Quote of the Day
- ‘Why do you need a gun?’
Imagine asking someone, “Why do you need freedom of speech?” Owning a gun in the United States is a constitutional right, not a “need.” People have various reasons for owning firearms, from self-defense to hunting and sport shooting. Questioning the “need” implies you know better than they do when it comes to their personal choices or safety concerns. A tad condescending, don’t you think?- ‘You must be paranoid.’
Paranoia? Really? Owning a gun doesn’t mean someone is donning a tinfoil hat and waiting for the sky to fall. For many, it’s about personal safety, the safety of loved ones, or even the enjoyment of shooting as a sport. Labeling someone as paranoid for exercising a constitutional right is a bit of a stretch.- ‘Guns are the problem.’
Ah, the reductionist argument that blames an inanimate object for the complexities of human behavior and societal issues. Gun violence is a serious matter but boiling it down to “guns are the problem” ignores the multifaceted factors like mental health, socio-economic conditions, and more. It’s not as black and white as some would like to believe.- ‘Gun-free zones work.’
Cute idea, except for the pesky detail that many public shootings occur in designated gun-free zones. The concept ignores the fact that those bent on doing harm are not likely to be deterred by a sign on the door.- ‘The Second Amendment is outdated.’
The notion that any part of the Constitution is “outdated” opens a can of worms. Are other rights outdated too? The Second Amendment exists for multiple reasons, and its modern applicability is still a topic of fervent debate. Dismissing it as “outdated” is dismissive of that ongoing conversation.- ‘You’re compensating for something.’
Oh, the classic Freudian jab. This cliché suggests that owning a gun is a form of overcompensation for personal inadequacies. It’s a cheap shot (pun intended) that does nothing to further a constructive conversation about gun ownership or gun control.- ‘You must be a Republican.’
Ah, yes, because only Republicans appreciate constitutional rights? Gun ownership exists across the political spectrum, and assuming otherwise only serves to perpetuate divisions and stereotypes.- ‘Only the police should have guns.’
Entrusting an entire society’s safety solely to the police assumes an infallibility that no institution possesses. It also ignores the importance some place on personal freedom and self-defense.- ‘It’s too easy to get a gun.’
Before making this sweeping statement, perhaps consider the background checks, waiting periods, and federal and state laws that exist. “Easy” is a relative term and assumes that current laws aren’t stringent or effective.- ‘Assault weapon bans work.’
Defining “assault weapon” is notoriously tricky, and evidence on the effectiveness of bans is mixed. Saying they “work” is a one-size-fits-all statement that ignores the complexities of the issue.- ‘Only criminals have guns.’
If this were true, we’d have a country full of criminals. Millions of law-abiding Americans own guns for a variety of legitimate purposes. Conflating legal gun ownership with criminal activity is not just inaccurate; it’s disrespectful to a large part of the population.- ‘You shouldn’t have a gun if you have kids.’
This one assumes that gun owners are inherently irresponsible when it comes to storage and safety. Many gun owners who are parents take extra precautions to ensure their firearms are stored safely, away from their children. Just like you’d childproof your home for other hazards, the same goes for firearms.- ‘You must be a gun nut.’
For some reason, an interest in firearms gets stigmatized as an obsession or a sign of paranoia. Let’s remember that owning a gun doesn’t necessarily make someone a “gun nut” any more than owning a car makes someone a “car nut.” People own guns for various reasons: sport, hunting, and self-defense, among others. Labeling someone as a “gun nut” simply for owning a gun is a dismissive way to avoid more nuanced conversations about individual rights and responsibilities.- ‘Guns kill people.’
This is the “IT argument” that gets rolled out in every gun debate. While it’s true that firearms can be used to harm others, placing the blame solely on the inanimate object oversimplifies a complex issue. Most legal gun owners would point out that a gun, like a car or a knife, is a tool; it requires a human to operate it. They argue that the focus should be on responsible ownership and usage, rather than demonizing the object itself. This phrase can shut down meaningful dialogue about issues like gun safety, mental health, and responsible ownership.- ‘You’re part of the problem.’
