"Spike in gun sales silly"

[ericire12]

http://media.www.theorion.com/media/storage/paper889/news/2008/12/17/Opinion/Spike.In.Gun.Sales.Silly-3580119.shtml

Ralphie wasn't the only person who wanted a gun for Christmas. Turns out there's reason to think that quite a few people will be pulling a Glock from beneath their Christmas tree this year.

Gun sales have increased in Chico as well as throughout the United States since President-elect Barack Obama was chosen, and some employees at gun shops suspect a number of these guns are being purchased as Christmas gifts, Chico Enterprise-Record reported.

The increase in gun sales is due to the fear that Obama won't support the right to bear arms and will eventually ban some guns altogether.

During the week of Nov. 3, 2008 CNN reported that, according to FBI figures, the bureau received more than 374,000 requests for background checks on gun purchases, which was nearly a 49-percent increase over the same period in 2007.

However, this fear is formed on no solid basis.

First of all, a Politico news report states that Obama has been consistent in his support in common-sense gun laws, and will protect the right to purchase, own, transport and use guns for hunting and target practice.

Second, do people feel so unsafe that they need guns to protect themselves? It surprises me that stores such as the Tackle Box are selling out of firearms. Despite Chico's crime against persons rising from 13 percent to 16 percent in 2007, I don't think I need to purchase a gun to protect myself.

In a perfect world, guns wouldn't exist at all. In defending oneself, survival would be based on natural instincts, not the pull of a trigger.

Hunters need guns to shoot animals. Having a rifle or a shotgun for hunting makes sense. Having a handgun for hunting, on the other hand, does not. But even so, there isn't a reason to go hunting anymore. We don't hunt for food, just sport.

The only reason a person would buy a handgun is to shoot at people or a practice target, but what are they practicing for? If it's just a sport then they're probably not planning to put that skill to use.

What's even more pointless is stressing over gun rights. People hear rumors about gun rights being taken away and then hear about an increase in gun sales and automatically assume Obama is going to make an attack on gun owners.

The truth of the matter is that Obama supports the Second Amendment in protecting individual gun rights, so there is no need to go out and buy them. With a plummeting economy, gun legislation isn't a high priority.

According to a CNN report, Obama has been clear that his focus is on the economy, the growth of jobs, dealing with the health care crisis and our dependence on foreign oil and not on gun control.

The only thing people should stress about now is the increase of crime rates and gun deaths because of the increase of gun sales.

In a 2004 report from the Center for Disease Control and Prevention, an average of about 81 people died every day from gunfire in the U.S. This was the most recent year for which figures were available, but four years later and an increase in gun sales - I can only imagine the damage that'll be done.

I don't like guns and think they only lead to trouble. I've survived 21 years without one, 18 of those years spent in Chico, so there's no need to get one. I think gun owners are exaggerating, but I understand that buying a gun is an American's right.

All I ask is, if there's a desire to get one, leave the Obama-hoopla out of it. And please don't give your friends and family a gun for Christmas. C'mon now, they'll shoot their eye out.

Kelley Chandler can be reached at
kchandler@theorion.com
Can we flood this lady with emails please!

[tt11758]

Silly?  I'll tell you what's silly.  Silly is some little wet-behind-the-ears 21-year old liberal pissant telling me what I do and do not need.  THAT's silly!!

And I can tell you what I DON'T need, Ms. Chandler.  I DON'T need some head-up-their-ass touchy-feely liberal pain in the ass like you making ANY kind of decisions for me!!  You haven't had need for a gun in your 21 years on the planet?  I'm happy for you!!  In my more than half a century on the planet I HAVE had need for a gun on a few ocassions.  I sincerely hope that you, you santimonious little b***h, are within earshot of someone like myself should the ocassion ever aride that you DO require a gun to protect yourself from some slobbering hulk bent on doing physical harm to you.  Those of us who own and carry weapons are the kind of people who would come to the aid, even of someone like yourself who would disarm us if she could, to protect you from physical harm.  Remember, the BAD guys will ALWAYS have guns, and won't be afraid to use them.  GOOD guys with guns is NOT, has never been, nor will it ever be the problem, you moronic little bimbo.

Now go have another super-sized glass of the Obama kool-aid and leave the rest of us the hell alone.  We really don't give a shit WHAT you think!!


