Debunking The 14 Biggest Gun Control Lies

[Peikko 1,575]

You can't debate a closed door. Just disengage unless an open mind presents itself.

It's quite hard to contradict reality. I checked out his links, he claimed that there is an 'anti-gun' lobby who are out to get his/your guns. From his own links, there is nothing remotely like that being said. Makes you think, no? No, probably doesn't.

[Sousuke 1,214]

Who states that most children are killed by guns? For it to be a 'myth' someone has to believe it. Who does? If no one believes the myth then it doesn't need to be debunked, does it? No one believes that most children are killed by guns, it's not something anyone has ever postulated, it's not a MYTH because NO ONE BELIEVES IT. Do you not even know what a straw man argument is???

The child aspect probably derives from the statistic of african american children. IE it is true that african american children are more likely to die from firearms due to gang violence.

On the whole though, I agree with this article with the exception that I do fall into the camp of people that believe all private party transfers (whether at a gun show or on the street) should be required to run a background check. The system is in place to do so.

In fact, on the national level, if people were to dump their attacks on the made up term 'assault weapon' which frankly can be redefined to mean anything with the flip of the coin; dump the notion of magazine capacities (which is worthless - and by the way the aurora attacker's gun jammed because he was using a novelty drum magazine. IE a super large magazine, being unreliable, actually saved people's lives); and finally ammo registration (people are already checked once, why make them jump through hoops again) then I believe gun owners and their lobbiests would negotiate for the PPT background check system. It would tighten laws slightly in most states and at the same time roll back many draconian laws in NY, CA, CT & MASS.

[The Nature Boy 4,224]

The child aspect probably derives from the statistic of african american children. IE it is true that african american children are more likely to die from firearms due to gang violence.

On the whole though, I agree with this article with the exception that I do fall into the camp of people that believe all private party transfers (whether at a gun show or on the street) should be required to run a background check. The system is in place to do so.

In fact, on the national level, if people were to dump their attacks on the made up term 'assault weapon' which frankly can be redefined to mean anything with the flip of the coin; dump the notion of magazine capacities (which is worthless - and by the way the aurora attacker's gun jammed because he was using a novelty drum magazine. IE a super large magazine, being unreliable, actually saved people's lives); and finally ammo registration (people are already checked once, why make them jump through hoops again) then I believe gun owners and their lobbiests would negotiate for the PPT background check system. It would tighten laws slightly in most states and at the same time roll back many draconian laws in NY, CA, CT & MASS.

Great post. I have said on here many times, the reason we can't get sensible gun reforms, is because every time some nut job shoots up a place, theleft leads with absolutely meaningless stupidity like assault weapon bans, ammo capacity and other ####### that is nothing more than poorly informed hysteria.

Then NRA memberships soar, they galvanize sensible people with any gun knowledge and nothing gets done.

Assault weapons or so called assault weapons, statistically, account for a very very small fraction of gun deaths.

[Leatherneck 693]

You aren't interested in other opinions period. You stubbornly believe that anyone that is advocating creating safer conditions for those around those who own guns is after your guns. That's as asinine as it gets.

You don't comprehend well, do you?

Let me help you -- my debating has not changed any minds, not theirs or mine. You can stop with the "safer conditions" spill, of course the real intent can't be revealed -- sell that BS to a newbie to the gun control debate.

Bit of a stretch for you to exclaim "You aren't interested in others opinions period" because of not debating others with intrenched views opposite of my views on gun control.

[Peikko 1,575]

You don't comprehend well, do you?

Let me help you -- my debating has not changed any minds, not theirs or mine. You can stop with the "safer conditions" spill, of course the real intent can't be revealed -- sell that BS to a newbie to the gun control debate.

Bit of a stretch for you to exclaim "You aren't interested in others opinions period" because of not debating others with intrenched views opposite of my views on gun control.

