Liberal “Logic” on Guns

Posted: February 2, 2011 in Uncategorized

I know many liberals, who are friends (and family), so I have heard their “logic” towards guns. From my observation and conversations, I will base my understanding of their “logic”. I am not saying this to be mean or sarcastic, but matter-of-fact. Liberals.. please hear me, please listen.

I want you to think about a few key points. When you promote gun-free zones, who will be obeying those laws? If bans worked, if saying “no” worked, if saying something is against the law/illegal worked, if punishment worked, if jails worked, if anything worked when it came to illegal acts/criminals… there would be no point in having laws, governing, police, military, jails, lawyers, judges, etc. So again think about it, what does a gun-ban do?

Do you think a criminal follows the laws when obtaining a weapon of any kind? Do you think they obtain it lawfully? Do you think they register it?

Yes, there are cases where a legally obtained gun, registered, may be used by a non-criminal.. simply because logically even law-abiding people can do horrible things. We can wish it away, or think that law-abiding people are walking saints on this earth, but they are not. But, this is the exception not the rule. What is the “rule”?  Look at reality, reality is a criminal will obtain a weapon illegally, then they will commit crimes or murders with that illegally obtained gun.. they will be the mass majority of gun related offenses and fatalities. Why would they care about following rules or laws when they obtain a gun? They do not announce they are going to commit a crime either.

Here is something else to think about, think about the “speed of a bullet”. Now think about how long it takes to call for help, then how long before help can arrive… now while you are waiting, how many times can a criminal shoot and reload?

While I was writing, looking up things,  I caught a few interesting items..

  • Today a principal was shot and killed by the janitor at an Elementary school in Placerville California. Note: Single shot, no reloading! No info on if the school was gun free, but it was an elementary school, and California. No info on prior record on the janitor (John Luebbers), hopefully that will be revealed.

Again that was California, they are not fond of guns out there… I was going to list them all, then I saw how many shootings California schools and colleges have had, and it is mind-blowing. From the site


Sure the dense population is a factor, the more people living together the more tension. How odd though, when you look at the political make-up of a city, it is largely liberal. Rather confusing. Seems of all people (honest, law-abiding) city people need to take defending themselves into their own hands.

Another look at a liberal perspective on guns, the reaction to the recent  Tucson shooting, the latest focus is on  high-capacity magazines….  

Townhall: Fresh off of blaming Jared Loughner’s killing spree in the Tucson mall on Sarah Palin, liberals are now blaming it on high-capacity magazines. They might as well imprison everyone named “Jared” to prevent a crime like this from ever happening again.

So would liberals prefer the old west single shot guns? I doubt it. Remember give an inch they take a mile. While those old single shot guns can be stunning, fun, and a nice emergency back up… in case you are in a saloon and lose a card game. But… realistically…

Ann Coulter points out that it would have made more sense for Loughner to have two guns, vs a high-capacity magazine, since they are bulky and cumbersome. So when would a high-capacity magazine make sense? Home defense. Not every one is a great shot, and certainly not when alarmed by a burglar, so high-capacity can be a lifesaver. More from Ann, she has a great way of making a point..

States that allowed citizens to carry concealed handguns reduced multiple-shooting attacks by 60 percent and reduced the death and injury from these attacks by nearly 80 percent.

When there are no armed citizens to stop mass murderers, the killers are able to shoot unabated, even pausing to reload their weapons, until they get bored and stop. Some stop only when their trigger fingers develop carpal tunnel syndrome.

Consider just the school shootings — popular sites for mass murder because so many schools are “gun-free zones.” Or, as mass murderers call them, “free-fire zones.”

Continue reading Ann Coulter’s article, she gives examples of when guns were used against criminals, vs when the criminals went unchallenged.

So to prove a point about guns… here is something that proves a guns ownership makes sense…FreeRepublic from 2007, this article marks the 16th anniversary of Kennesaw Georgia’s ordinance requiring gun-ownership. Crime plummeted 74% within a year, then another 45% the following year.

What you have not heard about that town, their law, or lack of crime? Golly now why would that be? What is the media’s focus again? Remember media = liberal. ‘Nuff said, right?

Need more?

What about areas that are known to be extremely gun restrictive (besides the State of California). Another great example is Chicago as well as the state of Illinois. I hardly need to even look for news about Chicago crime, for most people they will immediately associate Chicago with crime and violence. But just for kicks.. here is this from Common Folk Using Common Sense. A commenter recommends converting current gangs to a new one, a chain gang. Again interesting read, and great point!

(ABC7Chicago) Gun violence made it a deadly weekend on some of Chicago’s streets. …Chicago Police blame a rash of shootings on too many guns and the gangs that use the weapons illegally.

But how can this be? Both the state of Illinois, and the city of Chicago, are the most restrictive locations for gun ownership. We are told time and time again that all we have to do is ban guns and crime will disappear. Well, Chicago has all but banned guns, and what are we seeing?

As I read about “cities” that try to ban or restrict guns, I think about things like.. if they can’t keep illegals out, how are they expecting they can ban illegally obtained weapons? Ahh but see it is not the illegal weapons they are banning, remember it is law-abiding citizens that follow the rules and laws, not the criminals. So the only people who are disarmed, are those who could and would protect YOU!

Then I imagine those apocalyptic future movies, walling off a town or state… will that be another option? Where do you draw the line? Ok now my mind just skipped to the South Park episode where they walled off South Park to protect their kids from being abducted, then the news told them their kids were not even safe from them, so they sent the kids outside the wall where they ended up living with the Mongolians. preposterous? Yes, but that is the reality of people thinking they have the ultimate solution on protecting themselves. Part of the reality is, you can not say to a criminal “it’s ok we are unarmed”, and think that is a protection.

When I have talked to anti-gun liberals they somehow think all guns can be wiped off the face of the earth. Really? And how would they manage that? So I suggest lets take things back to the stone age, no guns, but look at the availability of weapons they had… and they could kill beasts bigger than humans with them. Human nature is part of the problem and part of the answer. Simply thinking you can sing camp-songs and hold hands, and all will be peaceful and happy in the universe, it is naive, weak and unrealistic.

Seattle is another city that has some logic issues. They came to the incredible conclusion that an area with more people has more crime vs an area with fewer people? Novel concept huh? So their answer, ban the guns. Again I will point out, those who have the intent to commit crimes are not the ones who will hand over their guns! From the Examiner:

In their brief, Seattle and the other cities argued that large cities are disproportionately affected by gun violence. Between 1976 and 2005, nearly 60% of all gun homicides in the United States took place in large cities. In Seattle in 2005, over 550 violent firearm crimes (assaults, robberies, and homicides) were committed.

American Partisan makes a great point

Have you ever heard of a mass shooting in a police station, at a pistol range, or at a gun show?

How many of us, no matter how much we hate guns, would be willing to put a sign stating, “We have no guns here”, on our home? Common sense tells us that this is an invitation to criminals. This same simple concept applies to schools and other public places.

 I found an interesting paper, trying to sort out anti-gun vs pro-gun: … here are some highlights: 

  • Does the government and private property owners have the right to declare a public place a Gun Free Zone, thus preventing law-abiding citizens who are licensed to legally carry a weapon, from doing so?
  • But what can not be argued against is the belief of our founding fathers, who felt that personal responsibility in the face of adversity is one of the most desirable traits of not just Americans, but mankind. 
  • And yet as our country continues its technological and cultural advancement, many more citizens actively promote this abdication of personal responsibility, wanting instead to relinquish their rights, their safety, their liberty, to the government
  • But as experiments in gun-free nations such as Great Britain have shown, controlling guns by removing them from the populace only places law-abiding citizens (or subjects) in danger. Following the 1997 UK handgun ban, felony crimes committed with pistols rose by 40 percent, and the upward trend has continued. (Malcom, 2000)
  • Other interesting facts also reveal themselves; for example, in the  United States, most home burglaries are committed when no one is at home. In Great Britain, 32% of home invasions are committed during the evening, when families are present. A frightening 30% take place on the weekends! (SecureOne, 2008) The psychology behind this is easy to deduce. American burglars are worried about getting shot. British ones are not.