The ol’ blame game—a classic! By declaring a legal gun owner as “part of the problem,” you’re not just tossing a Molotov cocktail into a nuanced debate; you’re also casually ignoring the fact that many gun owners are fervent advocates for responsible gun use and safety measures. Way to lump everyone together! This kind of accusatory tone isn’t just an over-simplification; it’s a conversation ender. If the goal is to alienate someone rather than discuss the complexities of gun ownership and societal issues, then bravo, mission accomplished!Casey Lee
November 7, 2023
15 things you should never say to a legal gun owner
This set of statements was suggested to me by Microsoft Start (the default startup page with the Edge browser). I am rather impressed with it. It frequently suggests interesting articles about selecting a gun or a change in guns laws. I used to have Google News as my startup landing page. I never saw articles which portrayed gun owners as reasonable people or gun ownership as a civil right.
I suspect Microsoft created an algorithm to show me things I have expressed an interest in and just let it do it’s thing.
I suspect Google puts their thumb on the scales of what they believe is appropriate for people to read and think.
I have long considered Google to be evil. Nothing has changed to suggest I should change my mind.
Perhaps the best answer to #8 comes from Sir Robert Peel who, after all, invented the modern police.
To maintain at all times a relationship with the public that gives reality to the historic tradition that the police are the public and that the public are the police, the police being only members of the public who are paid to give full-time attention to duties which are incumbent on every citizen in the interests of community welfare and existence.
Answer to #2 –
Is it paranoia to wear a seatbelt, have a fire extinguisher, lock you doors?
1) ‘Why do you need a gun?’ For the same reason we have assholes. (Get rid of the shit.)
2)‘You must be paranoid.’ Ya, what’s your point?
3)‘Guns are the problem.’ Only if I’m a bad shot.
“It’s not as black and white as some would like to believe.” Ya, I kinda think it is. Walked your narrow white-ass through a ghetto lately?
4)‘Gun-free zones work.’ Not so far.
5)‘The Second Amendment is outdated.’ I thought you didn’t like gun violence? Watch what happens when you try to change it.
6)You’re compensating for something.’ Yup, communist inspired feral vibrant gangs.
7) ‘You must be a Republican.’ Couldn’t tell by the amount I donate, they quit sending me junk mail!
8) ‘Only the police should have guns.’ They do, isn’t that where you came up with #3?
9)It’s too easy to get a gun.’ Only if you’re a criminal. The rest of us have to ask some whiny liberal bitches permission.
10) ‘Assault weapon bans work.’ Didn’t you just say it was too easy to get a gun? You need your lithium levels adjusted.
11) ‘Only criminals have guns.’ Ya, that’s what we’ve been trying to tell you, asshole.
12) ‘You shouldn’t have a gun if you have kids.’ And at this point you shouldn’t have either one.
13) ‘You must be a gun nut.’ And you must be a communist fruit. But ya, what’s your point?
14) ‘Guns kill people.’ Well yaaaa, Sherlock, you wouldn’t have to find something else to whine about if they didn’t. I’m sure you would manage.
15) ‘You’re part of the problem.’ Thanks! It’s good to feel wanted! ‘Cause if it wasn’t guns. We both know it would be something else.
So, back to 1). BFYTW. How’da you like me now?
BFYTW.
“…the police being only members of the public who are paid to give full-time attention to duties…”
Actually, my observation is that THIS is a big part of why we have problems with the cops. They get so immersed in the cesspool of crime that they quickly get to the point that they think EVERYONE is a problem until proven otherwise. Other than maybe office only personnel should be limited to part time employment, with no outside cop work. No security jobs, no working for two police depts. Toting a badge should be considered a secondary job for cops, not the primary. One of the benefits would be an increase in the population that carries a badge, so we should get less of that “entitled” “power-tripping” attitude they all end up with.
” They get so immersed in the cesspool of crime that they quickly get to the point that they think EVERYONE is a problem until proven otherwise.”
Yes, but they’re actually taught that at the police academy. The street just helps cement the attitude.
In San Bernadino county. Those were the first words out of the instructor’s mouth. “Everyone outside that door is scum!”
Kind of sets the tone for the following curriculum.
One must always keep in mind that they’re not always peace officers. They’re law enforcement. Says so right on the side of their car.
Don’t forget that they are deliberately hiring lower IQ people for badge toting. Since the 90’s, so at least one generation of officers, who are now leading those depts.