So you believe that these sincere groups of people who want to ensure greater safety in the home by suggesting that questions are asked about gun storage are secretly trying to have your guns forcibly removed from you? What evidence do you have of this? Seriously, for you to make this claim you need to have some kind of credible evidence that the clear agenda they promote on their site is not actually the agenda they follow behind closed doors. If it's a secret agenda, how are they going to pull it off? Does having a conversation about safe gun storage somehow damage the ability of gun owners to own guns? I really don't see how that works and rather makes you look paranoid even if you are not.

I guess it's not surprising you think that there is an anti gun crowd and that this crowd puts forward the 'myths' that are debunked in the article under these circumstances and any attempt to bring you into the light of day is just a waste of time.

[Peikko 1,575]

Great post. I have said on here many times, the reason we can't get sensible gun reforms, is because every time some nut job shoots up a place, theleft leads with absolutely meaningless stupidity like assault weapon bans, ammo capacity and other ####### that is nothing more than poorly informed hysteria.

Then NRA memberships soar, they galvanize sensible people with any gun knowledge and nothing gets done.

Assault weapons or so called assault weapons, statistically, account for a very very small fraction of gun deaths.

It rather seems from the article and the posts from some members on this website that the real problem is that there is a vocal minority among with gun owners who see things that are not there. There may be people who want to have guns banned, period but no actual evidence for it has been put forward to prove that this is true. If you can't see those who advocate greater gun safety in the home as people who advocate greater gun safety in the home but rather as people who are secretly trying to change the law to prevent you having a gun at all, then I am not sure how a sensible conversation can proceed. Your entire premise for hating on the left is false, as are the 'myths' in the article.

Edited May 18, 2014 by The Truth™

[The Nature Boy 4,224]

It rather seems from the article and the posts from some members on this website that the real problem is that there is a vocal minority among with gun owners who see things that are not there. There may be people who want to have guns banned, period but no actual evidence for it has been put forward to prove that this is true. If you can't see those who advocate greater gun safety in the home as people who advocate greater gun safety in the home but rather as people who are secretly trying to change the law to prevent you having a gun at all, then I am not sure how a sensible conversation can proceed. Your entire premise for hating on the left is false, as are the 'myths' in the article.

I took a peek at this out of curiosity

Have you ever wonder why you have responded to me 100's of times with no reply

Think about it

[Peikko 1,575]

I took a peek at this out of curiosity

Have you ever wonder why you have responded to me 100's of times with no reply

Think about it

Why on earth do you think I care whether you respond to anything I post or not? I am however perfectly at liberty to respond to the things you post if I choose to do so. You seem to be labouring under some misapprehension, you are not obligated to post in response to anything I post about and I am not obligated to care if you do or do not. Now, put me back on ignore, there's a good chap and this thread can get back on topic, the topic being that there are a large vocal minority of gun owners who think that the vast majority of those who want to increase the safety of those who choose not to own guns or have them in he home are trying to steal your guns out your hands. You are totally wrong.

[Leatherneck 693]

No where on this website is there any mention at all of trying to have guns banned. What is being asked for is more responsibility from gun owners regarding the storage of guns in the home. Talk about the biggest straw man out there. keep crying wolf.

Oh I see what you did there -- don't think I was not aware of your cunning attempt get me to offer up links so you could do exactly what you did -- use what is not written on those sites to say "see, no one wants to take your guns.'

Like I mentioned, sell that 'gun safety' BS to a newbie to the gun control debate. You either don't read well or you purposely overlooked Our History on the The Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence site. As plain as day, for the world to see -- they mention one of their first project's.

Our History

Over the last two decades, the Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence has grown to become the leading resource on firearms law and policy in the United States.

On July 1, 1993, an assault weapon rampage at a law firm at 101 California Street in San Francisco ended with eight dead — in addition to the shooter — and six wounded. This horrific act was felt throughout Bay Area communities, but none more so than within the legal community. Within days of the shooting, Bay Area lawyers responded by forming the organization Legal Community Against Violence (LCAV).