I thought the UK portion to be a wonderful argument, the next time you are in a discussion with someone who is anti-gun.

Gun Free Zone Deaths: (here are a few examples from that same paper).

Starting in 1966 at the University of Texas in Austin where Charles Joseph Whitman killed 14 people from the observation deck of school’s administration building, the litany of school killings are vast.

  • Kent State University: 4 dead.
  • Jackson State University: 2 dead.
  • California State University: 7 dead.
  • University of Iowa: 6 dead.
  • Lindhurst High School: 4 dead.
  • Simon’s Rock College of Bard: 2 dead.
  • Columbine High School: 15 dead.
  • Rocori High School: 2 dead.
  • Lancaster, Pennsylvania Amish School: 6 dead.
  • Virginia Tech: 33 dead.
  • Delaware State University: 1 dead.
  • Success Tech Academy, Cleveland, Ohio: 1 dead.
  • Louisiana Technical College: 3 dead.
  • Northern Illinois State University: 6 dead.

What do we rely on for information? When we turn on the news or read the newspaper, or check online, we are hoping for facts, news, what is happening in the world. We are hoping that information is not picked through, and then sanitized to favor a political agenda. But sadly, it is. So when you want information, you have to sift and dig for the truth!

The media has also played an important role in establishing “gun-free zones” by ignoring or downplaying incidents in which a legally armed citizen prevented or stopped a shooting

The SquibD paper also highlighted some events that stopped a shooter from taking more lives, vs just allowing the chaos to continue till the shooter ran out of bullets or killed his/herself. Again these are harder to find. “News” sites bury, or remove any story that does not fit the political agenda.

  • March 5, 2001 Santana High (Santee CA) an unarmed “negotiator” killed, then an off-duty police officer kept the killer at bay. (total 2 deaths)
  • 2002 Appalachian School, shooting stopped by students who retrieved their personal weapons (3 deaths).
  • October 1, 1997 Pearl High (Mississippi) shooting stopped by assistant principal who retrieved his handgun. (2 deaths)

Here is a great point.. when an area is considered gun-free, who is there to protect the innocent?

A major question arises when a private business, government building, or school, in which the public is invited onto the premises, declares the property to be a Gun Free Zone, and then does nothing to ensure the safety of those who are invited.

Gun Free Zones obviously do nothing to deter the mentally disturbed individual and merely un arm law-abiding citizens.

The policy concept behind gun-free zones is based on public fear and “feel good morality”, rather than statistics.

Oddly enough, the vast majority of mass shootings that have taken place in the last seven years have all occurred in “gun-free zones”.

John Lott, Jr and William Landes conducted a study that found that states passing right-to-carry laws saw violent criminal attacks fall by as much as sixty percent. Violent deaths and injuries from multiple-victim public shootings fell by an astonishing 78 percent. (Lott, 2005)

Again to point out real numbers that show honest citizens are not the ones killing people! Note: Laws are rarely broken by law-abiding citizens… 

  • In 2005, there were 175 total convictions for murder in the State of Texas.
  •  Only one of those convictions was of a Concealed Handgun License Holder.
  • 958 individuals were convicted of aggravated robbery, and yet only 3 of those convictions were Concealed Handgun License Holders.
  • In 2005 there were a total of 34,791 total convictions, of both felonies and misdemeanors. Of that thirty-four thousand, only 129 were holders of concealed weapons permits. Less than 0.3708% of all crimes in the State of Texas during 2005 were committed by Concealed Handgun License Holders. (TXDPS, 2006)

What more nutty stuff?

How about GunFreeDiningTennessee  yupper it is a real site, a place you can look for places to eat that do not permit guns. They sure are making things easier on criminals aren’t they?

