/linked/2017/10/07/frum-on-guns

Comments

anon:
Black people commit murders at 10x the rate of white people. Are we not supposed to talk about this?
3:38 pm — Saturday, 7 October 2017
Patrick Henry, the 2nd:
There so much wrong in a single article, that's it would take so much to correct it. But let's just do the rules:

> 1. The measures to be debated must bear some relationship to the massacre that triggered the debate.

Heaven forbid if the reason we are talking about gun control must have some link to stopping that.

> 2. The debate must focus on unusual weapons and accessories: bump stocks, for example, the villain of the moment.

See response to rule #1

> 3. The debate must always honor the “responsible gun owners” who buy weapons for reasonable self-defense. Under Rule 1, these responsible persons are presumed to constitute the great majority of gun owners.

Given that there are millions gun owners, and only 33K gun deaths, why would that be presumed? And yes, it must honor them, because they make up the overwhelming majority.

> 4. Gun ownership is always to be discussed as a rational choice motivated by reasonable concerns for personal safety.

Because it is. End of story.

--

The rest of the article is similarly wrong. It focuses on the guns, which the statistics say aren't the issue. Even an anti-gun person went and actually looked at the data, and found that gun control doesn't work.

Time to wake up.
4:22 pm — Saturday, 7 October 2017
Out with a Bang:
The gun manufacturers can't wait for a Democrat to be back in office so the paranoia-fueled gun sales go back up.
6:35 pm — Saturday, 7 October 2017
cmdrlinux:
"the alcohol or drug tests for example that are so often recommended for food stamp recipients or teen drivers."

Why would you need to have the same tests to exercise rights granted under the 2nd amendment to social entitlements? What planet are these people on?
9:02 pm — Saturday, 7 October 2017
anonymous:
> Gun ownership is always to be discussed as a rational choice motivated by reasonable concerns for personal safety.
>Because it is. End of story.

bullshit. i own guns, and i have since i was 8 years old. safety was never an issue.

if personal safety were the issue, everyone would own a shotgun, and that's it. please tell me why someone worried about their personal safety needs an AR-15, or a dozen AR-15s, and 10 handguns? they can't use them all at once.

> We analyzed a nationally representative household telephone survey of over 2,750 adults conducted in 2004. We found that 38% of households (45% of men and 11% of women) reported owning at least one firearm. Almost half (48%) of gun owners report owning four or more guns with a few possessing large numbers of guns; 64% of gun owners own at least one handgun. Gun ownership remains widespread, but a smaller percentage of gun owners possess an increasing percentage of the gun stock.
11:11 pm — Saturday, 7 October 2017
anonymous:
>bullshit. i own guns, and i have since i was 8 years old. safety was never an issue.

Of course not. It's a fetish.
11:56 pm — Saturday, 7 October 2017
anonymous:
>bullshit. i own guns, and i have since i was 8 years old. safety was never an issue.

Flaming ammosexual.
2:47 pm — Sunday, 8 October 2017
anonymous:
So the reason the anti-legislation gun owners—which s different from the average gun owner—believes they should have 1) as much armaments as they please, and 2) no gov't being able to say what age, mental health condition, or any other say in the matter, even to the point of the gov't shouldn't even be allowed to know what they're buying and stocking up on is because they may need it to fight the gov't?

So, do any of these people—several have posted on this thread—think that they should be able to buy missiles or build their own nuclear bombs because these are weapons the gov't has? I'm hoping they don't, but if they don't that means they do think there are limits on the type, amount, and devastation of arms citizens should own, which means there argument as to why they feel they need to protect themselves from the gov't is bullshit.

PS: I also bet these people think no other country should have nukes or ICBMs except for the country they live in, which makes them both pussies and hypocrites.
2:54 pm — Sunday, 8 October 2017
anonymous:
>The rest of the article is similarly wrong. It focuses on the guns, which the statistics say aren't the issue. Even an anti-gun person went and actually looked at the data, and found that gun control doesn't work.

It works. That's obvious, and we only need to look at Australia to see that.

Basically you need to stop being such a pussy and man up.
2:56 pm — Sunday, 8 October 2017
Patrick Henry, the 2nd:
> i own guns, and i have since i was 8 years old. safety was never an issue.

I don't believe you own guns.

> if personal safety were the issue, everyone would own a shotgun, and that's it. please tell me why someone worried about their personal safety needs an AR-15, or a dozen AR-15s, and 10 handguns? they can't use them all at once.

