The fatal shooting of Park Ranger Anderson was a bitter reminder of the human cost of appeasing the gun lobby – the Coburn Amendment passed two years ago legalizing loaded guns in national parks.
Dennis Henigan
January 11, 2012
Thousands Lit Candles Against The Darkness of Gun Violence
[Thirdpower already covered the lie about the numbers so I will ignore the lie in Henigan post title.
Let me get this straight… it was because it was legal to have loaded guns in national parks that Anderson was murdered? If that were true then doesn’t it follow that because it was illegal to have loaded guns at Columbine High School and Virginia Tech that those murders could not have occurred?
As was pointed out to me years ago by Rolf; If crime goes down after some gun law goes into effect the anti-gun people will claim it as proof we need even more strict laws. If the crime rate goes up after the law goes into effect then that is proof, to them, that stricter laws are needed.
As near as I can tell there are no facts that can be presented to anti-gun people like Henigan which will convince them any gun restriction should be repealed.
I must therefore conclude Henigan and his kind have crap for brains.
This is actually a good test to discover whether someone is worth your time to discuss the subject. Ask, “What would it take to change your mind? No matter how improbable, what data would convince you that some law restricting firearms should be repealed?” You will be surprised at how many people say there is nothing that will change their mind.
As you walk away suggest to such people that they look up the definition of “bigot” in the dictionary.—Joe]
If somebody every gets shot or hurt its the gun’s fault. The solution to ANY problem, from violent crime, to vaginal dryness is to ban or restrict guns.
The metric for a good law is if it makes a lawful gun owner unhappy, inconvenienced, or restricted its good.
Optional Metric: If it makes a violent criminal happy, or makes their life easier, that’s also good.
These are their rules.
LOL you should see Joan’s latest ramblings, she’s convinced the huge increase in manufactured guns doesn’t represent an increase in sales. Huge as in millions and millions of additional guns, over a period of several years. I’ve been asking myself the same thing: “just what would convince you that sales are increasing?” Apparently, unless we have an exact sales number then all those guns are just sitting in a warehouse somewhere, while not causing the price of guns to crash due to overstock.
The appellation you’re looking for to describe such people, is “fool”. Many of these people are otherwise capable and even intelligent humans. But on a handful or narrow range of issues are simply pants-on-head retarded. this is not really insanity, nor is it a lack of wits, but simple inability to make competent and reasonable decisions on these particular issues. It’s like a philanderer, otherwise a perfectly capable, even successful individual who simply cannot keep it in their pants, despite the foreseeable repercussions. Not crazy, not stupid, just foolish.
.
I found this question from the 2004 NORC GSS survey:
990. Suppose research proves that more legal restrictions on handguns would increase violent crime. Which of these two reactions would be closer to your position:
1. WOULD CHANGE MIND AND OPPOSE MORE RESTRICTIONS
2. WOULD STILL SUPPORT MORE RESTRICTIONS
Here were the responses:
62.9% said they would still support MORE restrictions. Think about that. Even if it is proven conclusively that gun control INCREASES violent crime, most people NORC surveyed would still push for more restrictions.
http://daysofourtrailers.blogspot.com/2012/01/what-kind-of-people-does-norc-survey.html
Hrm. I guess I must be a bigot then, or at least not thinking about the problem well enough.
I cannot even imagine what data point would convince me that Gun Control (as the antis mean it) is a Good Thing and that I should support it.
One minor correction: it was not illegal to have loaded guns at Virginia Tech, it was just a violation of the student code of conduct (which did apply to the shooter, as he was a student at the time). It was, and still is, perfectly legal for me to wander all over campus with my CCW, should I so desire. It’s only students, faculty, and staff that are banned by the conditions of their employment or enrollment from carrying the most effective tools for self-defense.
Of course, murder, assault, brandishing, and malicious wounding were all illegal, but those laws didn’t stop him, either.