Talking Points

[1776 Rebel]

The other night I was listening, as I usually do, to the late night radio talk shows. You will have to forgive me but I do tune into Alan Colmes show. I do this until either I fall asleep or get so pissed that I tune to another station and listen to stories about flying saucers and crop circles !!! Well dear Alan had on his show the other night a woman from an open carry organization. I will not mention either her name or the group. I don't want to bash or demean them. What I will say is that I was not impressed. IMHO she did not represent gun owners or the OC movement well. But out of that, I started to think that there are lots of folks that might have the opportunity to speak on radio, TV or to the newspaper media. Wouldn't it be a good idea if there were some sort of "cheat sheet" that they could resort to when in this position? Very straightforward and direct responses to the most common questions/attacks from the non-gun world. In this way an individual might do a quick scan before the interview to come up to speed on answers.

So I propose that with the resources of these forums members and the 3M's we might be able to put something together. You can contribute a question and an appropriate answer. We can of course recommend refinements etc. If it has some worth maybe it could be posted somewhere on a permanent basis. Just a thought. The answers should be brief, easily understood and non-confrontational. They should educate rather than polarize.

In furtherance of getting it started here are a couple of Q&A's from me...(some of these where on the radio show by the way)

Why do you own guns?
I own firearms for several reasons: I am interested in the technology of firearms. As machines they have been around for 500 years and have influenced society greatly. Some gun owners enjoy hunting. Others like to study the history associated with firearms and maybe even collect particular arms. Some are competitive shooters in a wide variety of shooting sports. I am also a believer that firearms can provide me with a real ability to defend myself when needed against those elements of society that might do me harm.

But guns kill children?
Tragically guns are involved in incidents where children die. The latest statistics from the Federal Gov't show that the number of very young children killed and injured by firearms is a small number. Actually much smaller than the number of children who drown in swimming pools for instance. Safety is a very high priority among the gun owners of America. But that said, accidents and criminal misuse of guns cannot be prevented totally.

Guns scare people.
Fear of guns is like fearing automobiles. There are far more deaths and injuries where cars are involved than guns. Society recognizes that drunk driving is bad and should be punished. Gun owners see the situation in the same light. If someone uses a gun to do bad things they should be punished severely.

Why would you want to carry a gun in public?
Some gun owners elect to carry firearms while in public because they understand that there are criminals in this society who have no respect for human life or property and would gladly take both from innocent citizens. Those who do carry firearms in public have been screened by the authorities and statistically represent one of the most law-abiding groups in society.

[Ron J]

Really good points.  Something to remember when approached by those who work off of their emotion vs. fact on arguments about firearms.

To date, there are some studies that suggest that violent crime and in particular black on black crime is reduced when there are firearms for defense available.  I need to go back through my files and find my sources.  As well, the NRA ILA has some good stuff available. 

[dj454]

Good post 1776 Rebel.

[1776 Rebel]

Just saw a CBS news report on firearms at work and public places. Here are a couple of other questions

Why would you want to carry a gun at work, or church or at an airport?
First let us understand that criminals don't obey laws. That is why they are criminals. You will have criminals with firearms anywhere they wish to have one. What is relevant is where can good law abiding citizens have firearms. Today there is debate about possesion of firearms on campuses, work, churches, airliners, and airports. Those in opposition have distorted each of these proposals. Let's look at each one seperately:

They say that if guns are on a college campus children will get upset in class and shoot people.
First no one is talking about children. The discussion is about ADULTS who have been licensed by authorities to carry concealed everywhere else. That means that one of the safest law abiding groups of society will be able to carry a firearm across this imaginary line of the campus. The scare tactic of masses of law abiding adult citizens going insane and hurting others is just that. An irrational scare tactic.

They say  guns at work will make for more violence at work.
I acknowledge that some violence will always be unavoidable. Workplace violence happens now. There is no proposal to take away the right of property owner to ban firearms carried on his property. What is being proposed is the right for someone to have in their property, their automobile, a firearm.

Churches are  a place of peace and worship and shouldn't have any guns around.
Criminals don't respect churches as a sanctuary from crime. In fact some of them view it as a place of opportunity. Either for monetary gain or mindless violence. Those church goers who wish to carry a firearm may feel they have a right to defend themselves when in public.

