Gun fanatics undercut their own argument

Last week Now Magazine (one of Toronto’s alt weeklies) printed an article backing David Miller’s call for a handgun ban. This is perfectly sensible policy that many industrialized countries already have in place. Handguns are dangerous and have no real purpose other than to kill people. Gun clubs where people engage in target practise are often cited as an exception. But what are they practicing? How to kill. It’s akin to having a club where people practise slipping date-rape drugs into someone else’s drink. Why are you practicing that anyway?

Anyway, Now publishes this article and the “responsible” gun owners go apeshit (I think that’s the technical psychiatric term). These “responsible” individuals (that’s how they style themselves) have written all kinds of letters in response to the article. In these letters, the gun owners channel their outrage and develop nuanced, thoughtful arguments that advance their opinions on the legal and moral aspects of the gun debate.

Just kidding.

They call Now’s article a “stalinist” piece written by “latte-quaffing fags.” Oh yeah, and one guntard just says that the problem is black people.

If the gun community cannot tolerate any discussion of their hobby without turning into 13 year-olds, then they, of all people, clearly should not be trusted with firearms. Between this tirade and what constitutes attempted murder of Liberal supporters in Guelph in response to the long gun registry, I am convinced that the gun fanatics are exactly the wrong people to be trusted with dangerous weapons. Hell, I don’t even trust them with scissors (well, maybe safety scissors.

As long as handguns are available, it seems as though the people who will be most attracted to them will be emotionally stunted man-children – the words of these individuals constitute the strongest evidence as to why they themselves are wrong. They say that if guns are criminalized, only criminals will have guns, I say that as long as guns are legal, idiots and criminals will have guns. Please ban handguns.

5 responses to “Gun fanatics undercut their own argument

  1. You ask the question, why practice something you’ll never do? I don’t think my wife has ever used her English degree in her profession, but she talks so purdy. Most people who learn martial arts never apply them directly to a conflict. But, the physical training and mental skills gained improve their lives. Sometimes, a lot!

    Training with a gun is not different. Guns are fun. Using a gun involves a lot of your brain. It just feels good. Your training progress is clearly and graphically visible, and I find that makes activities a lot more “addictive” for me. There are lots of dangerous activities we allow in controlled environments but not in public. If you apply for the right permits, you can temporarily erect demolition equipment that can tear down an entire block.

    Though I see no reason operational handguns should ever be tolerated in public, neither do I see a reason why it should be illegal to train on one on a licensed range….

    Still, there are lots of other ways to get those same feelings. If one can only feel that way with a gun in one’s hand, help is needed. I don’t think it would be a great sacrifice to insist on no handguns, anywhere, ever.

  2. Wow, what a lame blog

    This has to be the lamest blog I have ever seen. Nice work spanky.

    P.S. What exactly is the basis behind your support of banning handguns? You do realize it has failed miserably in every country it has been implemented right? Of course you don’t, you are clearly not that bright.

  3. so I guess I am a Neanderthal for using and enjoying firearms. Gun control is the only theory who’s absolute failure demands more of it. Let me apply that logic. I eat big macs once a day. I gain weight. I remedy the situation by eating more big macs. WTF?

    Gun owners are demonized everywhere in the media. Expect demeaning reactions to demeaning articles. We want to me left alone and not have our property stolen. When your filth calls us idiots and man children, our filth calls you latte quaffing fags.

  4. I would be very interested in your opinion on the martial arts, fencing, javelin throw, archery. Why is an ancient way to kill more acceptable as a sport than a modern one?

  5. You really should do a little research before you let your prejudices blind you to the realities of handgun ownership and public safety in Canada.

    Sure, there are a lot of Neanderthal conservative gun owners whose opinions and taste in baseball caps you’d probably find offensive. But arguing that people should be oppressed because you find them different and frightening and their views distasteful is the essence of fascism. Especially when there is no good public policy justification for outlawing handgun ownership in this country; when you look at the numbers from StatsCan, you’ll find out that in this country you are twelve to fifteen times more likely to be struck by lightning than shot by a licensed handgun owner with a registered handgun.

    Seriously. Look up the numbers of people murdered with registered handguns by licensed gun owners annually. And then look up the numbers of people struck by lightning every year. And if you do so, and still think that handguns should be banned, I’ll expect an explanation from you as to why we shouldn’t be required to wear tinfoil beanies with lightning rods on our heads whenever we go outside in the rain.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s