I can go buy a tool that has the power to end multiple people’s lives, and it wouldn’t take me very long or that many resources.  You can offer the, “oh, they’re ah-regulating us” argument (which has been moving at a snail’s pace relative to other first-world nation’s progress in terms of gun control), but at the end of the day you have access to most everything you can ask for in regards to handheld weaponry.

There may be people out there who want to come for your guns, but if they couldn’t succeed after Sandy Hook then your guns are fully protected and good to go and tonight we will sleep a glorious and restful sleep knowing that after multiple children were killed in their own school that NOTHING was pushed through on gun control.  A few dead children or innocents every year is simply the price we pay is all.  We salute them for their sacrifice, but it’s far more important we have our guns than to try to stem massacres like that.

– Grothesk (Anti-Gun Forum Member)


I’m of the belief that if we banned guns 100% outright – that we would still have guns on the streets being used as tools in violent crimes, (criminals won’t turn them in, some legal gun owners won’t, they can be built, imported illegally, or stolen / bought from those we would still entrust them to).

Additionally I’m also of the belief that if you remove the specific tool, this does not remove the motives or the means to do harm. What kind of equipment would I need to murder a bunch of kindergartners? I dunno, a lead pipe? An Axe or Ford F250? I don’t need an AR15 to attack children and unarmed civilians in a ‘gun free zone’.

The ‘Happy Land Fire’ was an arson attack that killed 87. The ‘Bath massacre’ killed 45 in a school with commercial explosives. Oklahoma bombing killed 168 using store bought fertilizer. Heck on the day of the Sandy Hook shooting, some whack job stabbed 24 at an elementary school in China. (Never mind 9/11). Bad people doing bad things, even without guns, because you can’t regulate away crazy.

Like the old adage says “if there is a will, there is a way”.

This is usually where you concede that banning guns outright, would not remove gun violence/crime outright (because it won’t), but isn’t it worth a shot if it helps save a life/lives/cuts the number etc.? (In your words “Try to stem massacres”). Well – that’s a very fair argument, that I am willing to discuss.

The argument I think essentially boils down to “You should surrender individual liberty, in exchange for community safety”. And that is not an unreasonable argument, you can’t drive 200MPH through a school zone, or perform surgery while drunk/high. We make sacrifices like that every day to ensure the safety of all. Where I take offense to this argument is that on the issue of guns (and only on the issue of guns) it often becomes black and white. “If we could save just ONE childs life, isn’t it worth it?” No – sorry, its not that easy. There is weight to the pros and cons – it is not absolute.

Currently the speed limit in CA highways is 65. If we reduced the speed limit to 60 I assure you, at least one life would be spared. As we lowered the speed limit to 50,45, 20 and so on, more and more people would be saved. But do we do it? No – because the convenience of getting from point A to point B 5 minutes faster outweighs the value of the lives that would be saved.

Religion and Expression/Speech have killed more people historically than all the mass murderers combined, but we don’t stop the Klan from having their annual parade down the street, or censor the Westboro Baptist Church from spreading their message of religious hate. Why? Because we value the ability and freedom to express our opinion (no matter how distasteful) more than the lives that could be saved by preventing this kind of toxcicity in our culture.

(Example: Aug 4th man arrested, could face up to 3 years for performing a Hitler Salute in public.

Germany has got their shit together – why don’t we do that?)

We could outright ban alcohol or at least limit the legal BAH in public to 0.0% to prevent “buzzed driving” or prevent people from making unsound choices while intoxicated (never mind lives actually lost to alcohol use). But we don’t, why? Because we still have hopes that people can enjoy their liberties, if they take responsibility for their actions.

In all cases of personal liberty BUT firearms, can we say that we value our freedom to X, more than we value to lives that would be saved if we further regulated or restricted X – without sounding like a total asshole. And I don’t think that is fair.

Why do I support gun ownership?

Essentially – firearms are the great equalizer. I’ve lived on and off in some pretty bad neighborhoods where safety is a real issue. Never once have I specifically worried “I hope I don’t get shot”. Why? Because as noted above – it’s not needed, it’s overkill. If 5 unarmed dudes walk up to me on the street and demand my wallet – they are going to get it. I have no delusions of going Steven Seagal on their asses and coming out on top. If I had a firearm, the odds are flipped 180* – they don’t have a chance. (As an aside, about 3 months ago a friend of a friend was mugged on the street, they asked for his wallet, he gave it up instantly, they then took his wallet and beat him anyway – ended up with a punctured lung, broken ribs, broken eye socket and I think a couple others. He was fucked up enough that his wedding this summer had to be postponed.) It is in the nature of criminals to be predatory – they will attack when they have the advantage of numbers, strength, weapons or surprise. A firearm is your only hope of being put on level footing.

This goes doubly so for those less able to protect themselves, I’m 6ft Combat Vet that is 200 lbs of mean motherfucker – and as I noted before, I know my limitations in a fight. My wonderful girlfriend (that means the absolute world to me) is 5’6 110lbs with wrists about the size of a half dollar. She doesn’t have a mean bone in her body and couldn’t protect herself in a fight if her life depended on it – however she is a crack shot and with only 1 day of instruction can sink 6/6 shots center mass every time. The gun gives her the power to be self reliant, where without it she would be wholly at the mercy of her attackers (regardless of it they were armed or not). Essentially I believe that rendering good people helpless, does not render bad people harmless.

I’m just being a realist. I’ve seen violence first hand, and I’d prefer to prevent my loved ones from being victims. There are bad people in this world (criminals), there are crazy people in this world (mass murderers), there are opportunists (Black Lives Matter riots), and there are good people who are doing what they have to do to survive (Katrina victims, a situation that could *easily* be replicated in California). Disarming me, may reduce my chances of being specifically shot, but it ultimately does not keep me safer from any of them. *PHEW* Ok groth. Just a heads up that I won’t bother to continue this conversation, you can reply if you like and I might read it, but I won’t reply in kind just because this is already too much damn typing. Sorry to dip out, but I have faith we could do this forever and get nowhere. Cheers.

-N M E (2nd Amendment Supporter)

by | Categories: Uncategorized | Comments Off on Eloquent Response to Common Anti-Gun Talking Points