It’s Time To Rerun This Post

Originally Posted on 16 January, 2013

Questions I Ask Folks Favoring Gun Control

1. I’ve survived a gunfight; have you?

2. I’ve run out of ammunition and had to change magazines during a gunfight; have you?

3. Why do you want to limit the ability of a law-abiding citizen to survive being attacked by a criminal?

4. Have you ever fired a pistol or revolver?

5. Have you ever fired a rifle?

6. Have you ever fired a shotgun?

7. What kind of firearm is easiest to use in a confined space?

8. What kind of firearm is easiest to shoot accurately?

9. Why do you want to limit a citizen’s ability to choose the safest and most effective firearm for his particular circumstances?

10. What kind of ammunition is most likely to incapacitate the person shot while reducing the danger to bystanders?

11. Why do you want to limit a citizen’s ability to choose the safest and most effective ammunition for his particular circumstances?

12. Are you a hoplophobe?

78 thoughts on “It’s Time To Rerun This Post

  1. Rather than answer each question individually, I’ll sort them into their two broad categories:

    1, 2, 4-8) the details of an indidual’s personal knowledge of guns don’t seem all that germane. Borrowing a metaphor from another industry, it is not necessary for me to have been in an accident to believe that seatbelts are a good idea.

    3, 9-12) shouldn’t this type of indirect attack on your opponent be beneath you? Shall I answer you the same way? Why do you not care about the lives of innocents? Does that rile you up a little? Shake your Manichaean viewpoint a little?
    Now that we’re done discussing the appallingly confrontational nature of your questions, we live in a society where gun violence has become highly normalized. I should not have to endure living in a society where leaving the house subjects me to a chance of being murdered at random. “Good guy with a gun” arguments carry no water with me; Australia, for example, has shown that “basically no guns” is far more effective.

    • Sometimes a good guy (or several) with a gun (or guns) is what stops a crime. Consider this story that was in the news a couple of weeks ago. A couple of armed robbers entered a McDonald’s near the Swiss border in France and demanded all the money in the cash drawers. A group of plain-clothes gendarmes were having lunch. The Gentle Reader can guess how the rest of the story goes.

      As for Australia’s experience with its gun ban, it’s true that firearm crimes are down, but there has been no significant reduction in murders. When you consider the results in other countries with a common cultural heritage to the U.S. such as Ireland and the U.K., the results of gun bans have not been exactly favorable. Crime is now so bad in the U.K. that they’re considering a knife ban.

      Exit question: Do you believe that there would have been 49 killed that Orlando night club if one of the patrons had returned fire?

      • How long do you have to think about pulling the trigger in self defense?

        The rest of your life

      • There have been nearly 200 mass shootings in America this year. Do you somehow believe that if other armed participants had returned fire in significant numbers, that would not have manifested in the statistics already?

        The murder rate in Australia is in decline and has been for years. Also, this is another cheap tactic designed to discourage honest discussion. “We cannot prevent ALL violence,” you say, “so we should not try to prevent ANY.”

        Armed security at Pulse did return fire. I believe that 49 people died in that club because we have made weapons of urban slaughter easily commercially available.

        • No, your emotional rhetoric is what is designed to shut down discussion and guilt people into not challenging you. Mass shootings, a scare term, involve three or more “victims” – and that word is in quotes because the overwhelming majority of those are part of gang violence. See, e.g., Chicago. in other words, business as usual for people who are legally prohibited from possessing guns, yet somehow always manage to acquire them, and always will. The strict gun laws have not stopped terrorists from murdering hundreds in Europe. In this country, guns are used defensively and successfully tens of thousands of times per year. The people at Pulse died because an Islamic terrorist killed them, after the FBI and his employer gave him a pass numerous times because they did not want to be accused of the made-up term, Islamophobia.

          • You provide no counterbalancing statistics. At the base level, 49 people died at the Pulse nightclub because they were shot.

          • The gun didn’t shoot them, a person did.

            You’d punish the innocent to avoid thinking about what motivated the guilty.

          • I don’t have to. There’s something called Google and official FBI stats. You are not really interested in statistics, so they are wasted on you. You are interested in emotional arguments and moral preening.

        • And the majority of those “mass shootings” have been gang-bangers shooting other gang-bangers. Nice, phony statistic, that. If you’re not a gang-banger, guess what? Your odds of being in a “mass shooting” dropped drastically, as only a handful of those “mass shootings” weren’t gang related.

          The vast majority of gun owners have not been involved in such activity…why should they be punished for the acts of a criminal minority?

          Why should the weak be made vulnerable to the criminal element?

          Criminals already ignore laws against murder, etc. what makes you think they will obey laws banning guns?

          They certainly haven’t in the UK, where a Member of Parliment was shot down last week. How could that have happened, in Gun Control Paradise?

          • The Congressional Research office puts the Average number of Mass shootings over the last 20 or so years at *4.5* ish.
            Yes that’s 4.5 too many, but a far cry from “200 this far.”

        • 250 people a day are dying in drug overdoses and in Colorado MJ related deaths are rising and will pass the 10 per day in a few weeks..

          Far far far outweighing gun violence – usually brought on by those on drugs, buying drugs or selling drugs

          • GMhowell

            CDC reports 20 fold increase in overdose deaths in the last 6 months

          • BPO:

            Gonna need more than a hand wave. By mid 2015, there was one fatality reported:


            That is suspect, as the actual cause of death was acute trauma from falling out a window.

            In fact, you won’t find any fatalities due to THC intoxication. Estimates are that the Ld50 for THC is around 40 grams. Typical users get high from a few milligrams. It would be unlikely if not impossible to smoke or eat enough THC containing items to get that much in the blood.

            THC isn’t ethanol, a drug that can easily reach lethal levels in the bloodstream. Prohibition was a stupid, unworkable idea with alcohol, even more so with marijuana.

          • th3e causes of death are car accidents, industrial accidents, any death where mj is in the system

          • No, I think you missed the point – Colorado is going to repeal it cause it kills.

          • In NYC alone there have been over 1000 deaths for 2016

            ALBANY — Heroin and opioid-related deaths in New York are at a record high, with overdose deaths in the state rising faster over the past decade than in nearly all other states, a new report released Thursday found.

            Citing federal statistics, the report by state Controller Thomas DiNapoli shows in 2014 heroin-related overdoes deaths in New York hit a record 825, up by 159, or 24%, over 2013. And it’s nearly 25 times higher than a decade ago.

          • I was specifically asking about marijuana. Rather than go back and forth on this, I’ll wait until you cite your claims there.

          • State of Colorado official website – Fox news, et al was on the same program

        • The problem is that your “solution” doesn’t really prevent any violence, much less all violence.

          What you propose is to is disarm ALL law-abiding people and leave them at the mercy of evil people who will get firearms through just about any means like the terrorists in France did.

          They have banned guns in Chicago and much of Illinois yet 37 people were shot this weekend and nine more died. News for you! They already banned guns there. Baltimore and Detroit are similar war zones.

          So-called “gun control” is simply an effort to limit who has guns. The government is quite willing to disarm law-abiding citizens and provide vague and empty promises of providing law and order while the very government becomes the greatest source of lawlessness in the nation.

          You don’t get to decide what my rights are. The government has no powers to infringe my rights. The constitution clearly states they shall make no such laws.

          Move to Australia or France or Belgium or Iraq if you don’t like it here. We can live without your stupidity and I am not so sure we can live with it.

    • Gun crimes are at historic lows. More people are killed bare-handed than by rifles. I should not have to endure living in a society where I have no chance to prevent myself or others from being murdered at random because bad guys are heavily armed and I have been disarmed by moral preeners with calcified amygdalas.

      • Why wouldn’t it be better to live in a society where ANY honest effort was being made to prevent bad guys from being heavily armed?

        Since we’re going low-common-denominator, how many innocent lives, particularly children, should be lost so you can fulfill your overcompensatory fantasy about “protecting yourself?” Why isn’t it better to work towards a place where you don’t need to feel that fear?

        • You are asking for the entire world to get a lobotomy. Because you never know when someone is going to go off their rocker or when they are just born plain evil. You cannot have it. Wish you could, but there it is.

          • Because of government overreach and citizens who prefer to be children.

            BTW — building lawn darts is simple. All the “ban” did was prevent them from being sold.

          • I have a set of lawn darts.

            Perfectly legal to own.

            Your point?

            If I wanted to, I could go out in my shop and build as many lawn darts as I wanted too.

            The very same shop that has the capabilities needed to build firearms, and their ammunition, from scratch.

            Indeed, it has been used to do just that, perfectly legally, and on multiple occasions.

