NRA member's logic easily shot full of holes (Letter to the editor)

Oatka

New member
Take a BIG dose of Maalox before reading.
http://www.freerepublic.com/forum/a3909b0b57d48.htm#1

Columbus (Ohio) Dispatch
Letters To The Editor
NRA member's logic easily shot full of holes
Friday, April 28, 2000

Joseph F. Wayne states in his recent letter,
"I am the NRA.'' I certainly hope he means "Not Responsible American'' or "Not Reasonable American,'' otherwise he is the National Rifle Association to which many of my responsible hunting and sporting friends belong.

Sadly, I waded through his clumsy analogies. He feels safer in a gun store than a doctor's office, because 98,000 people per year are killed in medical accidents. If he gets a life-threatening illness, be sure he rushes to the gun store.

He equates schools refusing to offer gun-safety training (efforts to reduce children's exposure to guns), to the lack of swimming and driving instruction leading to drowning and driving accidents. Pools and cars are dangerous but they are not made for the purpose of killing. (Should we require liability insurance for guns too ?).

The NRA deserves credit for giving gun- safety training and this training does save lives, but this misses the point. There are times when we must be protected from ourselves.

(Steady lads, steady - Oatka)

Wayne says the media sensationalizes events like the Columbine killings. Maybe, but it still happened. We agree government intervention into personal conduct should be minimal, but society's view of guns and violence is changing.

Whether this glorification of violence is caused by the disintegration of the family unit, gangster rap, or media violence, safety training would not have stopped it.

If society is eroding, the government must step in with laws and penalties. Place trigger locks on all guns. Use technology to prevent gun accidents. Incriminate owners whose guns have harmed others, no matter who pulled the trigger.

(Steady, steady)

Hold gun makers responsible for injury and death like automobile and alcohol makers. Use available safety technology or bear some responsibility. I beg gun owners to consider the welfare of our children and stop hiding behind your narrow interpretation of the Second Amendment. Allow the government to protect us from ourselves!

(Take another dose)

Maybe the statement in the Declaration of Independence should be in the Bill of Rights with the Second Amendment: The unalienable right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Take away the first and the other two are gone. Doug Poe Columbus

You can't reach Doug :( but you can write the Editor at: letters@dispatch.com


------------------
The New World Order has a Third Reich odor.

[This message has been edited by Oatka (edited April 28, 2000).]

[This message has been edited by Oatka (edited April 28, 2000).]
 
"Allow the government to protect us from ourselves! "

You know, I sometimes wonder if the anti's are from an entirely different planet. Anyway, he's raised the "automobile" analogy again. When was the last time GM was sued because a Chevrolet was used in a crime?

Ugh.

Dick
 
Alcohol makers are sued? For? Hell, Spartacus has seen folk in the ER from drinking too much water. (He told the kid he was a damn fool! :D) If that kid had died- from water- do we sue God?
 
So I guess when the time comes I decide to run someone over, I get to use the "Dodge" defense. It wasn't my fault, it was the damn truck's!!

------------------
NRA Life Member
GSSF Member
 
Ahhhh ... so much BS ... so little time. ;)

"Hold gun makers responsible for injury and death like automobile and alcohol makers." Well, I do hope the automobile manufacturers and the distillers are listening ... I'm sure they are. Bozo's like Doug apparently think they're already liable for the misuse of their products. I honestly believe we'll see this, and fairly soon.

"Incriminate owners whose guns have harmed others, no matter who pulled the trigger." And, this will become an interesting area of law. We already seize property with the legal fiction that the property has 'committed' a crime (e.g. for drug law property seizures). This seems to be a reasonable extension of that logic. Rather like parents, being held responsible for their minor children. Your property is used in a crime, and therefore the property's owner must go to jail. I wonder if Doug thinks he is going to one of the people who are not incarcerated? Since we already have one of the highest rates of incarceration in the world, we'll need lots of 'Doug's' to keep the lights on and the bologna sandwiches coming in our prisons.

Yeah, I see your point ... there is no reaching Doug. He is waaaay out there. ;)

Regards from AZ
 
Ya know, I was gonna write a long detailed analysis/tear down of this article, but since I would be telling ya all things you already know, I think I'll sum it up with...

:rolleyes:

------------------
You can fight without ever winning, but never win without a fight. --Rush
 
" If he gets a life-threatening illness, be sure he rushes to the gun store."

And this guys claims that the other guy has no logic in his arguments?
 
Quoting that all wise thinker, Bugs Bunny, "Whata maroon!"

------------------
Ne Conjuge Nobiscum
"If there be treachery, let there be jehad!"
 
The ratio of substance to holes in this clown's letter compares unfavorably with the head of a tennis racquet.

Why don't we run out and sue Ford and Budweiser for drunk driving losses?

Bite my tongue, I may give some lurking shark ideas...

------------------
"..but never ever Fear. Fear is for the enemy. Fear and Bullets."
10mm: It's not the size of the Dawg in the fight, it's the size of the fight in the dog!
 
Well, I've slept on this and have come to the conclusion (suspected on a first reading) that this guy is a Troll. As others have pointed out, there's just TOO much inflammatory b/s packed into one letter.

Michiaveli could take lessons from the antis. One of their cute tricks is to pose as a gun owner and then spout the HCI laundry list. We've seen that before and no doubt will see more as the election nears.

I'm writing the Dispatch in that vein, making the analogy of someone claiming PETA membership defending the chicken factories and fur farms.
 
Wait a minute... the doctor's office statement was one of the few things in the letter that made sense.

This person's argument (and that of 90% of other anti-self defense proponents) is that the world is an unsafe place. I could carry a gun to protect myself, but I don't wanna, so the only other solution is to make other people give them up.

That's the only way they see things changing... not by doing anything themselves, but by forcing others to do what they think is right.

(wait, I'm not done preaching to the choir)

The most irritating part of the article is the part where the government needs to protect us from ourselves.

Translation: We're all idiots and couldn't possibly handle something dangerous.

Of course, the "idiots" in law enforcement and the military should keep the weapons because they're genetically different from us neanderthals.

(okay, NOW I'm done)

[This message has been edited by Mikul (edited April 29, 2000).]
 
I hope this guy isn't proposing that my chicken gun falls under the regulations he wants put into place. I will give up my chicken gun when they pry the cold dead chicken out of my cold dead hands!

Honestly, more government regulations. Where do these people come from besides England.

------------------
NRA MEMBER? GREAT, NOW JOIN GUN OWNERS OF AMERICA
 
If you hold gun makers responsible like auto makers, you would not be able to sue them if a properly made product with no design or manufacturing flaws is misused by a moron. If some drunk piles into my wife's car, can I sue GM because he drove a Buick? I don't think so!

(Actually I can sue, if I want to spend my time getting thrown out of the court).

Product liability laws protect us from DEFECTIVE products. A perfectly functional pistol is no grounds to sue the makers.
 
Back
Top