- After reading a file on (pro) gun control, I was surprised at some of
the remarks. Some people continue to support a closed mind on gun
control which does not address the present problems involving people
and firearms; It only adds TO the problems.

Below is an excerpt from the text file I read:
(* denotes original textfile )
(counter args are denoted with "()")

.............................................................................
Strategic points to remember for public speaking:
* Today's criminals and gangbangers outgun our cops.

(If Law enforcement in this country saw a need for police to carry
bazookas, I'm sure they could. However, a blast from a bazooka
would also injure more innocent bystanders than one well placed
bullet.)



* Our children are being threatened, murdered and cut down in the street.

(If the consequences of breaking certain laws in this country
were more strict, a decline in some crimes would be evident.
note the drop in drunken driving since 1980 and numerous states
compliance with drunken driving regulations.)



* There is no sporting purpose for a semi-automatic firearm

(a SEMI-AUTOMATIC firearm loads the next live round into the
chamber with EACH pull of the trigger. This takes no motion
to perform by the shooter, besides a trigger pull on EACH SHOT.
SEMI-AUTOMATIC hunting rifles typically hold 5 rounds. Some
BB guns are also designed on this principal.

a FULLY-AUTOMATIC firearm releases a BURST of rounds while
HOLDING THE TRIGGER BACK. This is typical of assault weapons
and military weapons, and can hold numerous rounds of ammunition.
FULLY-AUTOMATIC firearms are illegal to hunt with in many
(if not all) states.

The purpose of a SEMI-AUTOMATIC firearm is in that
it requires the shooter no motion to eject the spent round,
and load in a live round.

I don't see the evil difference in ejecting a spent round manually,
or having the firearm perform the sequence mechanically. A person
firing one round from a single-shot firearm can kill as easily as
20 rounds sprayed from an assault rifle. )



* The 2nd Amendment does not protect the right to own military or semi-
automatic arms.

(The 2nd amendment to the united states constitution states the
"right to keep and bear arms".)



* With tens of millions of people owning guns, the potential for lawlessness
and gun massacres increases ten fold each year.

(With tens of millions of new teenage drivers every year, the
potential for the teenage death rate to rise is evident. This
can be curbed with safe driving habits.

With the continuing study of space, the potential for more
space shuttle disastors rises. Through careful planning, and
good judgement in all stages, this can be minimized.)



* The current crime wave can touch any community, and social strata.

(If the consequences of some crimes were less desireable, the
current crime wave would diminish into a ripple.)



* Handguns have no purposes other than killing people.

(Many people partake in competition target shooting every year.
some events are classed by the type of firearm. (handgun/rifle)
until they make the rock-toss a little less boring, many
RESPONSIBLE people enjoy competition target shoots.)



* Households with guns are 43 times more likely to have their guns used
against a family member than those households without guns.

(In a household where a child or another family member with the
potential for disastor is left unsupervised, tragic outcomes
are sometimes imminent.

fire, chemicals, carbon monoxide, kitchen knives, screwdrivers,
and hammers have all been used in murders by family members.

If the adult in the household is afraid of leaving the Drano
on the kitchen sink, lock it up. Although the only absolute
assurance this won't fall into the wrong hands, is to remove
it from the environment.)



* Self defense is no legitimate reason for owning a gun (see Above Point)

(Many people are raped, robbed, pillaged and violated with some
type of overpowering advantage every day.

Many PEOPLE make the mistake of killing or maiming
someone they didn't intend to, every day.

This is what they call "accidental death" and "reckless homicide".
However it is done, and whatever they refer to it as,
the method used is not pertinent when the overall outcome
is considered. )



* The vast majority of crime guns are bought legally.

(A jar of peanut butter can be implemented into an explosive device.
I dont' recall ever having a background check done for a jar of
Skippy.

Charcoal and can be made into gunpowder. There is no
limit to purchasing either of these.

A vast majority of things people can be harmed with can be
purchased legally every day. It is up to the consumer to
judge the potential hazard in their household, and take action
to prevent it.)



* Most Gun dealers sell thousands of guns illegally to gangs and criminals
every day.

(People will do ANYTHING and EVERYTHING to make/get money if they are
desparate or plainly just don't give a damn.
Some, just for the hell of it.)



* Repeat these facts over and over and eventually the public will begin to
see the light. They cannot casually dismiss these devastating facts any
more. They will be remembering our arguments long after the echoes of
the NRA's arguments have vanished.

(Anything instilled into the mind of an individual not correctly
or fully informed is a strong, yet dishonest offensive.
You should ask yourself:

"If I have to trick people into favoring my point of view,
am I really as right as I think I am ?...")


* Remember that they are defending the right to murder in our country. This
alone makes them look brutish and neanderthal. Offer our people another
alternative. An alternative to violence and machismo. It is becoming
less and less politically correct to own a gun. Ultimately society as a
whole will look upon gun owners with dread and disdain.

(Intense situations call for intense actions. Sadly enough, in
this day and age, there exist individuals who believe they have
some right over another individual for whatever reason. While
defending the "right to murder", your also defend
your right to say "No, I won't allow you to do that."
The downside is many individuals do not respond well to that
statement, and surmise they can do whatever they want.