        • 1. We live in that society. There are over 20,000 gun laws on the books. Ask the FBI why they gave a pass to a jihadi whose father is a Taliban sympathizer.
          2. How many innocent lives, particlarly children, should be lost so you can fulfill your overcompensatory fantasy about being morally virtuous and superior? Why isn’t it better to accept the world as it truly is, take the personal responsibility to protect onseself, and at the same time work to ensure that Islamic terrorists, drug dealers and gang bangers do not get guns?

        • Wow. For someone who came in slamming our host for his “indirect” attacks,you haven’t shied away from ad homs, sarcasm or invective.

          And if you believe that bit about ” Why isn’t it better to work towards a place where you don’t need to feel that fear?”, then you haven’t been paying attention.

        • A gun is a valid method of protecting oneself. Otherwise, police would not carry them. Do you think the carrying of a firearm by police is overcompensation? What about security guards in locations such as nuclear power plants.

          A gun provides a method for someone who is physically weaker, disabled, or elderly to resist an assailant. What is your recommended alternative for a person who is physically weaker than their unarmed assailant, such as a woman facing a potential rapist? Please keep in mind police response times and the limited effectiveness of gas agents and electric shock devices.

        • It’s not about fear, it’s about remaining ready to eliminate or otherwise deal with an imminent threat.

        • These are not “honest efforts” to prevent bad guys from getting guns. These are bald-face efforts to disarm law-abiding citizens while allowing bad guys to enter the country and commit heinous crimes.

          You aren’t fooling anyone with this tripe.

    • “I should not have to endure living in a society where leaving the house subjects me to a chance of being murdered at random”

      Humanity has always — and will always — live in such a society, regardless of what inanimate objects you make laws against. The murderer could use a knife, a car, a club, or any of a million different items.

      And even if you were to somehow magically make all firearms disappear from the world tomorrow, you’d still live in such a society. But you’d have rendered the physically weaker defenseless.

    • Wally, your metaphor I’d apt, but you’re actually the guy who’s never been in a crash, but wants to ban seatbelts and airbags and crumple zones (guns) because every once in a while somebody dies because they put the shoulder belt behind them, or strangle some other person with the belt, or put a small child in front of an airbag, or the crumple zone just wasn’t enough in a head-on with a semi. You ignore the hundreds (not tens) of thousands of crash survivors due to safety devices because sometimes they are misused.

    • If you pull the mass killing data from, you’ll see that from 1911 to 1996 (when guns were banned) the per-year rate of mass killings was *lower* than it’s been between 1996 and 2016. From 1911 – 1996, there are 22 items on that list. That’s a range of 85 years, so you get 0.26 events per year. There are 11 in the 20 years since 1996. That’s 0.55 per year.

      Between 1911 and 1996 there were two huge massacres: the Mowla Bluff massacre (killing between 300-400) and the Coniston massacre (killing between 60-170). Using the average of those numbers and adding in the other deaths, there were 625 mass killings between 1911 and 1996. That averages out to 7.4 deaths per year.

      However, if you remove the two massacres listed above, the total deaths between 1911 and 1996 becomes 160 mass killings, and that’s a rate of only 1.9 per year. We could also remove the Forrest River massacre, which happened between the two already mentioned, killing 11. That would drop the number to 149 victims in 85 years, or a rate of 1.75 deaths per year. Given that these massacres were governmentally sanctioned attacks (and governmental officials participated in each of them) against the Aboriginal population rather than acts from outlaws, etc., it’s reasonable to consider the numbers with those massacres excluded since those type of massacres would not happen today regardless of gun control laws.

      For the record, in the 20 years since 1996, there were a total of 74 deaths, or 3.7 mass killing deaths per year.

      So by all means, keep using Australia as proof that gun control works…

    • What you think your rights are versus what they actually are is an awfully wide gap. Some advice: Don’t leave the house. More advice: Get a gun, because you’re not safe there either.

      Australia currently has more guns than it has ever had.

    • Australian here, the fallacy of the statement is that we got rid of all the guns. We didn’t but we have a process and laws that restrict them. Firstly, we did not have a constitutional right to bear arms, they were always sold with a small degree of control but the “right” was never protected by the constitution.

      Secondly, we did not have a gun culture to start with. Farmers and hunters had them but people did not have a pistol for home defence. This also meant that the majority of our lower level thug type criminals did not regularly have access to the weapons.

