They think they can control the discussion.
Obviously the only possible reason to oppose control is because we hate people. It couldn’t possibly be that we want the ability to defend our families and ourselves. Neat trick; demonizing gun owners as unfeeling bastards who don’t value life, while virtue-signalling his own “concern.” Qasim Rashid is a human/civil rights-violating piece of… work, who tries to steer the argument by taking his — entirely unfounded —assumption as fact.
And oh-so-well informed.
I still remember when my older brother wrote to us from US Marine Corps bootcamp to tell us that he’d earned the expert rifleman badge for his firearm. It was the highest possible award that the Marines offered.
The Marines might disagree with that, unless he was attempting to say — rather poorly — that it is the highest rifle marksmanship award.
Rashid also appears fond of another common gun people control tactic: The strawman argument.
Those who oppose responsible gun legislation claim that gun laws won’t work because criminals will still find a way to get guns. By such logic we shouldn’t have any laws at all because, after all, criminals will break them.
That’s comparatively clever, because uses part of the truth, to tell a lie of omission. In fact, we note that criminals will still get guns because the laws his slimy ilk propose always target honest gun owners, not the actual criminals. That last part is rather important. It’s particularly important for victim disarmers to ignore: Never once has any anti-gun legislator (or wannabe like Rashid) ever even attempted to answer the question of how [insert dumbass infringement imposed on honest people] will adversely impact criminals who already obtain arms through unlawful channels.
That question is always guaranteed to result in silence.
More strawmen.
Who can honestly claim that domestic abusers and violent felons deserve easy access to firearms?
Is Rashid proposing that? Because I don’t know any pro-Second Amendment people arguing to arm violent criminals.
Half-truths are another standby for scumbags like Rashid. Let’s see what else he trots out.
After the 1987 Hungerford mass shooting left 16 dead, England enacted meaningful gun reform. England has experienced one mass shooting since.
And 89 dead in vehicle, bomb, and knife attacks. And there were zero mass shootings in the 20th century prior to the Hungerford incident. Based on the fact that the next came after those “meaningful” reforms, you could as easily argue the reforms contributed to the second 20th century occurrence.
But we have to disarm the people, because only government agents can be trusted… Uh oh.
If we go back to 19th century England, all the mass shootings were committed by the government. 18th century: all by government. 17th: government forces again.
After the 1995 Port Arther [sic] mass shooting left 35 dead, Australia enacted responsible gun legislation. Australia has experienced zero mass shootings since.
Wrong. At least 8, since Port Arthur,and sixteen more massacres by other means, accounting for more deaths than the shootings.
Here’s a meaningless “factoid” that sounds impressive, if you don’t actually know a damned thing about the topic.
And after the 2009 Winnendon school shooting left 16 dead, Germany enacted responsible gun legislation. Germany has experienced only one mass shooting since.
Let’s examine that. In post-reunification Germany, there have been 5 mass shootings. From unification to Winnenden, there was an average of 5.6 years between those, with the longest gap being 9.5 years. From Winnenden to the 2016 Munich shooting was 7 years. I really don’t think there’s a trend supporting his alleged point, since the greatest period between shootings was before his “responsible” laws. As with the English “example,” a pedant could easily argue that the changes in German laws made mass shootings more common, on average.
Gaming the assumptions, lies, half-truths, and strawman arguments. It’s as if Rashid were trying to create the ultimate victim disarmament fable. All he left out was bogus “research” with synthetic control groups.
(More Tip Jar Options) |
While I know the statistics and facts are in our favor, I must point out that they are basically irrelevant. As a creation of God, I have the innate responsibility to protect myself and innocent life. To do so, I must have the means and currently that means a firearm although I do look forward to a “phased plasma rifle in the 40 watt range.”
So any talk of disarming me must be so that they can harm me.
Qasim Rashid can go suck a bucket of lemons.
Braden’s comment hit the nail on the head.
Q: How many people have to die for me to give up my guns?
A: All of them.
A similar analisis of Isreal’s history with violence would be informative. They have interesting firearms laws there, most are armed, or could be. Yet the number of mass killings is higher, I believe, in proportion to their population, than even here in the “bloody” USA. HOW can this be? Simple. There ARE factions with members roaming bout freely in Israel who have as their goal the mass destruction of Israel’s people. Bombs and rockets are common there, how many busses are blown up by some improvised bomb each year? Rocket attacks over the border wall? How about tunnel raids where gangs of armed attackers incur to seek their prey? Sure, guns are fairly commonly used to kill, but so are many other means.
Proprotioinal to the number of guns/gun owners in the US, we should be having hundreds of mass gun massacres weekly within our borders. But we do not.
One other factor is conveniently left out in the cold in discussing US “gun violence”, particularly the incidents with large numbers of victims: what percentage of these attacks take place in designated Certified Defenseless Victim Zones (aka “gun free zones”)? And does anyoe have a tally of ATTEMPTED mass shooting incidents where a Good Guy with Gun ended the carnage, either before it was begun or shortly thereaft, thereby keeping the incident off the list of “mass public shootings”? Anyone ever hear of the Clackamas Towne Centre Mall Shooting? Not likley, because there were only TWO victims. Why? Because a Registered Good Guy with Gun ran toward the sound of gunfire, used HIS OWN GUN, and ended the attempt The perp had multiple firearms, and hundreds of rounds of ammunition, and left behind every indication that he intended to keep shooting until he ran out of bullets, or was taken out of action by someone else’s gun. That place was intended to be a Certified Defenseless Victim Zone, but because of carelessness of the owners the mandated by law singnage was not present, thus the gun free meme was not binding. The Good GUy had his gun there knowing it was supposed to be gun free, but that it could not b enforced. All we who know the place are aware of this. And the signs remain unchanged to this day. Three days later, 26 were murdered in a different place on the other side of the country because that “Certified Defenseless Victom Zone was indeed enforced…. for everyone but the perpetrator.
And so with every other mass shooting in the US except for two that I recall. And one of those was ended by Good Guys who took dcisieve action.
Now, back to the EnnZed shootings of recent history: suppose five percent of those present within the two facilities had been armed, and committed to “the security of a free state (society)”? Seems there was one so committed present at the second mosque… he had a gun…… after the perp had tried killing the good Guy with it, but found it empty. Good Guy picked it up and used it as a cudgel, breaking the perp’s side window in his car….. but perp seemed to think it was gunfire, directed at him… and so left, ending hismassacre. Otherwise the toll likely woild have been far higher perhaps double.
The cowering dweebs running EnnZed should have reconsidered their already harsh gun llaws, and determined to assure the likelihood of the next such perp surviving the firing of more than perhaps two rounds would be approachingn zero going forward… and allowing those Kiwi who care to be, to be armed as they go about their daily business. Such massacres WOULD be a thing of the past. And at little to no public expense.
As WE……all know, the gun control arguments are mindless BS spouted by mindless, emotional idiots that never had a rational, objective, truthful thought in their lives.
It ain’t gun control, it’s people control. A concept we need to focus more on, rather than constantly addressing their idiotic emotional blatherings.
Brian at High Impact Flix ( https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8wAx4sJTDIg ) articulates this point very well.
When these people get started I like to ask them if they advertise their good guy, protect the children, humanitarian point of view by posting signs on their property & bumper stickers on their cars proclaiming they own no firearms. After contemplating the obvious downside of doing that, which hopefully might bleed over into their conscious re: the value of their opposition to the 2 A, they just usually stomp off in a huff.
Even they cannot offer an argument to that.