One of LCAV’s first projects was to mobilize the Bay Area legal community to support enactment of the 1994 federal assault weapon ban. We then concentrated our efforts on California, providing legal assistance to California communities seeking to adopt and defend local gun regulations. Our services contributed to the adoption of hundreds of California firearms ordinances, many of which inspired state legislation that now places California at the forefront of gun policy reform. We learned that we could make the greatest difference and meet the greatest need by working at the state and local level.

Now, assuming you're not color blind, after you read the bold, red, underlined type -- you can stop with the 'straw man' BS, the 'safe gun storage' non-sense, and the drivel about 'more responsibility' for gun owners. There are already state and federal laws regarding handgun storage.

What are the chances that group of lawyers spends their effort supporting

(a) free Girl Scout cookies for all

(b) less gun laws that are favorable to gun rights supporters

© more gun laws that are even more restrictive than the previous laws they supported

I say "c."

[Peikko 1,575]

Oh I see what you did there -- don't think I was not aware of your cunning attempt get me to offer up links so you could do exactly what you did -- use what is not written on those sites to say "see, no one wants to take your guns.'

Like I mentioned, sell that 'gun safety' BS to a newbie to the gun control debate. You either don't read well or you purposely overlooked Our History on the The Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence site. As plain as day, for the world to see -- they mention one of their first project's.

Our History

Over the last two decades, the Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence has grown to become the leading resource on firearms law and policy in the United States.

On July 1, 1993, an assault weapon rampage at a law firm at 101 California Street in San Francisco ended with eight dead — in addition to the shooter — and six wounded. This horrific act was felt throughout Bay Area communities, but none more so than within the legal community. Within days of the shooting, Bay Area lawyers responded by forming the organization Legal Community Against Violence (LCAV).

One of LCAV’s first projects was to mobilize the Bay Area legal community to support enactment of the 1994 federal assault weapon ban. We then concentrated our efforts on California, providing legal assistance to California communities seeking to adopt and defend local gun regulations. Our services contributed to the adoption of hundreds of California firearms ordinances, many of which inspired state legislation that now places California at the forefront of gun policy reform. We learned that we could make the greatest difference and meet the greatest need by working at the state and local level.

Now, assuming you're not color blind, after you read the bold, red, underlined type -- you can stop with the 'straw man' BS, the 'safe gun storage' non-sense, and the drivel about 'more responsibility' for gun owners. There are already state and federal laws regarding handgun storage.

What are the chances that group of lawyers spends their effort supporting

(a) free Girl Scout cookies for all

(b) less gun laws that are favorable to gun rights supporters

© more gun laws that are even more restrictive than the previous laws they supported

I say "c."

Wanting to ban specific types of weapons, whatever those types may be is still not an attempt to ban gun ownership although I can see why you might want to give the impression that it is. I am not interested in the arguments about which type of gun is and isn't suitable for private ownership aside from fully automated weapons/missile launchers etc. There may be those who are, and they may have perfectly good arguments for these views or they may not. None of this changes the fact that there isn't an organised attempt to remove guns from private ownership. You are arguing that there is. That argument is disingenuous and is an attempt I would imagine to deflect from the real problems that have been exposed countless times about the number of gun owners who are careless to the point of criminality with their weapons in the home.

[Jacque67 7,328]

This reminds me of The House of Commons.

The article is merely being sensationalist by using stupid tactics such as MYTH yada yada, FACT yada yada.

Don't fall into the cheap trap!

And no one on this thread is going to change their own opinions on the matter.

Good fun though!

Edited May 19, 2014 by Jacque67

[Leatherneck 693]

So you believe that these sincere groups of people who want to ensure greater safety in the home by suggesting that questions are asked about gun storage are secretly trying to have your guns forcibly removed from you? What evidence do you have of this? Seriously, for you to make this claim you need to have some kind of credible evidence that the clear agenda they promote on their site is not actually the agenda they follow behind closed doors. If it's a secret agenda, how are they going to pull it off? Does having a conversation about safe gun storage somehow damage the ability of gun owners to own guns? I really don't see how that works and rather makes you look paranoid even if you are not.

