Help me shoot holes in these lies...

[Shorts]

The typical anti gun response to stats that show the benefits of gun rights is usually, "but the children are dying!" That's how anti gun people do this to us. It's not about gun confiscation, it's about dead kids! That's why polls show more support for more unspecified "gun control" after a dramatic shooting. We have to take our fight to the same emotional level.

These sentences here triggered some thoughts. These are rough as hey just popped up so I'm just spilling them here for dissection.

The kids are targeted. Specifically targeted. That seems no different than workplace shootings. Theater shootings. Assassinations. War. Any time a target is placed on a specific location or group of people, they will be in harm's way. Doesn't matter the method. Beghazi. Bali night clubs. Border towns of Mexico. Nazi Germany. OK federal building. 9/11 WTC. Waco. Leaving people defenseless, to be as vulnerable as fish in a barrel is the real crime. Anyone who wishes to deny me any means necessary to protect myself has now taken the liability for my safety. Can they guarantee my safety under any and all conditions? If they can't and they don't want to be liable, they need to step out of the way.

Perhaps TSA needs a real big suit against them for undertaking the liability of protecting passenger via screening methods (which they failed) which resulted in the deaths of thousands of people on the ground and passengers in their care. This wouldn't be an exercise in determining if a gun would have saved the victims of 9/11. Rather it is an exercise in extracting the full price of TSAs taking responsibility for passengers personal safety. Could serve as an example of how those businesses and implemented regulations that take responsibility via liability would fair upon their failure.

 

[ScorpionHunter]

You can extend that argument to the magazine capacity restrictions. If you restrict magazines to 10 rounds, can you guarantee that I'm less likely to be killed or wounded by a criminal with a gun? And if not, why not? If the anti gun people don't admit that they want complete civilian disarmament, then they're saying that a certain number of people dying by criminals with guns is ok.

 

[Mexican_Hippie]

If we're talking pure emotion, and talking to a liberal, you need to relay stories of women or children saving themselves with an AR15 or other hated weapon and ask:

** Would you rather have those women and children who defended themselves dead?
** Why are the kids at the Newtown school more important than the kids whose lives were saved by guns?
** Why don't you value all people equally?
** What gives you the right to play God with people's lives, picking who lives and who dies?
** Women can legally choose to abort their babies but not to defend themselves? That seems kind of archaic and sexist.

"We need to empower people who are physically weaker to be able to stand up to those who would kill or take advantage of them. We need to give them choice and an equal playing field."

You have to use their own words against them.

 

[GPtwins]

You want to blowmholes in the gun grabber lies, buy John R. Lott Jr.'s book " More Guns, Less Crime". It is a ver well written piece and is a pretty quick read. He explains the falicy behind the way gn grabbers present so called stats.

 

[M. Sage]

#5 and 6 are also lies, now that I look again. Nobody credible claims that keeping or carrying a gun makes you safer. We in the pro-gun side constantly acknowledge the hazards of careless handling of firearms. Constantly. How many times do we hear that owning a gun no more makes you a gun fighter than owning a guitar makes you a musician?

Call them on that straw man.