      When we banned guns, we did not have a huge problem in getting them out of the law abiding citizens hands (mainly because we over paid to purchase them off the owners). Farmers went back, went through the new process and kept the allowable weapons, same with hunters and pistol /gun club members. And to be honest we had three mass shooting events in a 6 year period, from psychos who should never have had access to a weapon in the first place. The worst was the Port Arthur massacre, a nutcase who should have never been allowed near a knife let alone a gun.

      But we also have big advantages over the US. We are an Island and so we have natural orders that limit transporting of guns (it still happens though) and we did not have a highly armed criminal element. Two factors that the US does not have.

      The US issue is the abundance of guns in the wrong peoples hands, and the lack of respect for life by those criminals who have them. When you have people that gun down kids in Chicago, you have a humanity problem not a gun problem. Same for Orlando, the lack of humanity by Islamic extremists is the problem, not the gun.

      Taking guns from Australians households led to a rise in home invasion style robberies, the thugs using baseball bats and machetes, had no worries about an armed intruder. Given the US has so many guns in the wrong hands, then the home invasions would be significantly worse if you took the guns away from the law abiding people.

      From my point of view, the US is too far gone with the number of guns in the general population to make an Australian style solution work. Advocates using this as an option are not really aware of the Australian history and how we were never Texas in the Southern hemisphere when it came to guns anyway. The best solution for the US is to regain the sense of value for life that the thugs have lost, I do not know how you can get a cold blooded thug to value someone elses life, but until you get them doing so, the killings will continue.

  2. I believe that your point on Australia need to be reviewed, with current data:
    Associate Professor Philip Alpers, one of Australia’s leading firearms researchers and a director of the Centre for Armed Violence Reduction at the University of Sydney, said the national ban on semi-automatic weapons following the Port Arthur massacre had spawned criminal demand for handguns.

    “The ban on semi-automatics created demand by criminals for other types of guns,” he said, adding: “The criminal’s gun of choice today is the semi-automatic pistol.”

    Our investigation found:

    • NSW: in 2014-15, there were 3463 firearms charges, up 83 per cent on 2005-06
    • Victoria: in 2014-15, there were 3645 firearms-related charges, up 85 per cent on 2005-06
    • SA: in 2014, charges for possession and trafficking of guns are up 49 per cent on 2010-11
    • Tasmania: in 2014, charges for unlawful gun possession were up 32 per cent on 2005-06

    So, disarming law-abiding citizens accomplished what every other attempt at prohibition has:
    Done nothing to criminals
    Created an ever growing black market
    Shifted crime numbers from one column to another

    I’m personally tired of citizens of a less-free nations lecturing me on how fewer freedoms will make me more free.

  3. Some say after Sandy Hook that guns should be outlawed My take is that the liberals after authorizing trillions to create a perfect society were perfectly pleased that three women, a principal, a office worker and a teacher threw themselves on a crazed gunman (who only used pistols) and were riddled brutally with bullets, because the notion that these brave women were responsible enough for our childrens education AND welfare, were not responsible enough to have a revolver to defend the same children they died for without hesitation.

    But vote for Hillary cause its important right?

  4. In light of the fact that I’m getting the expected “nowhere” with conversation about this, I’m going to go be productive elsewhere. I can’t stop you, clearly, but please don’t take this as a moral victory. Especially the bigots.

    • And so he leaves the field, making what he thinks is a devastating Parthian shot: “bigots”.

      All you’ve done is proven you know nothing about those who disagree with you, and refuse to listen to them or learn from them. Did you expect your talking points, barely sourced and unsupported by reality, to cause a series of Road to Damascus moments?

    • “I’m not retreating! I’m just throwing down ad hominems because you aren’t worth fighting!”

      Yeah, we all believe you. I’m sure you believe it yourself, too.

    • I’m going to take Wallylobster’s comments as effectively answering my questions as follows:
      1. No.
      2. No.
      3. Because my emotional discomfort with firearms trumps anyone else’s safety.
      4. Ewww.
      5. Ewww.
      6. Ewww.
      7. Ewww.
      8. Ewww.
      9. Because my emotional discomfort with firearms trumps anyone else’s safety.
      10. Let’s ban bullets; then none of the guns will work.
      11. Because my emotional discomfort with firearms trumps anyone else’s safety.
      12. Yes.

