Very interesting article from down under. About Gun Control supporters "dodgy logic"

[virginia mountainman]

A few "choice bits" from the article.

"Owning one firearm is meant to be a privilege," she wittered, "but owning two is meant to be limited to only those who can prove they have a legitimate special need to have more than one firearm. Victorian firearms laws have made it way too easy to gain a second or subsequent firearm."

She is conceding that legitimate shooters can have one gun - but implies that if the same law-abiding citizens own two or more it's somehow going to turn them into Lee Harvey Oswald.

By this logic, a driver can have one car but becomes a menace to society if he has the keys to two. Which is about as sensible as suggesting that if you have two bathrooms in your house you're going to take twice as many showers. It's absurd.

And from the very end..

He wasn't talking about fox-shooting farmers from Swifts Creek. He knows they don't cause much trouble for anyone. That's why they make easy targets for gun control lobbyists who, unlike Guerin, don't have the grit or the wit to draw a bead on the real bad guys.

http://www.heraldsun.com.au/opinion/shot-down-by-dodgy-logic/story-fnbkrbz6-1226243052195

[Atypical Liberal]

1. There is a pervasive idea that the more guns you own the more dangerous you are.

Despite the fact that a human cannot reasonably operate more than two firearms at a time, anti-gun people seem to think that the more firearms you own, the more dangerous you must be.

Of course, when you examine their logic, it's easy to see why they think this way. Firearms, they feel, are horrible, horrible mechanisms. Anyone who desires to own even one is suspicious, but if someone had a desire to own more than one, well that person is just downright dangerous. They must have some kind of mental condition to be attracted to such awful things.

Then there is the "theft" canard that is often tossed about as they blame the victims of theft for the theft.

[E6-B]

6. rampant paranoids

They are afraid but don't know why.

[Hoyt]

11. That always cracks me up when said by folks who strap guns on before venturing out.

[Atypical Liberal]

13. Almost as funny as people who are afraid of people who strap guns on before venturing out.

Considering how such people are less likely to be involved in crime than they are afraid of.

[Remmah2]

12. Try fixing a car with one wrench. nt

nt

[MicaelS]

2. Prohibtion strikes again.

John Howard's gun law reforms were applauded by most of us after the Port Arthur massacre, but the law of unintended consequences has kicked in. Prohibition has done exactly what alcohol prohibition did in the US: Created a black market that organised crime has exploited to the hilt.

[burf]

3. The banners in Australia are having

a problem. The have disarmed a large sector of the population and now gun violence there is increasing. So, their solution, more laws banning guns. But I guess its easier handling the sheep who will obey the law than the wolves who have the guns illegally and don't give a damn what the laws are. If a person is going to commit armed robbery or shoot a person, why should they care they are violating a gun possession law?

[SteveW]

4. Gun banners' problem: Look at that coastline...

"...gun control lobbyists who, unlike Guerin, don't have the grit or the wit to draw a bead on the real bad guys."

This is at the core of gun-control efforts: Smear the gun-owner, and give deference to the crims and thugs (who will get guns anyway) because those people will commit mayhem on you if you try to stop them.

[virginia mountainman]

7. yep

That REALLY cuts to the core of it.. It is so much easier, to smear and attack the typical gun owner... All the while completely giving a pass to the criminals...

Or even in some cases, blaming the gun, an inanimate object for the reason a criminal committed the crime.

[ileus]

5. give them an inch...

[virginia mountainman]

8. They will call it an "end to incrementalism" and get even more aggressive..

Its ALWAYS "just one more law" until they get it passed..

Notice the date......I wonder what happened less than one month later???

Sara Brady sez back in September of 1994.....

More important, it represents an end to incrementalism. The Brady law has proved a tremendous success in keeping guns out of criminal hands at the retail level.

http://www.nytimes.com/1994/09/19/opinion/l-brady-bill-2-would-overhaul-gun-business-272728.html

I wonder what happened to Brady II ???

[E6-B]

9. Compromise

I would be more willing to compromise if gun control advocates were more honest and intelligent.

For instance when Glocks first came out there were supposedly going to be terrorist guns on airplanes. I remember this getting hammered over and over again. Some how the plastic made it impossible to detect. We know this to be false, but they are basically playing the same game. The new catch phrase is the 'loophole'.

[beevul]

10. Theres that word again.

"Compromise"

The problem with that word, is the the anti-gun lobby was allowed to define it, and apply it as such.

Heres how it was defined, and applied:

"they give and we take, and what we didn't get this year, we'll be back for next year" "we give up nothing and get something, ain't it great?"

No more.

If they want actual compromise, its going to mean giving something up. They should get nothing for free, anymore.

[Lurks Often]

14. I wasn't aware that the anti-gun people used "logic"

All I have ever seen is emotion based arguments that ignore facts. And certainly you should never ask a antigun person to back up their statements with unbiased studies like Department of Justice or FBI statistics, that would be rude.

[armueller2001]

15. I think it'd be more than rude..

"Gunner baser toter" rude:c huckle: