Your "anti-gun" argument is rather convoluted I think. Pro gun control is NOT anti gun. Educate yourself here at what I will title
More extreme than Yemen but was published by the title "12 rational responses to irrational gun arguments."
"Pro gun-control" isn't anti gun, except in the case where guns are too cheap, too small, hold too many bullets, are too large, scary looking, or have a shoulder thing that goes up.
If gun control advocates wanted to ban guns that are used in crimes, they wouldn't start with scary looking guns, used in a relatively small percentage of shootings, they would start with Ruger 9mm pistols and Smith and Wesson .38 revolvers.
The short answer about that article is it's a waste of time to read it. Basically, it's meaningless propaganda. For the long answer, keep reading my responses.
In regards to point #1 of that article, every single school shooting that has taken place for the past couple of decades has taken place in a gun free zone.
In regards to #2, that depends on the gun control law. If, for instance, the government passes a law that forbids law abiding people from the manufacture of certain firearms [say machine guns] prevents law abiding people from possessing machine guns. Salon's point here is lost on me, because if you have laws forbidding the possession of certain firearms, only people who don't follow the law will have those firearms.
In regards to #3, value is relative. It sounds cold, but, quite frankly, someone's personal tragedy a continent away really is not important to me, until some politician uses it to restrict my rights.
In regards to #4, you could make the argument that based on the definition of the militia found in the United States Code, that interpretation of the Second Amendment is ageist and sexist. There's also the issue of the 9th amendment. And of course the phrase, "right of the people," when used in the 1st and 4th Amendments, does that cover some type of collective right?
In regards to #5. Adam Lanza committed his shootings in a gun free zone. So did the Columbine killers. And anyone who invokes
Gabby Giffords in a gun control argument is automatically not worth listening to. And crazy New York hammer dude is a convicted felon, so he's not supposed to have firearms. Seems like that gun control measure works. Lets make it more illegal for him to have guns.
This also is an argument for the death penalty in murder cases. It seems more like a failing of the criminal justice system, rather than a gun control law. That guy should never have been allowed to see the light of day.
#6 is a convicted felon, so it's illegal for him to get guns.
#7 is not correct. There actually are
private tank owners in the United States. From what I understand of ATF regulations, though, if they wanted to obtain ammunition, they would have to treat each round as its own destructive device. Even the fact that tanks are hard to get does not prevent
tank rampage.
#8. What's the point of that, other than to generate hysteria by claiming that the US is more extreme than Yemen?
#9 So, because they don't care about your rights is an argument to restrict their rights?
#10 The implement used to commit a murder is irrelevant. Compare the actual murder rates of, say, the United States and England...
except it really isn't viable because the US and the UK count the murder rate in two different ways. So, once again this is useless anti-gun propaganda disguised as a rational response.
#11 Knob Creek seems to do ok, so, it apparently is fun to shoot a machine gun. More to the point, unless someone is being hurt by a machine gun, who cares? Once again, this is useless anti gun propaganda. In this instance, the journalist comes off as a dour and bitter person who wants to deny others their fun out of sheer petulance.
#12 looks like just another appeal to emotion. Oh, and anthropomorphizing inanimate objects. A firearm is a hunk of metal and wood or polymer. It doesn't cause anything. People cause human misery. For some actual statistics
the vast majority of murders have a prior criminal record.
