abiding gun owners. And that is their purpose. It's not about the children, it's not about massacres, it's not about assassinations. That is whitewash. Dianne Feinstein does not want us to have firearms. Of course, it is logical for her to have one-she is of the elite. Carl Rowan, a liberal columnist, has many columns in print with a pro-criminal, pro-tyrrany focus on "gun-control." (A better term would be citizenry control) He shot two teenagers with a handgun who invaded his home. But, you see, it is logical for him to own a handgun-he is of the elite. These people have goals and agendas. It is not guns. It is control.
 
Think this through with me:

Kill, or be killed.

How hard was that?

M2
========================
Buy one gun a month, [in VA] it's the law.
 
Spartacus: Actually, they invaded his BACKYARD, not his home. Not that they had a right to go swimming in his pool, of course. And he did it with, (I love this part, particularly since he sees not the slightest hipocricy here!) an unregistered handgun.
 
Spartacus and DC: Absolutely correct in getting "in the face" of these types and letting them know exactly what we have handguns (and other weapons) for. If we try to namby-pamby around with the target shooting/hunting/collecting of interesting pieces of equipment approach we will be (and have been) walking into a trap. The basic premise is self-defense and protection against tyranical governments. Clearly, the fact that some of us choose to hunt, shoot bullseye or high powered rifle compeitition, shoot trap, skeet and sporting clays is a plus, but not the real reason.
 
Right, Mike: Defending the right to keep and bear arms on the basis of target shooting is like defending freedom of the press on the basis of the Sunday comics; It's a nice plus, but hardly the real point of it! The serious threat here is that, the longer we go defending this right in "namby pamby" terms, the more shocked the public will be if we ever go back to defending it properly. We've got to keep the real reason for the Second amendment out there, so people are USED TO such arguments!
 
Exactly.

Defending the ownership of handguns in terms of hunting, recreation, etc is like justifying your ownership of a car in terms of Sunday afternoon leisure drives.

These people are conditioning us and our children that it is acceptable to be assaulted. These same people also allow assaulters to receive light criminal sentences, and prosecute the victims if they injure the assaulter. Bottomline....they condition would be criminals that crime does pay!!

------------------
"Quis custodiet ipsos custodes"



[This message has been edited by DC (edited March 19, 1999).]
 
Lots of good advice - thank you. It is all very valuable. I'll probably use Art's approach first of asking the fellow's advice for self-defense. I prefer a subtle beginning so I can build a foundation of credibility. I think that will show the shallowness of his 'analysis'. I suspect he will eventually fall back on the 'well, such crimes don't happen very often' argument. [Note, a woman called in on his program the other day to say she has a revolver which she uses to protect herself and her children. In answer to her direct question, he actually told her that her death and that of her children at the hands of a BG would be preferable to the current handgun situation!]

I actually have mixed feelings about getting the guy off of the air. His arguments are so poor that he may actually serve the purpose of showing how ignorant most of his positions really are. We'll see.

I'd still like to find a motherload of credible, third-party data that would refute many of the absurd attacks we see from people like my radio bozo, to organized groups such as HCI. I'll spend some more time cruising nra.org.

Thanks again.

[This message has been edited by Jeff Thomas (edited March 19, 1999).]
 
Remember that when attempting to communicate with this guy and others like him, you need that special dictionary: English-Vegetable!
 
...and vegetables thrive on 'manure' of course.
"Unilateral disarmament": where all the honest citizens are unarmed. These people have never realized there are two kinds of people, good and bad. If there are bad guys out there, obviously they must be kept in place by a suitable tool - which will usually be designed to kill, though its very existance in the right hands may prove enough to avoid having to.
So simple really, but then again vegetables lead a simple life confined to a well tended garden patch.
Ban weed killers and assault-hoes.
 
Well, an interesting postscript just today. My wife told me she heard that the bozo, one John Sebastian (not the musician), is going off the air! I spoke with someone I know at the radio station, and she said he just didn't come into work one day, and called in the next. On the third day he told their management his mother is ill, and he'll have to end the show! Well, if that is the case, I wish both of them the best.