*taking a deep breath so as to lower my blood pressure and pulse rate*

[ericire12]

Silly?  I'll tell you what's silly.  Silly is some little wet-behind-the-ears 21-year old liberal pissant telling me what I do and do not need.  THAT's silly!!

And I can tell you what I DON'T need, Ms. Chandler.  I DON'T need some head-up-their-ass touchy-feely liberal pain in the ass like you making ANY kind of decisions for me!!  You haven't had need for a gun in your 21 years on the planet?  I'm happy for you!!  In my more than half a century on the planet I HAVE had need for a gun on a few ocassions.  I sincerely hope that you, you santimonious little *****, are within earshot of someone like myself should the ocassion ever aride that you DO require a gun to protect yourself from some slobbering hulk bent on doing physical harm to you.  Those of us who own and carry weapons are the kind of people who would come to the aid, even of someone like yourself who would disarm us if she could, to protect you from physical harm.  Remember, the BAD guys will ALWAYS have guns, and won't be afraid to use them.  GOOD guys with guns is NOT, has never been, nor will it ever be the problem, you moronic little bimbo.

Now go have another super-sized glass of the Obama kool-aid and leave the rest of us the hell alone.  We really don't give a shit WHAT you think!!


*taking a deep breath so as to lower my blood pressure and pulse rate*

Comment of the day award!

[ericire12]

From the comments section of their web site.... These are great:

To start, I understand the lack of knowledge that a college student would have regarding this subject and how the normal influences tend to steer college students to a certain position. After all, I'm not far removed from that atmosphere myself.

That said, this Op-Ed has so many holes in it, I'm not sure where to start.

QUOTE: However, this fear is formed on no solid basis.

In perhaps one of the most vivid twists of sick irony that I have seen recently, on the same date you published this piece, your front page shows an article about two young people being stabbed, one in critical condition.

Add this to the increase in crimes against persons that you mentioned and you are a victim waiting to happen. Hopefully, it never happens to you but you certainly aren't doing anything to make yourself less attractive of a target.

QUOTE: In a perfect world, guns wouldn't exist at all. In defending oneself, survival would be based on natural instincts, not the pull of a trigger.

Or maybe it would depend on knives (see above), bats, lead pipes, chains, etc. Maybe in a perfect world we could coat everything in rubber or foam so there were no sharp edges and no one would ever get hurt. Why hasn't anyone thought of that?

The 2nd Amendment isn't about hunting. All firearms are protected by the 2nd Amendment.

Just like all speech and other forms of communications are protected by the 1st Amendment.

How would you feel if I said the 1st Amendment didn't grant you freedom of speech on the internet or allow you to use a computer to compose your articles. After all who needs a high speed computer to write a few words when a quill pen and a piece of parchment would work just as well.

If Obama's plans for gun control were changed to effect the 1st amendment instead of the 2nd you wouldn't be allowed to own a computer and post junk like this on the internet, you'd be writing it with a pen and paper and only allowed to post it in public after receiving the proper license from the government.

<<<"I don't like guns and think they only lead to trouble. I've survived 21 years without one, 18 of those years spent in Chico, so there's no need to get one.">>>

Easily the dumbest statement in the article and dumbest anti-gun comment I've read in a while. Because you've made it to the ripe old age of 21 without being killed, there is no need to have a gun to protect yourself? Are you serious? In the paragraph RIGHT BEFORE THIS ONE you say that 81 people are killed every day by guns, so why should I not be able to have a gun to prevent myself from being one of these people?

Don't be too hard on her.

This is what a liberal education produces - a person totally incapable of critical thought, totally un-aware of reality, and convinced of her moral supriority.

Pretty sad really.

Ms. Chandler,

You assert, several times, that Obama is consistent in his support of common sense gun laws. Why don't you support this opinion with examples of him voting down spurious gun legislation? Why don't you reference his voting record at all when making your point? I suspect this is because Obama has supported every single piece of asinine gun legislation he could.

Ms. Chandler. Can you demonstrate one time or place, throughout all history, where the average person was made safer by restricting access to handheld weapons?

Your parents should demand a refund on your tuition. As many of the other comments point out, you obviously lack critical thinking and research skills.

Yeah, yeah, it's an "opinion" piece, but opinions should be based on facts.

