But how can you argue against gun control in this day and age? Actually, how can you argue against the abolition of your "right to bear arms"? Are you guys blind?
"...But how can you argue against
speech control in this day and age? (I.E. censorship) People die all the time because of speech abuse!"
"Don't you remember how fundamentalist Muslims reacted to the Satanic Verses, or how fundamentalist Muslims reacted to the Danish Muhammad cartoons, or how the fundamentalist Muslims reacted to the Innocence of the Muslims? In each case; fundamentalist Muslims rioted, because they couldn't focus their collective rage on the actual source, and tried threatening, harming, or killing a unrelated third party. So it is necessary to limit
all speech to prevent fundamentalist Muslims from threatening, harming, or killing (yet another)
unrelated third group."
Having said that, calling disarmament "gun control" was a brilliant bit of marketing and rebranding, because who wants be against "
getting guns off the street" and "
get guns out of the hands of criminals"; as it's one of those: "
Have you stopped beating your wife?"-types of semantic traps.
However, in this case, the "
getting guns off the street"-bit
always omits one key word; "
-legal". What disarmament-types are really advocating is: "
getting legal guns off the street", and the second part: "
get guns out of the hands of criminals" is meaningless, because more laws mandating registration, background checks, and the like, don't actually affect
actual crimes committed by
actual criminals, because... well... surprise, surprise; CRIMINALS DON'T
ACTUALLY OBEY THE LAW.
The vast majority of criminals who use guns in the commission of a crime (which statistically, in America, are mostly gang-bangers and/or drug dealers in highly-urbanized city areas, fighting over injuries to their small... er... egos and/or turf) will NEVER submit to a background check or registration or be limited by having a felon-status, because the guns criminals use are acquired via illegal means: either having been stolen, illegally sold, or smuggled in.
The United Kingdom banned guns, but is still affected by gun-crime. In fact:
a resident of the U.K. is three times more likely to be assaulted with a weapon, statistically, than an American. Your disarmament... er... "gun control", only makes it harder for people who
want to obey the law to do so.
So,
HOW DARE WE GUN OWNERS TRY TO DEFEND OUR RIGHTS because an unrelated third party broke the law. How can we be so blind?