I do feel disappointed in a way. This man was a perfect foil for a pro-self defense debate. If I had been a bit better prepared I feel I could have done a credible job of exposing the massive flaws in his arguments. Well, it will just have to be encouragement for the next time.

Thanks again for all of your ideas. Regards from AZ.
 
Jeff,
I believe you will find that subtlety or the "indirect approach" is lost on these people.

If I am confronted with the statement: Handguns are designed for nothing but killing, my reply will be-exactly, that is what handguns are designed for-killing. I will then calmly related one or two examples of clear cut self defense where an indisputable good guy or gal killed an assailant thereby avoiding grave bodily injury, death, and other heinous indignities. I will then counterattack by asking if their goal is to make the nation safe for rapists, robbers, and thugs. Watch what happens on the talk shows when the pro 2nd Amendment people try to tiptoe around this issue. They lose the initiative and wind up on the defensive. Losing the initiative is not good strategy and is never good tactics. Being on the defensive in a debate is halfway to losing a debate. Especially in front of an audience which is not fully informed on the issues. Any debate occurs on two levels-logic and emotion. You can win a debate on logic and lose on emotion. That's where we have been losing-on emotion. We have the moral high ground if we will but stand upon it. The moral high ground is not about enjoyment of guns (which is alien to the mindset of those who are not afficiandos), it is not about target practice or competition, it is not about hunting, or any other "sporting purpose." It is about personal defense and the defense of freedom.
 
I have to agree with everything Spartacus has posted on this thread. All too often, we find ourselves backed into a corner when defending our gun rights and in desperation, we fall back on the obvious, yet ineffectual arguments about the "positive" aspects of gun ownership: Hunting & communing with nature ; target shooting & developing the necessary discipline to compete successfully, etc., etc..
I think we need to be a little more conscious of the use of semantics in this argument. As our much "beloved & respected" president has taught us, there is more than one way to say the same thing. Our choice of words can have considerable impact in presenting our position.
As an example, the title of this topic is "Handguns only GOOD for killing people" Yet most of the posts here went on to acknowledge (mine included) that guns are in fact DESIGNED for this purpose. What we need to concentrate on is pointing out that in the right hands, guns ARE responsible for immeasurable GOOD! Legitimate examples abound.
The one major weakness in the gun control argument is that they absolutely refuse to acknowledge that guns have in fact saved countless lives. And we let them get away with it. I seldom see a debate on the subject where this one, irrefutable fact is used effectively. If it's brought up at all the gun control spokesman will quickly brush it aside and move on to another attack. Don't let them! Keep coming back to it. Ask them WHY they refuse to acknowledge that many more people are saved by guns than are harmed by them. Put them in the corner and keep hammering away at them. Don't let them change the subject. If they refuse to answer or continue to avoid the subject, they will appear to be hiding something, make sure you point that out! If they do answer, they can't win. If they try to deny this point, there is a mountain of statistics and studies that prove otherwise. If they grudgingly acknowledge that guns can save people, they undermine their own argument.
 
A hand gun is the easiest weapon to use for self defense in the home or on the street. Self defense is a right in this country and would not be possible without the tool to accomplish it. Killing the only reason? No, but it would not be a very good self defense tool if it didn't.

"Gun control is a band-aid, feeling good approach to the nation's crime problem. It is easier for politicians to ban something than it is to condemn a murderer to death or a robber to life in prison. In essence, 'gun
control' is the coward's way out."
-- Gabriel Suarez, police officer, California

To disarm the people is the best and most effectual way to enslave them."
-- George Mason, 1788.

"Such are a well regulated Militia, composed of the freeholders, citizen, and husbandman; who TAKE UP ARMS TO PRESERVE THEIR PROPERTY, as individuals, and their rights as freemen."
-- James Madison, United States Congress, Bill of Rights Ratification, 1779

"It is because the people are citizens that they are with safety armed. The danger (where there is any) from armed citizens, is only to the government, not to the society."
-- Joel Barlow: Equality in America, 1792
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top