No because a shotgun isn't the best self defense tool. Limited rounds and too much penetration.

Why an AR15? Accurate and enough capacity to defend any thing (such as a group of men coming in rob, rape, and/or kill.

Why more than one? If I can't use more than one at a time, what does it matter to you?

7:19 pm — Sunday, 8 October 2017
Patrick Henry, the 2nd:
> 1) as much armaments as they please

Yes

> 2) no gov't being able to say what age, mental health condition, or any other say in the matter, even to the point of the gov't shouldn't even be allowed to know what they're buying and stocking up on is because they may need it to fight the gov't?

Age should be 18 to own, but lower can use with parental consent. People with mental health issues should not have them, assuming they get due process to restrict the right. Yes, the government shouldn't know, because knowing leads to confiscation.

> So, do any of these people—several have posted on this thread—think that they should be able to buy missiles or build their own nuclear bombs because these are weapons the gov't has?

No, because that's not a personal arm.

> I also bet these people think no other country should have nukes or ICBMs except for the country they live in, which makes them both pussies and hypocrites.

Wrong.
7:23 pm — Sunday, 8 October 2017
Patrick Henry, the 2nd:
> It works. That's obvious, and we only need to look at Australia to see that.

Wrong. Its not obvious, in fact the opposite is true. It does not work. Don't take my word for it, take the word of someone who believed in gun control and took the time to look at the data:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/i-used-to-think-gun-control-was-the-answer-my-research-told-me-otherwise/2017/10/03/d33edca6-a851-11e7-92d1-58c702d2d975_story.htm

> Basically you need to stop being such a pussy and man up.

Sexists much? Besides, the only person who needs to step up is you, by looking at the evidence.
7:24 pm — Sunday, 8 October 2017
jimothy:
>It’s out of bounds to observe that “Chicago” is shorthand for “we only have gun crime because of black people”.

Project much? I've never once heard gun rights advocates say any such thing. The reason Chicago is brought up is to show that gun restrictions are at best ineffective, and at worst, counterproductive. Race isn't even a consideration.

Rules 1, 2, 3, and 4 for debating like a leftist: Everything must be related to race, sex, sexual orientation, and gender which is totally not the same thing as sex you cishet white male supremacist!
10:49 pm — Sunday, 8 October 2017
Legion of Bad Ideas:
Obviously the gun is ejaculating over its victims, which is really just another way for men to rape people.
5:14 am — Monday, 9 October 2017
anonymous:
"Sexists much? Besides, the only person who needs to step up is you, by looking at the evidence."

Someone calls you a pussy so you cry and call them *sexist*. Seriously, he/she are right; stop being such a pussy.
6:12 am — Monday, 9 October 2017
anonymous:
> I don't believe you own guns.

i don't care what you believe.

>No because a shotgun isn't the best self defense tool. Limited rounds and too much penetration.

>Why an AR15? Accurate and enough capacity to defend any thing (such as a group of men coming in rob, rape, and/or kill.

this is how i know that you have no idea what you're talking about. a shotgun is a perfect self defense weapon specifically because it lacks penetrating power (ie, won't shoot through your walls into the next room and kill your kid, or into the next house and kill your neighbor when you miss) and it doesn't require accuracy, which is good if someone is invading your home.

your fantasy of using an AR15 to pick off a horde of bad guys that you see coming from a mile away will never happen.
4:13 pm — Monday, 9 October 2017
anonymous:
A strict Federal law on gun control would decrease terrorism in America, but so would a law for a government backdoor for iPhones. Is it consistent to argue for only one of these?
7:12 pm — Monday, 9 October 2017
anonymous:
yes, because one is about privacy, and one is about controlling deadly weapons.
9:05 pm — Monday, 9 October 2017
Gaping Firecock:
It's a constitutional right. It requires no more justification than the exercise of any other right. Why anyone wants to own a gun is not relevant.
5:43 am — Tuesday, 10 October 2017
Gaping Firecock:
>yes, because one is about privacy, and one is about controlling deadly weapons.

Privacy is not in the constitution. The right to bear arms is.
5:43 am — Tuesday, 10 October 2017
John Jobs:
Rule 1 of Daring Fireball: Spend more time blathering about Donald Trump, gun control, and other stupid liberal political causes than you do on Apple and technology.
5:51 am — Tuesday, 10 October 2017
Leave a Comment
To leave a comment, install the Safari extension!