debate gun violance with facts

[The Nature Boy 4,224]

This article sums up nicely what I have been trying to tell our resident anti-constitutional liberals all along. If we are going to have the debate let's use facts, and the main fact is Assualt looking weapons kill less people every year than any other style of weapon and knives,, the assault weapon ban last time produced no change so what is the real problem and how do we fixit ?

Debate GunViolance with Facts

Disagreement over the 2nd Amendment is no reason to abandon the 1st Amendment.

(Photo: Evan Vucci, AP)

Story Highlights

• I have wondered over the years at the intolerance of the political left.
• The "gun question" has always sparked heated debate, one the NRA welcomes.
• Restricting firearms sales to honest, law abiding American citizens will do little to prevent violence.

Almost 50 years ago, as a University of Wisconsin undergrad, I was asked to debate our involvement in Vietnam before a student audience. My opponent was a member of the Madison City Council and a self-described leftist who spent most of his time denouncing conservatives as racists and enemies of individual liberty and freedom of speech.

I spoke first and, as my opponent made his way to the microphone, he announced that he wouldn't dignify my arguments with a rebuttal other than to say that "come the revolution," he looked forward to my being put up against a wall and shot. The subsequent standing ovation was quite an endorsement of the value of civil discourse.

At about the same time, a group of UW students decided to start an alternative conservative newspaper. Reaction came in the form of threats to toss a Molotov cocktail into the paper's office, an idea that couldn't be dismissed on our turbulent campus.

Threats don't convince

These events weighed on my mind as the NRA braced for a firestorm of hatred in the days after the horrific mass shooting in Newtown, Conn. A university professor suggested that NRA Executive Vice President Wayne LaPierre be beheaded so that the more thoughtful among us could display his "head on a stick." People who should know better told the NRA's receptionist that we were "responsible" for the actions of the lunatic who killed 20 schoolchildren.

Someone posted on my son's Facebook page that I ought to be killed. When my son and his sister posted in response that that they were not me and that, in any event, they consider me an OK guy whom they don't really want killed, the response was swift: The man suggested that perhaps it would be better that they be killed, "so that your dad can suffer the loss of his children." Nice.

I have wondered over the years at the intolerance of the political left. If those of us on the right were to engage in such over-the-top rhetoric, we would be rightly attacked by the news media and justifiably marginalized. Column after column would be written about how people like us are a danger to civil society because we reject the rules that allow such a society to function without violence. Too many establishment liberals not only mock conservative ideas, but also see those who hold them as either marginally deranged or, as a Homeland Security report suggested a few years ago, as potential terrorists.

The "gun question" has always sparked heated debate between those of us who believe in the constitutional right "to keep and bear arms" and those who disagree. It's a legitimate debate, one the NRA welcomes. Fortunately, facts matter to the millions of Americans who — whether they own firearms or not — aren't so easily convinced that we would be living happy lives in a violence-free utopia if we could just ban guns.

Protect honest Americans

Americans are a practical people and, in the wake of a tragedy such as Newtown, they want answers. We want to know how we can prevent the next such tragedy, how we can protect our children, and in seeking answers to those questions Americans want facts, not feel-good measures that have never worked in the past and aren't going to work in the future. That's why the NRA and its members are willing to discuss the role of firearms in these tragedies: We realize, as our virulent opposition does not, that the facts and statistics are clear. Restricting firearms sales to honest, law abiding American citizens will do little to prevent violence and much to undermine the core values of a free society.

David A. Keene is president of the National Rifle Association of America.

[spookyturtle 9,465]

Perhaps if you didn't call everyone who doesn't see things your way a liberal, idiot, stupid, ignorant, moron, moonbat, etc in every post people would take you a bit more seriously? Just a thought.

[Pooky 3,781]

Perhaps if you didn't call everyone who doesn't see things your way a liberal, idiot, stupid, ignorant, moron, moonbat, etc in every post people would take you a bit more seriously? Just a thought.

