-
If you enjoy the forum please consider supporting it by signing up for a NES Membership The benefits pay for the membership many times over.
Can A Legitimate Case Be Made For Gun Control?
- Thread starter wahsben
- Start date
Did you read the article? The article is pretty much arguing that there isn't a legitimate argument for gun control.Sounds like we have a pool of dr's playing politician that should spend more time helping the sick than trying to tell people how to live their lives......
Especially after the johns hopkins study a year or two back that reveals that at least 250k people die (are killed) due to medical malpractice every year.....
Compared to what......12-14k murders with firearms of all kinds on average each year in a population of 310 million plus another 40-50 million illegal aliens?
Lets call it an even 350 million for back of envelope calc given ~13k firearm murders every year.......what is that...about 3.7/100k?
Even by the CDC's own data there are much bigger fish to fry by orders of magnitude......
When you throw in defensive uses of firearms between 750k and ~1.2 million times every year.......there's no LOGICAL argument for gun control
That Time The CDC Asked About Defensive Gun Uses
Why did the CDC fail to publish 1990s research on numbers of defensive gun uses?www.forbes.com
Here is an excerpt from the article: The fact is, there ain’t no new “truth” or legitimate study showing that expanded background checks, bans on certain firearms or any of the other popularly bloviated “truths” diminish gun violence. The word legitimate is key because, while there have been and are academic studies concluding the opposite, all I am aware of have been discredited.First of all.....the name of the group should set off warning flags
Read their mission statement
Just another bunch of Md's that think they should be dictating policy/how civil rights are handed out or "managed"...they just dont happen to agree 100% with the AMA
If you think their on your side you better guess again.....just another group of tyrants trying to split the baby.
Further, the article was written by a fmr CNN reporter and originally published in vox
No where in the article did the author actually come out and make a full throated opposition to the decades and decades of gun control
So, forgive me if I take the article, its publishers etc with a bucket of salt......
The article was posted in DRGO but not written by them. It also says this at the beginning of the article:
[Ed: This article was just published in the California Rifle & Pistol Association’s November-December issue of Firing Line. DRGO constantly evaluates and publicizes the illegitimacy of “gun control research”. We were delighted to see Dan Gifford address this likewise.]
So I'd say this article is saying a legitimate case can't be made for gun control even if DRGO may believe that there is some they would consider legitimate.
I don't agree with gun control at all and I thought this article made a good point that gun control has been ineffective in doing what it's proponents claim that's why I posted it actually a couple of months ago now so I don't know why it seems to be such a hot topic of discussion now.
- Joined
- Apr 24, 2005
- Messages
- 47,528
- Likes
- 33,545
In this context "legitimate" is a meaningless word, as it means different things to different people. Someone who believes in absolute subservience to the state would believe with equal sincerity that there is no legitimate case for private gun ownership. Assertions like this are as meaningless as starting an argument by tell the other party "you know I am right".
Yes there are those that consider anything they do as being legitimate. The article points out that what the antis claim is legitimate hasn't been shown to be true but of course they have their own version of truth.
I thought of this when you said it means different things to different people:
View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j4XT-l-_3y0
Last edited:
Yes a former CNN reporter. I'm sure there are people on here who's thoughts have changed on gun control over the years. Sometimes people do change their beliefs. Whether he has or not would have to be checked with what he has written about the subject since then. The article was originally in the California Rifle and Pistol associations newsletter. In the article he points out instances where the anti's arguments for gun control were debunked so I don't see where he's claiming a legitimate case for gun control can be made but you seem to see it somewhere.
Do you disregard a pro-gun article just because it's in a liberal paper? Do you disregard what a pro-gun person on a liberal station has to say because they're saying it on a liberal station? I don't see anywhere in the article where the author makes a case for gun control. He does point out that gun control proponents will claim it's legitimate no matter what evidence is provided to prove them wrong but I didn't see where he was claiming it's legitimate.
I'm pretty sure that the only thing from VOX is the diagram not that it was published in VOX which was probably used to demonstrate the anti's beliefs that guns are everywhere and that they're the problem which the author in the article points out is not the case in this paragraph. "There is one factual truth in all this. It is that all the “gun control” remedies that are constitutional have been tried, and they all lead to the conclusion of the Carter Administration’s 1981 blue ribbon study on gun violence, commissioned in the expectation that it would prove guns cause crime and thereby provide a launch pad for prohibitive legislation. The conclusion? “It is commonly hypothesized that much criminal violence, especially homicide, occurs simply because firearms are readily at hand and, thus, that much homicide would not occur were firearms generally less available. There is no persuasive evidence that supports this view.”
Last edited:
The title is "can a legitimate case be made for gun control" and I don't see where he is making a case for gun control. The reasons you state are because of where it was printed and because of VOX. I added a statement on VOX because I'm pretty sure the diagram was used to demonstrate what the anti's claimed not where the article was originally posted. The author points out that the anti's claim anything is legitimate but he doesn't make the claim that it is. I'm not reading more into it than what is there but it seems like you are. Anyway enjoy your day.
Last edited:
You're the one that seems to have it stuck in your craw since you commented on my post. In that article nowhere that I can see does he claim that there is a legitimate case for gun control. The article wasn't about whether gun laws should be repealed or not which I think they should be but that's not what the article is about. If you can show me in the article where he voices support for gun control I'll apologize. Yes the AMA and VOX and CNN do but he's not with any of them as far as I can tell. You're taking your negative feelings towards those organizations which I understand and agree with and putting them on this article which as I said doesn't as far as I can see say that there should be any gun control it just says that the claims the anti's have made for gun control have been debunked.
Even though the article was not written by the AMA, DRGO, VOX or CNN you in your quote here say that they're calling for gun control. Yes life is not a popularity contest but you obviously think you're the popular one since you keep posting on my op. Why don't you move on off of my post.
Because your interpretation of it is nowhere to be found in the article. No where in the article does the author support or call for more gun control. You seem to be the only one that finds the article dumb. The author points out in the article that the anti's arguments for gun control haven't been shown to be legitimate and he also points out that that won't stop them from pushing for more but nowhere does it support or call for more gun control. It appears that you automatically discredited the article because of CNN, VOX, DRGO etc. It may be that the author is a former CNN reporter because he doesn't hold to all of their agenda. Here is another article by him: Fake News Firing Line
All you have to do is go back and read what you said in your prior posts to see that you did say it. There is someone that did agree with my read. We have thousands on here and most people don't comment on the articles. You claimed my characterization of the article was wrong. I showed that it wasn't. The problem is not that you voiced your opinion. It's that you voiced an opinion that didn't make sense and didn't fit the article.