[MikeBjerum]

My reply (e-mailed direct to her):

Miss Chandler,

I would think that a person writing for publication would be more concerned about Constitutional Rights.  How would you feel if the First Amendment were twisted to limit the number of words you could publish at any given time; the topics your articles could cover; the areas in the Country in which you could publish your works; the amount of time that must pass between applying to publish and when the article could be published; or the number of works you could publish in any given time period.  How about a law that said you must be trained and pay for a permit to write, even if you never publish.  This is an apples to apples comparison of legal restrictions imposed on the Second Amendment to how those restrictions could affect the First Amendment.

Please do some study of the Constitution and the purpose behind these Rights.  You will quickly learn that those considered radical gun nuts are really closer to our Founding Fathers than those that strive to strip all Americans of their Rights.

By the way, I agree that in a perfect world we would not have any guns.  However, many years ago a woman and her husband gave into the deception of a serpent, and the hope of a perfect world on this earth was lost forever.

Mike Bjerum
Mountain Lake, Minnesota

[Sponsor]

[cooptire]

My reply (e-mailed direct to her):

Concise, too the point and very well said. Here, here!

[tombogan03884]

My  contribution to plugging up her mail:


To hear you tell it there was no such thing as crime before the invention of gunpowder. If you had bothered with any research you would have found that murder is as old as mankind. In fact Rome was so dangerous that they had to invent the concept of Municipal Police to TRY to limit the robbery and murder that were rampant.
Your ill informed smear of law abiding citizens is based on several untruths, First , while Obama campaigned on a platform of "I'm not gonna take your guns"his voting record is straight anti gun, he has NEVER voted against any anti gun rights legislation, he even voted to make it a crime to DEFEND yourself in your own home.
The Second Amendment is a constitutionally guaranteed CIVIL LIBERTY. if we allow the anti civil rights groups to defeat the 2nd whats to stop them going after others, I support the First Amendment but think we should implement some REASONABLE restrictions, or how about the 13th, after all, in the Dredd Scott decision the Supreme court ruled that a Black was only worth 5/8ths of a white (women were property as well back then, and didn't count at all ).
Your blaming guns for crime is like blaming forks for fat, If it were REALLY about crime then why are you attacking FBI vetted law abiding citizens ? You should be railing against violant offenders and the lenient judges who let them out early to reoffend.

[PegLeg45]

My  contribution to plugging up her mail:
To hear you tell it there was no such thing as crime before the invention of gunpowder. If you had bothered with any research you would have found that murder is as old as mankind. In fact Rome was so dangerous that they had to invent the concept of Municipal Police to TRY to limit the robbery and murder that were rampant.
Your ill informed smear of law abiding citizens is based on several untruths, First , while Obama campaigned on a platform of "I'm not gonna take your guns"his voting record is straight anti gun, he has NEVER voted against any anti gun rights legislation, he even voted to make it a crime to DEFEND yourself in your own home.
The Second Amendment is a constitutionally guaranteed CIVIL LIBERTY. if we allow the anti civil rights groups to defeat the 2nd whats to stop them going after others, I support the First Amendment but think we should implement some REASONABLE restrictions, or how about the 13th, after all, in the Dredd Scott decision the Supreme court ruled that a Black was only worth 5/8ths of a white (women were property as well back then, and didn't count at all ).
Your blaming guns for crime is like blaming forks for fat, If it were REALLY about crime then why are you attacking FBI vetted law abiding citizens ? You should be railing against violant offenders and the lenient judges who let them out early to reoffend.

My reply (e-mailed direct to her):
Miss Chandler,

I would think that a person writing for publication would be more concerned about Constitutional Rights.  How would you feel if the First Amendment were twisted to limit the number of words you could publish at any given time; the topics your articles could cover; the areas in the Country in which you could publish your works; the amount of time that must pass between applying to publish and when the article could be published; or the number of works you could publish in any given time period.  How about a law that said you must be trained and pay for a permit to write, even if you never publish.  This is an apples to apples comparison of legal restrictions imposed on the Second Amendment to how those restrictions could affect the First Amendment.

Please do some study of the Constitution and the purpose behind these Rights.  You will quickly learn that those considered radical gun nuts are really closer to our Founding Fathers than those that strive to strip all Americans of their Rights.

By the way, I agree that in a perfect world we would not have any guns.  However, many years ago a woman and her husband gave into the deception of a serpent, and the hope of a perfect world on this earth was lost forever.

Mike Bjerum
Mountain Lake, Minnesota

Well put, both of you.
I couldn't have said it any better so I won't try.