No guns in airports. Its crazy.
Airports are public places. They do have a secure area beyond which firearms are not allowed. If firearms are not allowed in the public, open, and unsecured areas where does that prohibition start? The terminal building only? The parking lot? The road into the airport? Once again criminals or terrorists are not deterred by a law. Yet honest law abiding citizens who feel they should be able to defend themselves are punished. Honest citizens don't harm other people. In fact they might be able to help others.
(PS I heard an airport manager say that ccw holders are not trained. I immedately thought of the TSA. What a joke !)

A pilot should not have a gun. He could hurt passengers.
A pilot flies the plane. He could crash the plane. They don't.

[tombogan03884]

Rebel, you supplied my blog for this week. Thanks !

[Sponsor]

[1776 Rebel]

Tombogan, happy to help out 

I am still noodling on fifty cal weapons, cheap handguns, and minorities and gun ownership...any thoughts would be appreciated.

I have been watching and listening to a lot of the political discussions lately (have lots of time on my hands while lookiing for a new job). Heard one of the talking heads describe how political guests on TV shows come on with their talking points. Short direct simple sound bites. When asked a question they respond with their talking point. Don't deviate. Even if they ask you why  the sky is blue, you respond with your talking point. Well by golly, as I watch these cable shows it is true. Glenn Beck substituted for Larry King the other day. When he asked some of the guests a question they just refused to answer it. Bang out came the sound bite. It is really amazing. The whole thing is about the message and air time. Anyway I think we are all intelligent enough to play that game. Have to leave the emotion home. Just stay on message. 

[tombogan03884]

Leaving the emotion home would turn liberals into mutes.

[TAB]

Leaving the emotion home would turn liberals into mutes.

Conserveatives are just as guilty.

[1776 Rebel]

Ok, sorry for the delay. I put several more talking points together. If you have any other ideas post it and I willl give it some thought. Hope you like these and don't have major objections.

Fifty caliber weapons should be banned. Have you seen what damage they can do?

Like many other gun control arguments this one is irrational. First of all, large caliber firearms come in many varieties. A double barrel 12 guage shotgun is a .72 caliber weapon. A 150 year old flintlock muzzleloader could well be over .50 caliber. There is no evidence that large caliber firearms are used in criminal acts any more than other firearms. In fact rifles that use the .50 caliber BMG cartridge are extremely expensive. Costing thousands of dollars. They are very heavy and very long. Some studies show that there are no known incidents of them ever being used in a criminal act. If you outlaw these firearms because of the diameter of the barrel, there are firearms which have a barrel diameter just a few thousandths of an inch smaller  with similar performance characteristics. Criminals are much more interested in concealable firearms than 30 pound behemoths that are five feet long. The diameter of the barrel is not as important as what criminals do with firearms and how they are punished.

These criminals get cheap handguns from out of state and commit crimes with them.

Rarely will criminals obtain guns legally. Most of the time they couldn’t qualify if they wanted to go that route. That is why they will get firearms from the black market or steal them. Most criminals are also not very wealthy. So they spend what they can afford. The price of the firearm in the hands of a criminal is not as important as what they do with it. Gun owners want to see the criminal who uses a firearm in crime to be severely punished, no matter what the cost of it is. 

Guns are a scourge on black urban citizens. We need to get all these cheap guns out of the low income urban areas.

Most black urban residents are honest and hard working. They are decent citizens in a difficult economic and social situation. They have been dealt a bad hand and are trying to survive as best they can. They also are being terrorized by criminals in their midst. Much more so than the suburban white middle class. The latter can lobby for better police protection, gated communities and can afford to be geographically distant from violent criminals. The urban poor if anyone have a greater need for protection. If an inexpensive firearm is all that a law abiding citizen can afford for protection, why would you want to punish them by denying them access to a firearm? 

Usually not discussed is the role that gun ownership played in  protecting the black citizens of the South and elsewhere during this nation's long period of racial intolerance. In a number of incidents it was the poor sharecropper with the shotgun that kept the bigots at bay while local government ignored their pleas for help. It actually highlights what most gun owners believe. When the government is unable or unwilling to focus on the protection of an individual or class of citizens, how will they defend themselves? Ultimately it is the necessity of the individual or class of citizens to defend themselves.  To that end they must be allowed to use the means necessary to do such. Disarming the disadvantaged is morally wrong. 

[2HOW]

MHO , I have a lot of I knows, a few too bads, and more of I dont give a big rats ass. But great post.