Ah, an optimist on VJ. Such a rarity these days.

[Penny Lane 8,159]

Perhaps if you didn't call everyone who doesn't see things your way a liberal, idiot, stupid, ignorant, moron, moonbat, etc in every post people would take you a bit more seriously? Just a thought.

The "anti constitutional" part was good too.

[The Nature Boy 4,224]

Perhaps if you didn't call everyone who doesn't see things your way a liberal, idiot, stupid, ignorant, moron, moonbat, etc in every post people would take you a bit more seriously? Just a thought.

You got all that from ..." anti-constitutional liberals"??

I guess I should show more restraint and I after I have been called a RWNJ, gun Nut, and being told I want to see children die for the 5th, time I should not call people Moon bat Liberals,

I guess most of them find the term Liberal offensive, funny thing is I do also.

The "anti constitutional" part was good too.

So what do you call people who want to do things not allowed for by the constitution. ?

Edited January 1, 2013 by Run Herschel Run

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

David A. Keene is president of the National Rifle Association of America.

And I thought you were going to present facts.

[spookyturtle 9,465]

You got all that from ..." anti-constitutional liberals"??

I guess I should show more restraint and I after I have been called a RWNJ, gun Nut, and being told I want to see children die for the 5th, time I should not call people Moon bat Liberals,

I guess most of them find the term Liberal offensive, funny thing is I do also.

So what do you call people who want to do things not allowed for by the constitution. ?

No, I get that from reading your daily posts. You repeat those terms frequently. And your use of those terms generally starts in your original post. I don't have a special name for people who who are against the constitution. Perhaps I should follow your lead and call them ignorant, uneducated, cave dwelling, incest loving, banjo loving, trailer trash conservatives? I'll bet I'd win lots of people over to my way of thinking.

[The Nature Boy 4,224]

And I thought you were going to present facts.

Just like the gun debate. 4 posts from the anti gun crowd and not one fact or substantive comment, only 4 attack the messenger. Thank you for illustrating so clearly what the write of the article was saying.. Bravo folks

[The Nature Boy 4,224]

No, I get that from reading your daily posts. You repeat those terms frequently. And your use of those terms generally starts in your original post. I don't have a special name for people who who are against the constitution. Perhaps I should follow your lead and call them ignorant, uneducated, cave dwelling, incest loving, banjo loving, trailer trash conservatives? I'll bet I'd win lots of people over to my way of thinking.

Well I guess after being called a RWNJ, GUN NUT, wanting to kill kids etc in every post, I do occasionally describe the far left as Moon Bat liberals, liberals etc.. I am never under the illsion I am going to make or resident 4 or 5 far left liberals understand anything logical.

And I thought you were going to present facts.

Facts don't work with you... Free TIP don't build down stream from a damn. :dance:

[Ban Hammer 13,334]

I spoke first and, as my opponent made his way to the microphone, he announced that he wouldn't dignify my arguments with a rebuttal other than to say that "come the revolution," he looked forward to my being put up against a wall and shot. The subsequent standing ovation was quite an endorsement of the value of civil discourse.

the mantra about love and diversity doesn't apply to opposing opinions.

At about the same time, a group of UW students decided to start an alternative conservative newspaper. Reaction came in the form of threats to toss a Molotov cocktail into the paper's office, an idea that couldn't be dismissed on our turbulent campus.

not surprising.

Someone posted on my son's Facebook page that I ought to be killed. When my son and his sister posted in response that that they were not me and that, in any event, they consider me an OK guy whom they don't really want killed, the response was swift: The man suggested that perhaps it would be better that they be killed, "so that your dad can suffer the loss of his children." Nice.

more paragons of liberalism.

[spookyturtle 9,465]

And you spelled violence wrong in your thread title.