I guess it's not surprising you think that there is an anti gun crowd and that this crowd puts forward the 'myths' that are debunked in the article under these circumstances and any attempt to bring you into the light of day is just a waste of time.

You wouldn't acknowledge "credible evidence" if presented unequivocally, because you aren't interested in facts -- you seek to make those that disagree with you appear as "paranoid."

That small list of gun control groups I noted are all cut from the same cloth -- some are members of larger coalitions that have in the past or at their very founding advocated outright gun bans. You're no idiot, no individual or a group joins a coalition if they disagree with the broader message of the coalition.

That "gun storage" nonsense is rather silly and very disingenuous -- might be a nice talking point to the less informed.

1. Coalition to Stop Gun Violence -- did a name change in 1989, the original name -- National Coalition to Ban Handguns.

The name change was prompted by its view that "assault rifles" needed to be banned.

Michael K. Beard

President of the Coalition to Stop Gun Violence

"Our goal is to not allow anybody to buy a handgun. In the meantime, we think there ought to be strict licensing and regulation. Ultimately, that may mean it would require court approval to buy a handgun.", 6 December 1993, Washington Times

2. National Council to Control Handguns formed in 1974 -- became Handgun Control, Inc -- which was later renamed Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence in honor of James Brady. Surely you know who Mr. Brady is.

Nelson "Pete" Shields III, known as "Peter Shields"

Founder of Handgun Control, Inc., now the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence

"We'll take one step at a time, and the first is necessarily ... given the political realities ... very modest. We'll have to start working again to strengthen the law, and then again to strengthen the next law and again and again. Our ultimate goal, total control of handguns, is going to take time. The first problem is to make possession of all handguns and ammunition (with a few exceptions) totally illegal.", 26 June 1976, New Yorker Magazine

[Peikko 1,575]

You wouldn't acknowledge "credible evidence" if presented unequivocally, because you aren't interested in facts -- you seek to make those that disagree with you appear as "paranoid."

That small list of gun control groups I noted are all cut from the same cloth -- some are members of larger coalitions that have in the past or at their very founding advocated outright gun bans. You're no idiot, no individual or a group joins a coalition if they disagree with the broader message of the coalition.

That "gun storage" nonsense is rather silly and very disingenuous -- might be a nice talking point to the less informed.

1. Coalition to Stop Gun Violence -- did a name change in 1989, the original name -- National Coalition to Ban Handguns.

The name change was prompted by its view that "assault rifles" needed to be banned.

Michael K. Beard

President of the Coalition to Stop Gun Violence

"Our goal is to not allow anybody to buy a handgun. In the meantime, we think there ought to be strict licensing and regulation. Ultimately, that may mean it would require court approval to buy a handgun.", 6 December 1993, Washington Times

2. National Council to Control Handguns formed in 1974 -- became Handgun Control, Inc -- which was later renamed Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence in honor of James Brady. Surely you know who Mr. Brady is.

Nelson "Pete" Shields III, known as "Peter Shields"

Founder of Handgun Control, Inc., now the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence

"We'll take one step at a time, and the first is necessarily ... given the political realities ... very modest. We'll have to start working again to strengthen the law, and then again to strengthen the next law and again and again. Our ultimate goal, total control of handguns, is going to take time. The first problem is to make possession of all handguns and ammunition (with a few exceptions) totally illegal.", 26 June 1976, New Yorker Magazine

This is still not an attempt to take away the right of the US citizen to own guns. Once again you fail to prove our own point with your own evidence. Read it, it's talking about hand guns. Hand guns are a specific type of weapon the ins and outs of why a particular group wants to restrict particular weapons I am not really that interested in. Going from this published and open agenda to an outright ban on gun ownership is a massive and unsubstantiated leap. Why are you so afraid of discussing home safety and responsible gun use and storage? Why would you not be in favour of these types of discussions?

[ready4ONE 5,400]

Would that include you?

That would indeed include me. Guns don't make anyone safer. If you are all right with that fact, own and possess all the guns you want as far as I am concerned.

[Harpa Timsah 13,258]