mikeoskbigg751
Banned
Bought a new book a week ago, "Lethal Logic". It's written by Dennis A. Henigan who works for the Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence, basically the NRA's primary adversary. For all of my life, until buying a gun this past fall, I've been basically neutral on gun rights/gun control feeling that since I didn't own one that it wasn't worth it to me to research anything about the topic and have an opinion on it.
Then I started gearing up to buy one and bought my handgun the week of Thanksgiving—a wonderful Springfield XDm 9mm. I then began to get annoyed with all of the places I wouldn't be able to carry my gun even with a permit; and with rules that I thought were stupid like California's 10-round limit on magazines (mine holds 19). So I was contemplating joining the NRA feeling that they would prevent these irritating laws from getting codified. (Haven't joined.)
After reading almost half of this book—it spends a whole chapter each debunking slogans like "Guns don't kill people. People kill people." and "If you outlaw guns, only the criminals will have guns."—I'm now a pro-gun control person and don't intend on joining the NRA.
The book effectively explains the purpose of the gun control propositions that the Brady Center promotes. I had heard about Virginia's one gun per month law but thought it was stupid. Turns out Virginia used to be one of the top sources for guns used in crimes in the north eastern states. So the one-gun-a-month law precludes criminals from NYC and Boston from going to VA to get guns in large quantities. They go to VA because NY and MA have strong gun laws as compared to VA having had weak ones. Now the criminals go to Georgia and other states with weak gun laws.
I started underlining passages in the book, but there's so many. I recommend the book even if you don't read the whole thing but only a chapter now and then, it's good as a reference.
After reading that gun control book "Lethal Logic" I have realized a couple things.
One, that the recent Dist. of Columbia v. Heller case of the Supreme Court has established the Second Amendment as applicable to protecting the individual gun ownership right. This means that the usual "slippery slope" or "hidden agenda" retort to a gun control proponent no longer holds any water, for the slippery slope cannot eventually lead to a gun ban nor does it really matter (as if it ever did) what the deep-down motives are of the gun control proponent.
Second, I see further gun control legislation as beneficial to gun enthusiasts in that without more gun control there will be even more of a sentiment against the existence of guns. England enacted its ban after a bad public shooting. How many has America had, just in the last few years? If someone wanted to, it wouldn't be hard to argue against the right to have a gun. So taking the necessary steps to protect people from accidental discharges and to disarm criminals now will preclude a future gun ban.
I now understand what gun control proponents mean by "sensible gun control" and how nonsensical is anything said by the NRA. I'd love to start quoting from the book and sharing the arguments made by the author, but the book speaks for itself and the author does a better job than I would.
"Gun control" doesn't equal "anti-gun", just like "pro-choice" doesn't equal "pro-kill". If you favor the background check that prevents felons from owning guns, then you favor gun control. Felons and the mentally unstable not owning guns sounds reasonable to me. Why not enact other reasonable laws?
It's not contradictory to be a gun owner and support gun control.
Open for discussion...
Then I started gearing up to buy one and bought my handgun the week of Thanksgiving—a wonderful Springfield XDm 9mm. I then began to get annoyed with all of the places I wouldn't be able to carry my gun even with a permit; and with rules that I thought were stupid like California's 10-round limit on magazines (mine holds 19). So I was contemplating joining the NRA feeling that they would prevent these irritating laws from getting codified. (Haven't joined.)
After reading almost half of this book—it spends a whole chapter each debunking slogans like "Guns don't kill people. People kill people." and "If you outlaw guns, only the criminals will have guns."—I'm now a pro-gun control person and don't intend on joining the NRA.
The book effectively explains the purpose of the gun control propositions that the Brady Center promotes. I had heard about Virginia's one gun per month law but thought it was stupid. Turns out Virginia used to be one of the top sources for guns used in crimes in the north eastern states. So the one-gun-a-month law precludes criminals from NYC and Boston from going to VA to get guns in large quantities. They go to VA because NY and MA have strong gun laws as compared to VA having had weak ones. Now the criminals go to Georgia and other states with weak gun laws.
I started underlining passages in the book, but there's so many. I recommend the book even if you don't read the whole thing but only a chapter now and then, it's good as a reference.
After reading that gun control book "Lethal Logic" I have realized a couple things.
One, that the recent Dist. of Columbia v. Heller case of the Supreme Court has established the Second Amendment as applicable to protecting the individual gun ownership right. This means that the usual "slippery slope" or "hidden agenda" retort to a gun control proponent no longer holds any water, for the slippery slope cannot eventually lead to a gun ban nor does it really matter (as if it ever did) what the deep-down motives are of the gun control proponent.
Second, I see further gun control legislation as beneficial to gun enthusiasts in that without more gun control there will be even more of a sentiment against the existence of guns. England enacted its ban after a bad public shooting. How many has America had, just in the last few years? If someone wanted to, it wouldn't be hard to argue against the right to have a gun. So taking the necessary steps to protect people from accidental discharges and to disarm criminals now will preclude a future gun ban.
I now understand what gun control proponents mean by "sensible gun control" and how nonsensical is anything said by the NRA. I'd love to start quoting from the book and sharing the arguments made by the author, but the book speaks for itself and the author does a better job than I would.
"Gun control" doesn't equal "anti-gun", just like "pro-choice" doesn't equal "pro-kill". If you favor the background check that prevents felons from owning guns, then you favor gun control. Felons and the mentally unstable not owning guns sounds reasonable to me. Why not enact other reasonable laws?
It's not contradictory to be a gun owner and support gun control.
Open for discussion...