If America were placed in France's position in WWII, do you
think Adolf Hitler would have backed down from a simple
"No, I won't allow you to do this".

As far as owning a firearm being "politically correct" or
not, or society looking down on me for owning a firearm,

If MY LIFE is put in danger for reasons of terrorism,
non-conformance to anothers countries/individuals wants
and wains, I believe I would protect MY LIFE with whatever
means neccesary. I kinda enjoy living, and another individual
has not right whatsoever to take that from me.)


Other Pressing Points:

* Military Assault Weapons:
The confusion by the general public between semi-automatic weapons can
work in our favor. Constantly dropping the words - submachine gun, fully
automatic, machine gun, military weapon, high tech killing machine are
good debater's tricks to instill a sense of dread over these weapons.
Ultimately people will learn to dread these weapons just like chemical
warfare weapons and toxic waste dumps.

(Geez, c'mon! Why do you need to "drop words" and lie to everone to
support your point of view?? Are you that unsure of your standing
that you need to lead people astray to see your view???)



* Semi Automatic Weapons:
Remember that there is no place for any kind of semi-auto weapon in a
safe society regardless of how it looks, since many so called sport
rifles can be easily converted to a military configuration. Thus all
semi-automatic weapons are capable of being called 'assault weapons'.
Never let up on this fact.

(A "safe" society is made up of responsible individuals. Much like
a Chain. Bad chain-link = bad chain.

Firearms are not dangerous until someone picks one up. If this
someone happens to be a "bad chain-link",
then the combination:

firearm + "bad chain-link" = bad news.

This 'someone' could easily pick up anything besides a firearm
to kill; and people HAVE !
)

* Endangerment of Children:
It is difficult for the Gun groups to counter arguments which call
attention to the endangerment of children. Making the opposition look
callous creates an image of brutality and indifference to the audience.
Keep this point in the fore front of any public argument.

(Children are in danger every day because many haven't the
understanding yet of how and why things happen.
Some young children don't understand what "dead" means.
This is, in a sense, called 'innocence'. Most adults,
on the other hand, fully understand the how and why of
death and ways it can happen. Whether from a child getting
into rat poison in the garage, or playing with matches in
a hayloft, or showing daddy's gun to a friend.

It is up to the adults to keep innocent children from harms
way. Unfortunately, there are many incompetent adults who
leave harmful things lie around. When a curious child finds
these things, tragedy is usually the outcome. )



* Enough is enough:
Americans are sick and tired of the violence that is infecting our
society. Press fourth this point and other points of a related nature.
It is time for action, to take back our streets from crime. If we don't
take action now, this crimewave will engulf America. Again be sure to
press the point that the Gun Lobby opposes action to counter this crime
wave.

(Crime IS at an all time high in America, and taking guns away may
reduce some of it. BUT criminals adjust well to new ways of
commiting crimes. They will not sit on their hands and wonder
what they will do now that there guns are illeagal. It sure
as hell didn't stop the Moonshiners from making their corn whiskey.

........It just drove them to be more cunning.)



* Assault Weapons - the Choice of Criminals:
Assault weapons are the weapons of choice for gangs, mentally deficient
individuals, and criminals across the board. The Gun Lobby argues that
anyone at anytime should have the right to buy and own these weapons of
mass destruction.

("Weapon of mass destruction". Hmm, isn't this the term the
government used to refer to Saddam Hussein's goings on in the
Persian Gulf area ?

This is one of those "drop-words", I think.

Sorry,... ain't buying it.

The potential for world wide holocaust from a nuclear war cannot
rate with the lesser destruction caused by several rounds fired
from and assault weapon. Yes, they both can cause tragedy, and
are similar in the range of destruction as compared to the time
it takes.

Assault weapons are just that. They were designed for assaulting.
If someone wants to assault, they will use whatever they need
if the drive to do it is present.

Bottom line is, neither an assault weapon, nor a
"Weapon of mass destruction" is dangerouns until a INDIVIDUAL
is in contact with it. Then it becomes dangerous.

What is needed is control over the INDIVIDUAL more so than
control over the 'tool'. )



* Too Many Guns in the U.S.:
There are over 200 million guns in America today. One for every man,
woman, and child in the United States. Push the fact that each one of
these killing machines poses a grave threat to our population.

(Only people pose a threat to others, not the weapon itself.

Incompetency, ignorance, carelessness, malice, and warped
brain tissue are all perfect ingredients for the recipe
of tragedy.)



* Assault Ammunition:
The ammunition for military arms are more powerful and more devastating
than normal ammunition. This type of ammo if not banned, should have the
delivery systems (aka assault weapons) banned at least.

(I don't know what "more powerful" ammunition means. It may refer
to a type of bullet which can pierce bullet-proof vests, or
a type of rocket in the U.S. military which can pierce
through the wall of an armored tank.

Now, would banning this type of ammo make it illegal for the
military to posses it also for fear of military personal
selling it to rival groups, civilians, etc ??

scandal is alive and well in all aspects of American culture.
just like the cold/flu virus. If you can't eradicate it 100%,
all effort is in vain.

I am not in favor of de-militarizing the U.S. armed forces.

I also don't know why civilians need to have access to
any teflon bullets or cop-killers. )
.............................................................................


The real problem with firearms is NOT the firearm.
It is the PERSON BEHIND THE TRIGGER. When are people going to realize
taking guns away is not the answer to America's death rate.

- Guns have no intelligence.
- Guns have no sense of right or wrong.
- Guns don't care what is in front of them when the trigger is pulled.
- Guns don't load themselves.

- People have intelligence.
- People have a sense of right and wrong.
- People make conscious decisions which kill people.
- People make mistakes which kill people.
- People forget safety and kill people.
- People can also load a gun.

This is all FACT, and not opinionated blithering.
The ideal of "..a peaceful world, a world without firearms" seems
ridiculous.

- Early man had little or no access to machine technology, Early man
killed with whatever he had. You CAN rid the world of firearms, but
you can't rid the world of the drive to kill.

- A curious chimpanze could pull the trigger on a firearm, but I
wouldn't leave a firearm within reach of a chimpanze, OR A CHILD
for that matter. Children have died from curiosity about fire and
colourful liquids as well as firearms.


my opinion:
I don't enjoy killing. When I was younger I did partake in hunting
expeditions with my best friend. When he would walk behind me sometimes,
he was not always aware of where his rifle was pointed, or whether his
safety was on or off. I confronted him on numerous occasions, but to
no avail. I don't hunt with him anymore. I was damn lucky. The scary
part is, he is not the only ignorant person in the woods. I still enjoy
the outdoors, but....

knowing their are IDIOTS walking around with loaded guns prompts
me to stay out of that environment.

Does this mean hunting should be banned ? No; What it means is
some people are irresponsible to the point of being vegetative.
and they need to have the privilege revoked, or be educated on
safe firearm handling.

If you ban hunting on the grounds of it can be an unsafe environment,
then ban driving, farming, walking down the street, drinking and
anything else which requires safe interaction with others in a common
situation.

If you ban guns, then ban cars, farm equipment, side-walks, roadways
alcoholic beverages, and anything else which requires sane, conscientious
safe, and responsible interaction.

The oppositions both for and against gun control are ridiculous if you
consider the above mentioned. Wouldn't it seem people are wasting a lot
of time and energy debating on a issue which is in all irrelevant to
the problem?

These opposing forces should join efforts towards the goal of:

"An America with reduced crime."

That ideal seems more realistic than "America with no guns". They tried
something similar to that years ago with alcholic beverages. It didn't
work either.

I recently learned that a State prison in Portage, Wisconsin allowed
Jeffrey Dahmer to be baptized in the prisons JACUZZI ??!!
If he wants to be baptized, fine. But what the hell is a prison doing
with a JACUZZI ??!!

What is a prison doing with a Television, and a basketball court, and
computers, and weight lifting equipment.....?

It almost seems people WANT to go to prison. If you were homeless
and despondant, wouldn't going to prison would be a major upper in your
existence.

Should prison inmates be given these "privileges" in hopes of "reform" ?
or should they be given nothing in hopes of reflection on their crimes?

Maybe if people feared the consequences of law-breaking in this country
we wouldn't have as much of it.

Maybe if prison was thought of as a "bad" place and not "club-med",
people would think about the consequences of their actions before
carrying them out.

Take Singapore for example. In my opinion, sigapore took the
right road, but went thru the red light. Apparently, chewing
gum in Singapore is "illegal". Are the extremes of the U.S.'s
government and Singapore's government that inevitable? Whichever
road you take, do you end up snowballing?

I don't see taking guns away from the public as being any kind
of remedy to gang violence, terrorism, murder and the like.

What I do see as a possible avenue to curb gun-crimes is stiffer
penalties for the offending individual(s). People say the death
penalty is barbaric and inhumane.

Cold blooded murder is barbaric and inhumane. There are too
many variables surrounding the consequences of crime in this country.
It needs to be simplified to eliminate the loopholes and the
indecision. Locking criminals up in a prision is not working.

Weapons are "illeagal" in prision, yet inmates still get them.

Hopefully, someone with clout on the gun control issue may read
and address some of this material. The problems just beginning
to arise in this country have been festering for many, many decades.
There will be no overnight solution. Any solution brought to table
on the matter which is worth reviewing will most likely take many, many
years to implement if it will be effective. Look at how long it has
taken drunken driving to be considered socially unacceptable. And,
watch the smoking issue closely. Bit-by-Bit, these two issues
are/have been implemented towards an outcome acceptable by the majority.
This is what makes them effective, and workable. The one thing
in common with both of them is they address the heart of a matter
and implement their changes at a pace acceptable to society. If
people could take the same steps with crime, you would see crimes
involving guns slowly dissipate. You would see people AFRAID of
going to prison. You would see ex-criminals think twice about
going back, because it "really sucked". Too bad Bill is too busy
working on his jogging track instead of being more productive
from a group standpoint.