We need to work on violence within the bounds of the Constitution and the Second Amendment. Regular handguns kill more people than assault/assault styled weapons. If you get shot with grandpa's side by side, you're just as dead as if hit by and AK round. I'd even be willing to guess that more murders and crimes are committed by *gasp* revolvers, than large capacity semi-auto pistols.

Personally I don't think that banning assault weapons is going to have the desired effect. It's an attempt at appeasement, to make it look like something meaningful is being done. There are millions of these type of firearms in citizens hands already; plenty for a few more decades of mass shootings. Yet most crimes are not committed with these types of weapons, they just get all the publicity. It makes for a good news story, doesn't it? I live in MA, there were two guys shot dead in a car in Brockton a couple of days ago. Did any of you see it on the national news? Read about it on CNN? Of course not. Nothing sensational about a couple of low life, drug dealing gang members, right? We have our share of drive byes in MA too. Funny it's almost always a hand gun that is used. Same for the drive by on bicycle shootings. Lots of teens killed across the country on a daily basis, yet very little publicity.

And of course most domestic violence gun crimes generally use what is found at home, a handgun or hunting rifle or shotgun. Not many get in an argument with their spouse and run out to buy an AR 15.

I for one understand your point when you ask people here about banning guns, if you are for banning guns, you should be for banning the ones used by the majority of shooters, not the ones that account for a small number of deaths. Anyone who is for banning assault weapons should be just as vehement about getting rid of the murder weapon of choice, the handgun. I have yet to see anyone here take that stance. They only want to get rid of assault type weapons and let the widely used ones remain. This seems a bit counter productive, IMO.

The Second Amendment has been tried and tested and stands as it is. I don't think it is going to go away, not for a long time, if ever. The Constitution would need to be amended in order to make any changes in Second Amendment rights. Will this issue ever become big enough so that someone running for Congress will stand up and say I am for changing the Constitution? Are there enough citizens who would vote for enough Representatives to even make this feasible? I doubt it.

So the solution is to work within the confines of what we have. Get to the root causes of the mass shootings and try to make changes. And this will take time. In the meantime, lets do our best to protect our children and citizens. Crime and violence is never going to go away. We should all do our part to help reduce it.

And arguing about it on an immigration forum probably isn't making the best use of ones time to make a difference.

[The Nature Boy 4,224]

And you spelled violence wrong in your thread title.

We need to work on violence within the bounds of the Constitution and the Second Amendment. Regular handguns kill more people than assault/assault styled weapons. If you get shot with grandpa's side by side, you're just as dead as if hit by and AK round. I'd even be willing to guess that more murders and crimes are committed by *gasp* revolvers, than large capacity semi-auto pistols.

Personally I don't think that banning assault weapons is going to have the desired effect. It's an attempt at appeasement, to make it look like something meaningful is being done. There are millions of these type of firearms in citizens hands already; plenty for a few more decades of mass shootings. Yet most crimes are not committed with these types of weapons, they just get all the publicity. It makes for a good news story, doesn't it? I live in MA, there were two guys shot dead in a car in Brockton a couple of days ago. Did any of you see it on the national news? Read about it on CNN? Of course not. Nothing sensational about a couple of low life, drug dealing gang members, right? We have our share of drive byes in MA too. Funny it's almost always a hand gun that is used. Same for the drive by on bicycle shootings. Lots of teens killed across the country on a daily basis, yet very little publicity.

And of course most domestic violence gun crimes generally use what is found at home, a handgun or hunting rifle or shotgun. Not many get in an argument with their spouse and run out to buy an AR 15.

I for one understand your point when you ask people here about banning guns, if you are for banning guns, you should be for banning the ones used by the majority of shooters, not the ones that account for a small number of deaths. Anyone who is for banning assault weapons should be just as vehement about getting rid of the murder weapon of choice, the handgun. I have yet to see anyone here take that stance. They only want to get rid of assault type weapons and let the widely used ones remain. This seems a bit counter productive, IMO.

