Over the the NY Times some liberal media guy who doesn’t know anything about guns interviews a liberal who does know about guns. Interesting debate/argument, but the anti-gun media guy does the same thing I see every anti-gun person do; throw out a statement/question and deflect responding to the answer, along with continuing more disinformation.
Here’s the link to the article: http://nyti.ms/ZimVmm
Here’s my take on a couple things in the article;
Joe, the NY Times guy says;
JOE: But assault rifles were used in Aurora and Newtown.
But I say;
According to the following report on NBC the rifle was not used at Sandy Hook AND Lanza was denied the purchase of a rifle the week before the shooting;
Will some anti-gun person actually view the article and video from that link? I doubt it…
The pro-gun guy talks about making the country safer, and I agree with that wholeheartedly, but the anti-gun guy sticks with being anti-gun, and cares nothing about the stats and data on safety.
JOE: Why do gun owners get to have this level of “respect” that no other segment of society has? I could say, “I’m a responsible driver. Why does the government get to tell me that I have to wear a seat belt?”
Wearing a seatbelt DOES NOT equate to being a safe driver. He’s suggesting that banning a gun is equivalent to wearing a seat-belt. Guns have safety features too, that doesn’t make them safer. Both are dependent on the owner/operator to be used in a safe manner.
Are Hemi Challenges banned because they can go over 150 MPH? Is there a waiting period to purchase an SUV? If someone has speeding tickets or drunk driving convictions are they forbidden from buying a car? If it’s about “safety” of the public, why isn’t the public demanding safer drivers and limiting the speeds cars can go and forbidding speed demons the ability to buy cars? This doesn’t happen because anti-gun people own cars and want to be able to buy whatever car they want and they believe a gun is manufactured to kill people and car isn’t. But that logic makes no sense since a guns kill less people than cars. Intent of the design or manufacture doesn’t mean the object cannot be used in some other way. So what the car owner anti-gun person is really saying is, I don’t care about guns and don’t think you should have one whether you can use it safely or not. I can have any car I want, but you can’t have something I don’t think is safe, no matter what the facts are!
NYT Anti-gun guys says;
JOE: I don’t know. Here’s what I would like to see, though. I would like to see a cultural change, like the cultural shift that took place with drunken driving, where a behavior that was once acceptable becomes unacceptable. I would like to see a cultural protocol, for instance, that would make it O.K. for parents to ask other parents if there is a loaded gun in the house prior to allowing a play date.
DAN: That’s fine. But then you should also ask, “Do you have a backyard swimming pool?” since young kids are more likely to die from a swimming pool accident.
NYT Anti-gun guy says back;
JOE: Here we go! The classic gun guy’s argument.
But of course he doesn’t respond to the pool argument. He deflects and goes onto something else.
This is what I hate about the anti-gun fanatics; they throw out all these “What-if” scenarios and refuse to respond to facts. They argue on emotion and reject logic and then berate gun owners by saying we have faulty logic, but they rarely debate the data or address the questions posed by the gun owner, they simply laugh or mock, or name call and throw out another “what-if” or refer to a tragedy they actually know little to nothing about and somehow that’s supposed to prove they’re right.