Seattle news illustrates why gun control doesn’t work

Tuesday’s revealing report in the on-line SeattleP-I.com explains the fallacy of gun control laws almost by accident: Two guys shot dead outside a restaurant last week may have killed each other and it turns out neither could legally possess a firearm, much less carry one legally in public.

http://www.examiner.com/gun-rights-in-s ... esn-t-work

Great article Dave. One thing I am seeing is a shift in mentality to people who were on the fence about gun ownership and gun prohibition. It seems that many people are starting to sway towards a pro-gun pro-carry stance. Love it!

Good article as always Dave!

Yes, I agree that there is certainly a larger population of folks joining the ranks. There are many factors as Dan has pointed out. The reality show's that have firearms in them are certainly an exposure for the mass population to see and know about firearms - how to make them and how to shoot them... The biggest thing is that 50% of our population (more women) are joing the ranks.

It's a great pass time and it's fun and "useful" skill...

If you see a women at the range... besides "hitting on her" please take the time to help her out!

In most cases a woman controls the family... a man may think he controls himself but if you get a woman to shoot... she influences not just herself but the kids and her friends... It's simple math if you look at it from a numbers point of view. One man... one man... One woman... 3-10 "others"

'Nuff said.

Double post...This ia an older article, but extremely relevant in our current climate of gun discussion.

"A government big enough to give you everything you want, is strong enough to take everything you have..." Thomas Jefferson

ON BEING ARMED.......


The following is one of the better Pro-Gun arguments I've read.
"The Gun Is Civilization!" Interesting take and one you probably never heard before. . . . . .


that places the proper perspective on what a gun means to a civilized society.

Read this eloquent and profound letter and pay close attention to the last paragraph of the letter....

"The Gun Is Civilization"

Human beings only have two ways to deal with one another: reason and force. If you want me to do something for you, you have a choice of either convincing me via argument, or force me to do your bidding under threat of force. Every human interaction falls into one of those two categories, without exception. Reason or force, that's it.

In a truly moral and civilized society, people exclusively interact through persuasion. Force has no place as a valid method of social interaction, and the only thing that removes force from the menu is the personal firearm, as paradoxical as it may sound to some.

When I carry a gun, you cannot deal with me by force. You have to use reason and try to persuade me, because I have a way to negate your threat or employment of force.

The gun is the only personal weapon that puts a 100-pound woman on equal footing with a 220-pound mugger, a 75-year old retiree on equal footing with a 19-year old gang banger, and a single guy on equal footing with a carload of drunk guys with baseball bats. The gun removes the disparity in physical strength, size, or numbers between a potential attacker and a defender.

There are plenty of people who consider the gun as the source of bad force equations. These are the people who think that we'd be more civilized if all guns were removed from society, because a firearm makes it easier for a [armed] mugger to do his job. That, of course, is only true if the mugger's potential victims are mostly disarmed either by choice or by legislative fiat--it has no validity when most of a mugger's potential marks are armed.

People who argue for the banning of arms ask for automatic rule by the young, the strong, and the many, and that's the exact opposite of a civilized society. A mugger, even an armed one, can only make a successful living in a society where the state has granted him a force monopoly.

Then there's the argument that the gun makes confrontations lethal that otherwise would only result in injury. This argument is fallacious in several ways. Without guns involved, confrontations are won by the physically superior party inflicting overwhelming injury on the loser.

People who think that fists, bats, sticks, or stones don't constitute lethal force watch too much TV, where people take beatings and come out of it with a bloody lip at worst. The fact that the gun makes lethal force easier works solely in favor of the weaker defender, not the stronger attacker. If both are armed, the field is level.

The gun is the only weapon that's as lethal in the hands of an octogenarian as it is in the hands of a weight lifter. It simply wouldn't work as well as a force equalizer if it wasn't both lethal and easily employable.

When I carry a gun, I don't do so because I am looking for a fight, but because I'm looking to be left alone. The gun at my side means that I cannot be forced, only persuaded. I don't carry it because I'm afraid, but because it enables me to be unafraid. It doesn't limit the actions of those who would interact with me through reason, only the actions of those who would do so by force. It removes force from the equation... and that's why carrying a gun is a civilized act.

So the greatest civilization is one where all citizens are equally armed and can only be persuaded, never forced.
Thank You

Edited to remove the claimed author in the original version sent to me by my orother in law. Link added to an online posting of the essay. http://www.beaufortobserver.net/hc.e.257862.lasso

Here's the original author of this piece. It wasn't written by a USMC Major, nor did it have anything to do with Chicago: http://munchkinwrangler.wordpress.com/2007/03/23/why-the-gun-is-civilization/

Just a note - ""A government big enough to give you everything you want is a government big enough to take from you everything you have." (corrected quote) was not written/said by Thomas Jefferson. It's actually a quote from Gerald Ford in his Presidential address to a joint session of Congress (12 August 1974).

This "Double Darwin" incident may be the answer. How about reviving a modern day version of the Gladiator Games.

Put all the idiots like these in an arena surrounded by bullet proof glass and arm them with handguns. Give them all the ammunition they want. Make it interesting by putting it in various piles that they have to fight their way to.

Last man standing gets a week with a hooker of his choice. Next week, back in the arena with fresh meat. These guys want to fight so bad, give them a venue that doesn't endanger the rest of society.

The Ticket Sales alone would fund all our Law Enforcement needs.

Simple enough of a summary.

This message brought to you by: Leprechauns for a brighter tomorrow.