The Second Amendment has been tried and tested and stands as it is. I don't think it is going to go away, not for a long time, if ever. The Constitution would need to be amended in order to make any changes in Second Amendment rights. Will this issue ever become big enough so that someone running for Congress will stand up and say I am for changing the Constitution? Are there enough citizens who would vote for enough Representatives to even make this feasible? I doubt it.

So the solution is to work within the confines of what we have. Get to the root causes of the mass shootings and try to make changes. And this will take time. In the meantime, lets do our best to protect our children and citizens. Crime and violence is never going to go away. We should all do our part to help reduce it.

And arguing about it on an immigration forum probably isn't making the best use of ones time to make a difference.

By poking fun at my own literary abilities in my sig I know get a free pass on typos .

Agree 100% on your well written post maybe you are not a moon bat liberal

[Ban Hammer 13,334]

Anyone who is for banning assault weapons should be just as vehement about getting rid of the murder weapon of choice, the handgun.

but that would require someone to actually do some research and critical thinking rather than rely on talking points from the left wing media.

[JimandChristy 1,689]

And you spelled violence wrong in your thread title.

We need to work on violence within the bounds of the Constitution and the Second Amendment. Regular handguns kill more people than assault/assault styled weapons. If you get shot with grandpa's side by side, you're just as dead as if hit by and AK round. I'd even be willing to guess that more murders and crimes are committed by *gasp* revolvers, than large capacity semi-auto pistols.

Personally I don't think that banning assault weapons is going to have the desired effect. It's an attempt at appeasement, to make it look like something meaningful is being done. There are millions of these type of firearms in citizens hands already; plenty for a few more decades of mass shootings. Yet most crimes are not committed with these types of weapons, they just get all the publicity. It makes for a good news story, doesn't it? I live in MA, there were two guys shot dead in a car in Brockton a couple of days ago. Did any of you see it on the national news? Read about it on CNN? Of course not. Nothing sensational about a couple of low life, drug dealing gang members, right? We have our share of drive byes in MA too. Funny it's almost always a hand gun that is used. Same for the drive by on bicycle shootings. Lots of teens killed across the country on a daily basis, yet very little publicity.

And of course most domestic violence gun crimes generally use what is found at home, a handgun or hunting rifle or shotgun. Not many get in an argument with their spouse and run out to buy an AR 15.

I for one understand your point when you ask people here about banning guns, if you are for banning guns, you should be for banning the ones used by the majority of shooters, not the ones that account for a small number of deaths. Anyone who is for banning assault weapons should be just as vehement about getting rid of the murder weapon of choice, the handgun. I have yet to see anyone here take that stance. They only want to get rid of assault type weapons and let the widely used ones remain. This seems a bit counter productive, IMO.

The Second Amendment has been tried and tested and stands as it is. I don't think it is going to go away, not for a long time, if ever. The Constitution would need to be amended in order to make any changes in Second Amendment rights. Will this issue ever become big enough so that someone running for Congress will stand up and say I am for changing the Constitution? Are there enough citizens who would vote for enough Representatives to even make this feasible? I doubt it.

So the solution is to work within the confines of what we have. Get to the root causes of the mass shootings and try to make changes. And this will take time. In the meantime, lets do our best to protect our children and citizens. Crime and violence is never going to go away. We should all do our part to help reduce it.

And arguing about it on an immigration forum probably isn't making the best use of ones time to make a difference.

Good points, I think regarding the handgun issue, it has to be made more difficult for someone to own one. If they want a handgun so badly to protect themselves then they'll jump through all the necessary hoops to do so. It's just common sense, some measures that could be implemented before owning one could be:

1) Must pass a Criminal Background Check

2) Must go on a firearms training course, learn how to use, store and own the weapon safely.

3) Must pass a psychiatry evaluation.

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

Restricting firearms sales to honest, law abiding American citizens will do little to prevent violence.

David A. Keene is president of the National Rifle Association of America.

So, he wants dishonest or non-law-abiding or non-US citizens to have firearms as well?