    • If you expected to get nowhere, why did you bother posting?

      Where is there bigotry here? Other than your baseless slander of all gun owners, many of whom are women or minorities. (I’m going to get my concealed carry instruction from a black guy I used to work with on the South Side of Chicago)

      Gun control laws were originally intended to disarm blacks. Liberals talk about how Black Lives Matter and that police are a threat to Blacks, but refuse to give Blacks the ability to defend themselves. More black responsible gun owners is a great idea, and we should hope that there are more black men carrying guns in the future.

    • Maybe it’s just me, but did anyone else notice any effort at a conversation? All I see is the more usual disdain for anyone who doesn’t fully agree with his idiot comments.

      • First post: 20 June, 2016 at 07:11

        “I’m getting nowhere, so I’m leaving” post: 20 June, 2016 at 08:29

        Yeah, an hour and 18 minutes is PLENTY of effort. /sarc

  5. He wants to live in a world that doesn’t and won’t ever exist, barring extreme alteration of human behaviors, and refuses to see the world that is when presented with evidence.

    • Most likely lives in a world of malleable humans. Humans that can be and must be changed and molded and perfected to match the vision the Anointed carry in their heads. Problem is humans are anything but and usually break in the vise (or vice versa).

  6. Now that we’ve dispensed with the obligatory Social Justice utopianism;
    1)That’s not fair to those who HAVEN’T survived; but no.
    2) id.
    3) Actually that is a bit of a non-sequitur.
    4-6) These are not ad homs, but do grant perspective.
    7,8) Are situational challenges, 7 depends on how confined? A 24″ tunnel; I’d suggest a .45 1911. a 42″ hallway an 18.5″ Remington 870 others would say a 21″ bullpup AR. 8 is dependent on range and relative motion,
    9,11) Good questions.
    10) Situational, but I’m a fan of machined energy dumping solid slugs.
    12) Good question.

  7. Anyone with armed security for themselves or their family members, including armed guards at their children’s private school, should not be allowed to make negative comments about gun ownership, much less be allowed to vote for restrictions.

  8. Today’s quote seems particularly appropriate for this discussion:

    “Idealism is fine, but as it approaches reality, the costs become prohibitive.

    —William F. Buckley, Jr. “

  9. If someone is talking about mass shootings as a justification for anything, be very suspicious. I compiled some numbers a few months back and found that how this is measured depends very heavily on how you define “mass shooting”. There is really no set in concrete definition. Usually, they exclude gang shootings, family shootings and terrorist attacks – which makes the response to this last… curious. The high numbers quoted recently go way further than that even, they also include incidents where no one died at all (usual is 3-4 deaths minimum) but rather where someone looked like they might want to shoot up a place.

    They’re also very rare. I couldn’t find any references to any (public mass shootings) in Illinois over the past 30 years, but Chicago has a murder rate in the mid-to-high hundreds per year. Then other states like Colorado have had several. In fact, the overall US rate found by the congressional study mentioned above was about 1/100th that of Dunedin, New Zealand over the same time – because Dunedin has a population of about 150k and one large mass shooting in the time period. Yet Dunedin has very, very few murders on an annual basis – I’d guess 2 off the top of my head.

    I don’t have my numbers in front of me, but the Aus and NZ rates were higher than the US overall – but because NZ is so small, it depends heavily on what counts for the rate to vary wildly.

    I came away from the exercise impressed at just how rare these things are, especially compared to murders generally.

    And from what I understand, the US has a very low murder rate outside a few extremely lawless areas. Fix those first I say. If you want to look at mass murder, look at mass murder motivations, not the method they use – because I also found more than one knife massacre.

  10. Oh, and regarding bigoted, racist gun owners, I don’t know if you all have seen this:
    An international (Canada isn’t a state yet!) listing of gun owners willing to train LGBT or anyone else for Free in the basic handling and safe use of firearms.
    Also mentioned in the Washington Post (!!!) included in a very fair article:

  11. anyone one else find it frightening that various sections of the government are trying to disarm law abiding citizens at the same time it’s fostering an atmosphere of lawlessness, which encourages a certain segment of the population (both legal and illegal) to feel the “law” doesnt apply to them in the first place??

  12. Pingback: Lefty Journalist Neil Steinberg denied being an AR-15 because of information revealed in his background check… | Batshit Crazy News

Leave a Reply