On AnswerBag .. a question of some misguided, uninformed soul who wanted to know how many killings before there is gun-control. The responses are just as amusing. One response cites “high-powered rifles” as something they are stunned are available. Once again surely confirming ignorance is bliss, or is it just brain-numbing? If a killing happens with a high-powered weapon you can bet it was obtained illegally. But what is the weapon of choice for someone who intends to kill? It will be small, conceal-able, and easy to reload. There are rational responses, pointing out that criminals seek out areas that have strong gun-restrictions. Another ridiculous and naive response, thinks gun-control would work if it were enforced… humm, I guess like saying you should not shoot and kill people, or rob a bank, or break into a home,.. because enforcement really is stopping people from doing these things, right? Another supporter of enforced laws, thinks if people would obey traffic laws, then law-enforcement could concentrate on bigger things. I am sorry I am still laughing with that one. Their argument proves the point.

Wonderful Site…. talking about the Old West: Check your Guns. From TheHighRoad the question is about the portrayal of checking your guns in old westerns. One response shares stories from his friend’s father who lived during the (real) old west days. He states that guns were carried everywhere, including church, since they were always under attack by Indians. The information on that site is great, they site real old west stories, and how it was far more civilized than it is today. The examples of Dodge City & Tombstone were explained, that the checked-guns was to encourage tourism more than much else, it was an “image” thing. Another person who had contact with those who lived in the old west explained “check your gun” as meaning do not leave it visible, which could be construed as a threat. They also note several great books to read too! The moderator of that board also added:

Point out that in this day and age people who live in states with no restrictions don’t shoot each other more than states with heavy restrictions, don’t have higher accidental shooting rates and don’t have higher gun crime rates. Remind him that violent crime rates in the UK and Australia have gone up since the confiscations and that gun crime rates have gone up in the UK as well to levels well above those prior to confiscation.

Another commenter on HighRoad had a wonderful response:

Actual murders in the old West were less (per capita) than in Washington D.C. since the 1976 handgun ban. There have been several studies and books about this, some of them mentioned by others here. 

Movies exaggerate (dramatize) EVERYTHING. That’s why we watch them. People who don’t bother to learn actual history, and get their info from movies with historical settings are in the same category as people who base their sexual relationships on porno films. They have a skewed view of reality.

See also Wikipedia for GunLaw Info.

  1. […] I just posted a little item about gun laws, gun-bans.. which I titled Liberal “Logic” on Guns. […]

  2. […] in the USA – Liberal “Logic” on Guns submitted by The […]

  3. […] in the USA – Liberal “Logic” on Guns submitted by The […]

  4. […] place with 1/3 vote -UN-PC in the USA – Liberal “Logic” on Gunssubmitted by The […]

  5. […] place with 1/3 vote -UN-PC in the USA – Liberal “Logic” on Gunssubmitted by The Razor […]

  6. Kyle Rajasthan says:

    A very well thought out and written article. I can’t even count the number of times I have had “discussions” with liberals about guns. It almost never ends well, no matter how logical, patient and civil you are with them. In the end they almost always fall back on irrational and emotional arguments. Reality is obviously painful for them to live in, so they pretend instead. No argument can really break through that kind of barrier. It’s like debating religion. In fact, anti-gun beliefs have become a religion for some people, and we all know what happens when a “belief” becomes a “cause”. To many of these fools, the end justifies the means, and when things turn out differently from what they expected, they just change the facts to suite themselves or just ignore it completely and call it a success anyway. England and Australia are a great example of this. I guess we just need to keep poking holes in their versions of reality, maybe someday the sun will shine for them.

    • gypsy says:

      Kyle thank you.. though I doubt they ever will see the “light of day”. Like you said it is a conviction they hold “religiously”. There are no facts or formulas that can explain anything..

      What is interesting to me is that these people will attack guns, as long as they feel safe and secure.. wonder what their view would be if they had to actually defend their ownselves.. if they did not have someone to protect them (ie police, military, or a well armed neighbor).. what would they do then?

      It is so easy for an anti-gun person to attack guns.. they are “unarmed” (smiles)

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s