Comments on: Guns! Commence arguing!

By: Gargoyle wins five awards at SPJ regional conference | Find top university!

Gargoyle wins five awards at SPJ regional conference | Find top university! — Mon, 26 Mar 2012 14:15:37 +0000

[...] http://gargoyle.flagler.edu/2011/02/guns-commence-arguing/ [...]

By: jake

jake — Tue, 29 Mar 2011 13:46:55 +0000

it is good to give things a fair shake,however,gun restrictions will never make us safer in my my opinion. the fact is,the more gun laws you create,law abiding citezens will be disarmed,and then criminals,who were the target of even more restrictive laws in the first place will scoff at new regulations and continue to illegally own weapons. i own guns for two reasons,for self defense and im a collector. the weapon i own for self defense is a modern glock pistol,and the rest of my guns are antiquated mauser and enfeild rifles made from about 1898 to the early 1960s. micheal is right the majority of gun owners are not nutjobs in any case,many of them are just normal people who enjoy engaging in a sport. less gun laws make people safer because they enable citezins to take responsibility in defending themselves, the fact of the matter is that the police cannot always be around to protect us,their are not enough,and in many cases we as citezins should take responsibility for our own safety. observe the virginia tech shootings,or the more recent shootings in arizona,if individuals at either of those places had been allowed to exercise their rights to protect themselves,then not as many people would have been killed and wounded. the only thing that will make us safer is ourselves,taking responsibilty to make ourselves safer. firearms are also power,in a sense a populace who owns firearms personally,is a powerfull and free populace. im not trying to say that their is going to be a reveloution in this country and we all have to be ready for it,but i am saying that an armed citezenry has the abilty to make thier government listen,using extreme measures if neccesary. long story short,gun restrictions dont make people safer,people who are going to use a gun in a crime will have it whether it is legal for them to have it or not,and the idea that a person who is going to commit a crime of passion with a gun because he got mad and picked it up is asinine as well,an angry person who is acting irrationally could just as easily pick up a hammer or a bat or knife as a gun,ban those too because they are dangerous? i dont think so. the only thing that will make people safer is for people to take more personal responsibility for their own safety and to quit relying on others to keep them safe,fireamrs ownership allows people to take that responsibilty to protect themselves and their families,and should not be infringed with more and more regulation that do nothing to stop criminals but only hinder law abiding citezins.

By: Jason

Jason — Tue, 15 Mar 2011 23:30:45 +0000

I think anyone who is completely against guns should consider taking a course at the front-sight institute just outside Las Vegas. I can almost guarantee with certainty that anyone who does will be convinced that guns are not evil. Every time I’ve been there I’ve met at least one person who came to the training with an anti gun mentality and left without it.

Jason

By: CrazyExtremist

CrazyExtremist — Tue, 22 Feb 2011 22:16:39 +0000

I don’t understand how you say that most people aren’t extremists, and then you tell us not to hold extreme views.

By: Patriot Henry

Patriot Henry — Tue, 22 Feb 2011 19:01:52 +0000

People for gun control that I know think that they’re safer with fewer guns in society. Who’s wrong in this equation? No one.

Those people who believe that people should be imprisoned and lose their guns and their rights for merely buying, selling, lending/borrowing, and possessing a magazine that holds one more round than a wholly arbitrary limit – they are wrong, especially when they claim that this is “common sense”.

By: zakk beard

zakk beard — Tue, 22 Feb 2011 15:35:54 +0000

Well said, mr. Newberger. As a liberal gun owner, id like to see a little more emphasis on those of us in the middle of this discussion. I like my gun. I like shooting my gun. Heck, I like cleaning my gun! But I also wish that my conceal and carry permit took longer to get, and was MUCH more difficult to obtain. I wish there was a waiting period of as long as it takes to complete a thorough examination of my background, however that needs to be done. I want it to truly be a privilege to own a firearm, so that not only would I have it, but I would have the pride of being considered worthy and responsible enough to own it. Imho, the purchase of ammunition should require the permit for the weapon, as well. Gun control is not gun denial, nor is it freedom denial. its simply our way of making sure that those of us who wish to own guns are able to do so safely and responsibly.

Michael newberger needs to wash his hands after shooting (helps prevent lead poisoning)

By: Pfeffy

Pfeffy — Mon, 21 Feb 2011 23:13:47 +0000

The real problem is that nobody examines the issue from a logical, economic, perspective. Lets look at our track record on controlling things:

1. Guns. They are everywhere. The technology is so antiquated that anyone able to gain acceptance to a college should be able to build their own functional firearm with the internet, 50 bucks, and a day of time.

2. Illegal Drugs. We tried this once, with alcohol, to similar results that we have today. Everyone who wants a drug can easily acquire it. Our attempted control has only resulted in increased black market activity, and the sacrifice of tax revenues to the coffers of Mexican cartels.

3. Prescription drugs. The country has had a quiet internal conflict over the practice of importing drugs from Canada. It remains a no-no, but one can easily acquire almost anything they want from the internet.

4. Information. Check out the MP3 war. Most are unaware of the government intervention into what is essentially a copyright dispute. Blank CD’s and Cassettes have carried a large surcharge mandated by the government that is paid back to the RIAA, due to their logic that blank mediums will only be used to steal from them. Needless to say there has been absolutely no headway made here.

None of these industries has been hurt in the slightest by the government’s attempts to govern them. Not only does it seem very unlikely that they would meet with any greater success with firearms, but that we should allow the purveyors of such ineptitude to hold a monopoly on firepower. Many of the gun control advocates will throw forth the sarcastic mantra of “Could you really fight the government with small arms?”

…I say it seems that Iraq and Afghanistan have been doing so for 10 years.

By: Wiglaf

Wiglaf — Mon, 21 Feb 2011 22:56:44 +0000

Certainly people disagree and some make straw man arguments and for some reason think no one should flame the straw man. For example, when a columnists states that those gun \nuts\ who want 33 round magazines for their Glocks probably also think they have a right to their own personal nuclear warhead, why shouldn’t they flame the straw man? Or, when a columnist claims the liberals want to totally ban handguns…wait a second…according to the track record of the Brady Campaign, they do…and they go ahead and call it sensible; yet denying it in general on their website.

Does gun control make us safer? Maybe that’s the wrong question. How about, does gun control make us less free? What’s more important to Americans? Freedom or safety? Do we have an inalienable right to be safe? Should we rely on others like the Brady Campaign to protect us from gun violence and injury? Would it even work? What about knife violence?