The real reason gun control is failing

The Guardian ^ | July 8, 2014 | Ana Marie Cox

[Innovative]

Please keep your comments printable, so they won't get deleted...

It's all the fault of the guns, NOT the criminals, right!

[2ndDivisionVet]

The Guardian makes the New York Times, Washington Post and Miami Herald look like the JBS's New American.

[Secret Agent Man]

author is batcrap crazy. no surprise.

[Innovative]

I don’t know how they can seriously make such statements, that it’s all the fault of the guns and guns are evil.

I bet if some criminal would attack these anti-gun people, they would wish they had a gun...

[Gene Eric]

>> and until we can change that

You, Ana Marie Cox, and your Nazi cohorts can go pound sand.

[KarlInOhio]

I am convinced that the Guardian is produced by the work therapy program of London’s Bethlehem Hospital for the mentally ga-ga.

[Irenic]

Guns have one purpose: to kill things.

Exactly. That's why the government shouldn't be the only one armed.

[Lockbar]

Guns are just fine. Most people killed with guns had it coming, in their own special way.

[Pontiac]

But there is no such thing as a neutral position on guns, because there is no such thing as a neutral gun. Guns have one purpose: to kill things. They are no more neutral than a poison.

Absolutely false and misleading statements,

Many poisons have medicinal purposes. Coumadin was originally purposed as a rat poison and now it saves lives every day as a blood thinner and clot buster. Nearly any drug could be used as a poison so this woman’s statement is at the very least misleading.

Firearms are more often used to defend or save lives in the United States than they are to take them in anger. This woman should explore her own biases and presumptions before she writes on personal firearms again.

[Irenic]

I always thought you shoot to kill or don’t shoot at all.

[Pontiac]

Not sure what you mean.

But you don’t have to fire a defensive weapon to use it to save your life or someone else’s. More often than not an attacker will be persuaded to leave at the sight of a firearm.

[wku man]

I couldn't find a comment button, and I'm not going to register just so I can tell her that if she hates my guns so much, quit flapping her guns and come take them. Quit beating around the bush, openly come out for gun confiscation, then lead the march. I'm done trying to reason with the bozos....the battle lines are drawn.

Scouts Out! Cavalry Ho!

[max americana]

This is the same UK rag whose moonbat editors tried to “arrest” Dick Cheney for Iraq, I kid you not. They’re more lefty than the LA Slimes and NYT combined.

[Conspiracy Guy]

None of my guns are neutral. They are all positive with a strong desire to protect me and those around me. They all have names and personalities. I take them to the gun park where they can play with all the other guns. My guns are part of the family. Each has a job and an independent spirit. One of my guns is even considering a run for mayor.

[Irenic]

More often than not an attacker will be persuaded to leave at the sight of a firearm.

Yep, and the person being robbed at gunpoint probably has better odds than one being robbed by bat or a knife.

Somebody that pulls a gun is less likely to use the gun than a person who uses a knife or a bat in a robbery/crime.(more to prove and exibit)

What I mean is that if I am the victim of a situation, I will not pull a gun to just show it. If it is so dire that I need to show it, I will need to use it.

If the person turns and runs, good on them. Other than this--if a gun is pulled by me, it is to kill. Period.

[nathanbedford]

Although the philosophical foundation for acknowledging the right to keep and bear arms is liberty from government tyranny, the public thinks of the matter in terms of personal protection. That is a perspective that The Guardian fails to understand.

There are two very important motivations associated with the personal protection arguments in favor of acknowledging the right to keep and bear arms: First, the more the government confiscates guns the more it makes honest citizens vulnerable to gun toting criminals. Leftists tell soccer moms that they want to make them and their children safer by restricting gun rights on the margins. But rational analysis of this approach, meaning analysis made mostly by men, prompts the conclusion that every restriction only enhances the danger as it leaves the innocent more vulnerable.

In order to have a relatively safe society made that way by the absence of guns it is necessary to impose a draconian ban on virtually all privately held guns such as exists here in Germany. Until the point of nearly total confiscation is reached, the law of unintended consequences makes matters worse. And once the tipping point of total confiscation is reached, real questions of liberty of the individual vis – a – vie the government become more real.

Second, Nathan Bedford's First Maxim of American Politics should be considered: All politics in America is not local but ultimately racial. As we experience weekend after weekend of gun violence in places like Chicago and people become aware that this violence is statistically an African-American activity, whites naturally ask, how can I protect myself and my family from this anarchy? Whites are feeling increasingly disenfranchised, increasingly estranged from their government, they are increasingly losing confidence in the ability of the government to behave reasonably much less efficiently or effectively, so they increasingly think of self-help.

This motivation is clearly already in evidence in the African-American ghettos where it is common knowledge in places like the South side of Chicago that the authorities will not strictly punish gun possession forcing the conclusion that to go unarmed in certain areas is to go naked. It is not surprising that white suburbanites are coming to the same conclusion.

So as the electorate looks at the relative ability of the government to save them from mindless gun violence as opposed to their own ability to protect themselves by going armed, rational voters come to rational conclusions.

Americans across the board draw precisely the opposite conclusions from those drawn by The Guardian after a bloody weekend in Chicago. It will be interesting to see the progression of feelings about gun ownership in Great Britain as demographics there continue to change, pushing whites into minority status and granting minorities, almost by default, the exclusive power associated with (illegal) gun possession. The trend is today in relatively early stages but it is likely to accelerate.

[dennisw]

We all know the real reason is plenty of Dems have guns and have no intention on giving up any of them. 10 years ago most Democrats stopped being anti-gun because it lost them votes!!! Simple as this!!

[jacknhoo]

“Guns are not objects,...” - but the left believes people are objects and we should be able to kill them and the government should force all religious to at least fund the killings. This is exactly why they desire to disarm us - to kill us at the will of the state.

“Guns are death waiting to happen...” - and they fantasize about death happening. They just don’t want it happening to them. They somehow feel above that death, like they’re exempt...like the state loves their ideals too much to kill them. They’re deluded.

“What we need are fewer “bad guys” with guns. You make that argument, and of course you get support for the legislation that would seem to address that specific issue – background checks, bans on gun possession by the certifiably mentally ill.” - and here it is, again, they love the idea that so many Americans are on mental health medications. This will soon be classified as the “certification” they desire to disarm so many Americans. It is not by chance, that young boys have been the main focus of these meds...not by chance at all.

[aardwolf46]

Jack the Ripper never owned a gun...

[DaBeerfreak]

If gun control was working, then why isn’t Chicago one of the safest cities in America?