Results 1 to 4 of 4
  1. #1 Anti-Gun Group Wants People To Lecture Friends And Family During Thanksgiving Dinner 
    Destroyer of Worlds Apocalypse's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Locked in a Dungeon, being tortured and LOVING IT!
    Posts
    5,396
    Talking Turkey on Guns



    Everyone has friends and relatives with strong opinions and shaky facts. You can help set the table straight — all you need is this simple guide to Talking Turkey about guns!


    Click the buttons below to share these five important myths and facts about gun violence prevention with your friends and family on Facebook and Twitter.
    Full guide here…
    How many post will we see from the DUmp with titles such as "No more Right-wing tea baggers for Thanksgiving" and going on about how ignorant they are and not seeing the "Truth" presented before them.
    Rest In Peace America
    July 4, 1776 - January 20, 2009
    Reply With Quote  
     

  2. #2  
    Sin City Moderator RobJohnson's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Nevada
    Posts
    17,624
    Everyone knows how well political or religious discussions go over at the holiday dinner table.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  3. #3  
    Fabulous Poster
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Posts
    10,161
    Why are there cops making good wages who are ignorant (or who disregard) of the law?

    http://www.copblock.org/58/

    Not to mention I would have difficulty maintaining my cool being harassed by a cop with a foreign accent.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #4  
    LTC Member Odysseus's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    FT Belvoir, VA
    Posts
    15,638
    Here are their "facts" as presented in the brochure. Shouldn't be hard to come up with counter arguments.



    Starting with their first argument, which pertains to legal loopholes, when the federal government illegally traffics weapons to Mexican drug cartels, the claim that we are enforcing current laws is a joke and a sham. Until the feds demonstrate that they are prepared to not only enforce the law, but obey it themselves, new laws will simply become a means of harrassing law-abiding citizens, not reducing gun violence. Also, whose estimate is it that 40% of gun transfers don't require background checks? Does the catchall phrase "private transfers" apply to inheritance, gifts or other personal transactions and if so, do we want the federal government that far into our private business?

    In addition, it should be noted that police officers do not agree with the premise of the antigun talking point. In PoliceOne’s Gun Policy & Law Enforcement survey, which was conducted between March 4 and March 13, 2013, and which received "15,595 responses from verified police professionals across all ranks and department sizes"
    (http://ddq74coujkv1i.cloudfront.net/...mmary_2013.pdf), overwhelming majorities of officers vehemently disagreed with the gun control arguments presented in the brochure. As shown in the survey, police professionals are extremely skeptical of the efficacy of gun control laws and highly supportive of armed citizens exercising their rights:

    Do you think that a federal law prohibiting private, non-dealer transfers of firearms between individuals would reduce violent crime?
    Response Percent Response Count
    Yes 11.5% 1,684
    No 79.7% 11,663
    Unsure 8.8% 1,295

    Item two: The idea that guns in the hands of good guys will not stop crime, and that America should be the safest country in the world because we have the most guns. This presumes that there are uniform rates of concealed carry and gun violence in the US, but there is not. The gun violence that we see in America is a result, not of a proliferation of guns, but a proliferation of crime in impoverished areas of major cities, most of which have strict gun controls in place. Chicago, for example, has done more to restrict guns among law-abiding citizens than any other American city, but gun violence is far greater than that anywhere else, and while overall gun violence in America has been declining for decades, Chicago's rates continue to rise. The mass shootings that we've seen have invariably occurred in "gun-free" zones, where disarmed victims are concentrated and make for a target-rich environment. They have ended only when police showed up with sufficient force to defeat or kill the shooter. However, there have been numerous documented incidents in which mass shootings were thwarted by the presence of armed citizens. The Cato Institute provided a summary of one of the most famous cases:
    On December 10, 2007, Jeanne Assam used a gun in the lobby of New Life Church, in Colorado Springs. Matthew Murray was carrying “two handguns, an assault rifle and over 1,000 rounds of ammunition.” He had already killed two people in the parking lot and two others the previous night. He entered the lobby firing his rifle—but Assam, a former police officer, shot him, ending the killing spree.

    The Cato study analyzed thousands of incidents in which criminals were confronted with armed resistance. It's available at http://www.cato.org/sites/cato.org/f...gh-Targets.pdf. The study includes dozens of examples of defensive uses of firearms by private citizens as well as analysis of the data sets. Again, the police survey is unambiguous:

    Do you support the concealed carry of firearms by civilians who have not been convicted of a felony and/or not been deemed psychologically/medically incapable?
    Response Percent Response Count
    Yes, without question and without further restrictions 91.3% 12,968
    No, only law enforcement officers should carry firearms 4.1% 586
    Unsure/Neutral 4.5% 646

    John Lott, who has made his career studying the impacts of gun control and gun ownership on crime, had this to say about mass shootings:
    “With just one single exception, the attack on congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords in Tucson in 2011, every public shooting since at least 1950 in the U.S. in which more than three people have been killed has taken place where citizens are not allowed to carry guns.”
    Writing in National Review after the Newtown shooting, John Fund had the following to say after speaking to Lott:

    I spoke with Lott after the Newtown shooting, and he confirmed that nothing has changed to alter his findings. He noted that the Aurora shooter, who killed twelve people earlier this year, had a choice of seven movie theaters that were showing the Batman movie he was obsessed with. All were within a 20-minute drive of his home. The Cinemark Theater the killer ultimately chose wasn’t the closest, but it was the only one that posted signs saying it banned concealed handguns carried by law-abiding individuals. All of the other theaters allowed the approximately 4 percent of Colorado adults who have a concealed-handgun permit to enter with their weapons.

    “Disarming law-abiding citizens leaves them as sitting ducks,” Lott told me. “A couple hundred people were in the Cinemark Theater when the killer arrived. There is an extremely high probability that one or more of them would have had a legal concealed handgun with him if they had not been banned.”
    The Facts about Mass Shootings: It’s time to address mental health and gun-free zones. By John Fund

    More to follow
    --Odysseus
    Sic Hacer Pace, Para Bellum.

    Before you can do things for people, you must be the kind of man who can get things done. But to get things done, you must love the doing, not the people!
    Reply With Quote  
     

Bookmarks
Bookmarks
Posting Permissions
  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •