Political Crossfire Forums

[lilwolf]

Granted this is one mans opinion but it is in my opinion a very well written article. This covers the myth of gun control.

Guns are dangerous. But myths are dangerous, too. Myths about guns are very dangerous, because they lead to bad laws. And bad laws kill people.
"Don't tell me this bill will not make a difference," said President Clinton, who signed the Brady Bill into law.

Sorry. Even the federal government can't say it has made a difference. The Centers for Disease Control did an extensive review of various types of gun control: waiting periods, registration and licensing, and bans on certain firearms. It found that the idea that gun control laws have reduced violent crime is simply a myth.

What if it were legal in America for adults to carry concealed weapons? I put that question to gun-control advocate Rev. Al Sharpton. His eyes opened wide, and he said, "We'd be living in a state of terror!"

In fact, it was a trick question. Most states now have "right to carry" laws. And their people are not living in a state of terror. Not one of those states reported an upsurge in crime.

What's the special risk? As Alex Kozinski, a federal appeals judge and an immigrant from Eastern Europe, warned in 2003, "the simple truth -- born of experience -- is that tyranny thrives best where government need not fear the wrath of an armed people."

http://realclearpolitics.com/Commentary/com-10_19_05_JS.html

[lilwolf]

While we all remember the PA shooting here not long back this article gives it another perspective and from the Pennsylnania Governor himself.

RENDELL ADMITS GUN LAWS COULD NOT PREVENT SCHOOL SHOOTING

For Immediate Release: October 3, 2006

In a remarkable moment of candor, Pennsylvania Gov. Ed Rendell today acknowledged what the Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms has been saying for years: Stronger gun laws could not have prevented the horrible shooting yesterday at the Amish school in Lancaster County.

Rendell, a staunch gun control advocate, admitted, “I believe with all my heart that we need more gun control” during a live press conference. But he also acknowledged that tougher gun laws would not have prevented gunman Charles Carl Roberts IV from carrying out his deadly attack, noting, “You can make all the changes you want, but you can never stop a random act of violence by someone intent on taking his own life.”

“Welcome to the party, Gov. Rendell,” said CCRKBA Chairman Alan M. Gottlieb. “While the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence has been wringing its hands and declaring that ‘somebody has got to do something,’ we have consistently maintained that such crimes are impossible to predict, and equally impossible to prevent with passage of yet another gun law. And finally, Gov. Rendell agrees with us.

“The gunman had no criminal or mental health background,” Gottlieb said, “so he would pass any criminal background check. His family and friends described him as a loving family man. Nobody saw this coming.

“This shooting, and the ones last week in Colorado and Wisconsin, and every school shooting in the past ten years all had one thing in common,” he observed. “They all happened in so-called ‘gun-free school zones,’ where students and adult staff are essentially helpless.

“Gun control extremism has disarmed the wrong people and created risk-free environments for those who would commit murder and mayhem,” Gottlieb said. “It is time to re-consider gun-free school zone laws and the zero-tolerance mentality such laws foster. We can no longer afford the empty-headed Utopian illusion that gun control and gun-free zones will keep children safe. Like all other gun control laws, this one has been a monumental failure, and it is literally killing our children.
“If it saves the life of just one child,” Gottlieb concluded, “abolishing such laws will be worth the effort

http://www.ccrkba.org/pub/rkba/press-releases/CC-RELEASE_Pennsylvania.html

[britboy]

lilwolf wrote: While we all remember the PA shooting here not long back this article gives it another perspective and from the Pennsylnania Governor himself.

RENDELL ADMITS GUN LAWS COULD NOT PREVENT SCHOOL SHOOTING

For Immediate Release: October 3, 2006

In a remarkable moment of candor, Pennsylvania Gov. Ed Rendell today acknowledged what the Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms has been saying for years: Stronger gun laws could not have prevented the horrible shooting yesterday at the Amish school in Lancaster County.

Rendell, a staunch gun control advocate, admitted, “I believe with all my heart that we need more gun control” during a live press conference. But he also acknowledged that tougher gun laws would not have prevented gunman Charles Carl Roberts IV from carrying out his deadly attack, noting, “You can make all the changes you want, but you can never stop a random act of violence by someone intent on taking his own life.”

“Welcome to the party, Gov. Rendell,” said CCRKBA Chairman Alan M. Gottlieb. “While the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence has been wringing its hands and declaring that ‘somebody has got to do something,’ we have consistently maintained that such crimes are impossible to predict, and equally impossible to prevent with passage of yet another gun law. And finally, Gov. Rendell agrees with us.

“The gunman had no criminal or mental health background,” Gottlieb said, “so he would pass any criminal background check. His family and friends described him as a loving family man. Nobody saw this coming.

“This shooting, and the ones last week in Colorado and Wisconsin, and every school shooting in the past ten years all had one thing in common,” he observed. “They all happened in so-called ‘gun-free school zones,’ where students and adult staff are essentially helpless.

“Gun control extremism has disarmed the wrong people and created risk-free environments for those who would commit murder and mayhem,” Gottlieb said. “It is time to re-consider gun-free school zone laws and the zero-tolerance mentality such laws foster. We can no longer afford the empty-headed Utopian illusion that gun control and gun-free zones will keep children safe. Like all other gun control laws, this one has been a monumental failure, and it is literally killing our children.
“If it saves the life of just one child,” Gottlieb concluded, “abolishing such laws will be worth the effort

http://www.ccrkba.org/pub/rkba/press-releases/CC-RELEASE_Pennsylvania.html


I believe if the shooter did not have access to a gun, less people would have been shot by him that day.

Anyone new to the forum -- apologies for stating the obvious here. But you just watch -- the pro-gunners will actually dispute this :) Bless them!

[ChuckBerry]

Yes, if you ban and confiscate all guns, all gun crimes will be prevented. But it will not prevent violent criimes from being committed. The September 11th attacks were committed with box knives, because that was an adequate means of attack given the circumstances. Close one door, and those bent on committing violent crimes find a window......

[lilwolf]

CCD... that is logic, well said :tu:

[Green]

britboy wrote:
I believe if the shooter did not have access to a gun, less people would have been shot by him that day.

Anyone new to the forum -- apologies for stating the obvious here. But you just watch -- the pro-gunners will actually dispute this :) Bless them! bless them, f**k gun control

Get me to Montereal ,Canada and a few grand, and I will get you plenty of banned assault weapons. It is very easy to get any weapon you want. More security means only black market pressure. If one of the victims had had a pistol, then this trajedy would not have happened. And don't give me bull s**t about the Amish don't believe in modern technology. The Amish were founded hundreds of years after this guy walked on a battlefeild with these old fashioned (more so than Amish standards) guns.

[The Newb]

Quote: I believe if the shooter did not have access to a gun, less people would have been shot by him that day.

Anyone new to the forum -- apologies for stating the obvious here. But you just watch -- the pro-gunners will actually dispute this Bless them!

and i believe that if fewer people were scared of guns he would have been shot that day

[lilwolf]

I would also say that these four wise men did not support gun control at all. :lol: :lol:





Now these are my kind of people. 8:)

[micfranklin]

Quote: I believe if the shooter did not have access to a gun, less people would have been shot by him that day.

Anyone new to the forum -- apologies for stating the obvious here. But you just watch -- the pro-gunners will actually dispute this Bless them!

Well guess what? The shooter could've used a sword or knife or chainsaw and gored those people to death as well.

[leftneckredwing]

Green wrote: britboy wrote:
I believe if the shooter did not have access to a gun, less people would have been shot by him that day.

Anyone new to the forum -- apologies for stating the obvious here. But you just watch -- the pro-gunners will actually dispute this :) Bless them! bless them, f**k gun control

Get me to Montereal ,Canada and a few grand, and I will get you plenty of banned assault weapons. It is very easy to get any weapon you want. More security means only black market pressure. If one of the victims had had a pistol, then this trajedy would not have happened. And don't give me bull s**t about the Amish don't believe in modern technology. The Amish were founded hundreds of years after this guy walked on a battlefeild with these old fashioned (more so than Amish standards) guns.



Yep, a little known and never advertised fact is that you can get anything you want in Quebec. Anything at all. Anytime at all. Everyone knows it, but no one says it.

The Amish, Mennonites and Hutterites here all have guns. There is nothing wrong or evil in gun ownership. But anti gunners, bless them, think crime will stop if guns are banned. Yet, it is ok to have a medicine chest filled with lethal drugs that kids could pass around to their buddies, that it is ok to sell and consume alcohol, the deadliest toxin on earth, but mention guns and they hit the roof. And never with any thought that what they would take is far more than a gun. And with less regard for the people they take it from.

[leftneckredwing]

micfranklin wrote: Quote: I believe if the shooter did not have access to a gun, less people would have been shot by him that day.

Anyone new to the forum -- apologies for stating the obvious here. But you just watch -- the pro-gunners will actually dispute this Bless them!

Well guess what? The shooter could've used a sword or knife or chainsaw and gored those people to death as well.

Oh hell, he could just drive a dump truck through the school. And no one talks about banning dump trucks.

Gun bans are a knee jerk reaction by emotionally weak and unstable hand wringers.

[micfranklin]

leftneckredwing wrote: micfranklin wrote: Quote: I believe if the shooter did not have access to a gun, less people would have been shot by him that day.

Anyone new to the forum -- apologies for stating the obvious here. But you just watch -- the pro-gunners will actually dispute this Bless them!

Well guess what? The shooter could've used a sword or knife or chainsaw and gored those people to death as well.

Oh hell, he could just drive a dump truck through the school. And no one talks about banning dump trucks.

Gun bans are a knee jerk reaction by emotionally weak and unstable hand wringers.

The bastard could've even set a bomb off in the school and killed everyone, but no one's brought that up. Anyway, banning guns will mean the death of America, to say the least.

[Green]

micfranklin wrote:
The bastard could've even set a bomb off in the school and killed everyone, but no one's brought that up. Anyway, banning guns will mean the death of America, to say the least.
The death of democracy to say the least

[leftneckredwing]

micfranklin wrote: leftneckredwing wrote: micfranklin wrote: Quote: I believe if the shooter did not have access to a gun, less people would have been shot by him that day.

Anyone new to the forum -- apologies for stating the obvious here. But you just watch -- the pro-gunners will actually dispute this Bless them!

Well guess what? The shooter could've used a sword or knife or chainsaw and gored those people to death as well.

Oh hell, he could just drive a dump truck through the school. And no one talks about banning dump trucks.

Gun bans are a knee jerk reaction by emotionally weak and unstable hand wringers.

The bastard could've even set a bomb off in the school and killed everyone, but no one's brought that up. Anyway, banning guns will mean the death of America, to say the least.

Amen Brother! I'm not expecting it to happen, unless we elect more hand wringers.

[Optimusdinkus]

What I think? its the dumbest f***ing issue that is contested by the leftists, while medicare, and f***ing SCHOOLS should take precidence, or how students still get f****d in loans when they should be rewarded for such a great task of graduation without the ability to rise economically....whatever (f**k u bush is all I got to say). Guns are like water and food and gas, a nessecity in economic terms. Lord of war was also a great film.

[lilwolf]

Optimusdinkus wrote: What I think? its the dumbest f***ing issue that is contested by the leftists, while medicare, and f***ing SCHOOLS should take precidence, or how students still get f****d in loans when they should be rewarded for such a great task of graduation without the ability to rise economically....whatever (f**k u bush is all I got to say). Guns are like water and food and gas, a nessecity in economic terms. Lord of war was also a great film.


Having a bad day are we...? :lol:

[micfranklin]

lilwolf wrote: I would also say that these four wise men did not support gun control at all. :lol: :lol:





Now these are my kind of people. 8:)

It'd be so much better for us if we listened to them. They are a part of history, and even peaceful people respect gun use.

[lilwolf]

Yes, but remember we who understand and appreciate our right to own are bad. These four wise men in that little poster speak volumes to those that are afraid of guns ....I like the poster.

[britboy]

lilwolf wrote: Yes, but remember we who understand and appreciate our right to own are bad. These four wise men in that little poster speak volumes to those that are afraid of guns ....I like the poster.

Would you like to live in a society where you knew you would never need to resort to using a gun to defend yourself?

I live in that place. It's nice. I feel sorry for you and the fact you don't believe such a place can even exist -- when I actually live there! It's kind of sad, but also kind of funny.

[perdidochas]

britboy wrote: lilwolf wrote: Yes, but remember we who understand and appreciate our right to own are bad. These four wise men in that little poster speak volumes to those that are afraid of guns ....I like the poster.

Would you like to live in a society where you knew you would never need to resort to using a gun to defend yourself?

I live in that place. It's nice. I feel sorry for you and the fact you don't believe such a place can even exist -- when I actually live there! It's kind of sad, but also kind of funny.

Well, from what I've heard of England, it's not that sort of place. I don't believe such a place can possibly exist. It's an impossible dream.