Ridiculous Pro-Gun Ad

The Conservative Post’s headline “Glock’s Fantastic Pro-Gun Commercial Is Sure To Offend A Liberal, And Make Conservatives Laugh Out Loud” is sure to make progressive folks groan.

Watch it here if you feel like chuckling arrogantly:
The Wrong Girl

Offended? Nah.

The ad was actually ridiculous. Out of curiosity, I scrolled down to read the comments for the same video posted on Youtube, but the comments were disabled. Not surprising at all. Conservative types have a thing for deflecting different opinions by either not listening or not answering. (Hello, Mr. Stephen Harper?)

It just makes me really uneasy when people think that the notion of owning guns for “protection” is sensible. Those very same weapons can and are used against innocent people, killing thousands every day. We’re not talking about licensed hunters here, we’re talking ordinary people with differing ethical and intelligence levels owning very lethal weapons.

I understand the concern for any human to want to be able to defend themselves, but there needs to at least be very thorough training involved for every individual before purchasing a firearm to own in their home. Even then, it’s still a huge risk that the gun could get into the wrong hands (Someone who’s pissed off at the owner of the gun and knows where they’re keeping it, kids playing around with it, the owner themselves in certain scenarios, etc.)

A lot of pro-gun people also happen to feel it is within their rights to fire a fatal blow to anyone who has trespassed their home. That creates a separate argument of human ethics. Making up your own morals such as “Anyone who tries to steal from my house deserves to be shot in the head” is a dangerous thinking pattern. Women are about 6 times more likely to be shot by their boyfriend or husband (And don’t forget their exes) than by a random male. Also, one study showed that one third of boys aged between 8 and 12 would pull the trigger of a gun when coming into contact with it. Many people do not properly lock and secure their weapons.

There are States in the U.S. that have “Stand Your Ground” laws which can quickly get out of hand. In fact, studies show that there is 7 to 10 % increase of homicides in the States where this law happens to be in place. And half of these cases were not actually for self-defence; the guns were fired by the owner because of a domestic dispute that escalated. Of note (And not to generalize), many gun owners tend to be more aggressive and easily angered than non gun owners. And they have something to back them up if someone has “truly” wronged them…

It’s always going to be a very volatile topic, but we can’t be careless. Gun laws in Canada are, at least, far stricter than those in the U.S. Opposition to gun control and gun registries really shows how careless and immature you are. No one is going to collect your guns. And even if Obama did, do you realize that American civilians outnumber cops and feds by roughly 79 to 1. Hmmm.

But then again, I’m just an overly tolerant man-hating Liberal whore….

Advertisements

4 thoughts on “Ridiculous Pro-Gun Ad

  1. It just makes me really uneasy when people think that the notion of owning guns for “protection” is sensible.

    So what is your idea of sensible self defense? Making my wife (160 pounds and loss of upper body strength due to breast cancer surgery) or my 76 year old mother in law fight hand to hand with an attacker?

    hose very same weapons can and are used against innocent people, killing thousands every day.

    Well, first off you are slightly exaggerating firearm fatalities by a tad — like Niagara Falls is a small stream tad — at the highest in recent years approximately 80 people per day died in firearm related fatalities. Half of those were by suicide.

    Next, cars are used to kill people every day and they still make sense. People die every day of alcohol, smoking related causes, diet, etc — the actions of others shouldn’t mean other people’s rights are restricted.

    . We’re not talking about licensed hunters here, we’re talking ordinary people with differing ethical and intelligence levels owning very lethal weapons. ….but there needs to at least be very thorough training involved for every individual before purchasing a firearm to own in their home.

    So are you saying that the average person isn’t ethically capable of making life or death decisions without training?
    The same people who cook for themselves (food poisoning anyone?) raise children (don’t even get me started on that), doctor themselves, drive themselves, etc?

    Come on, the numbers just don’t add up that the average person is making bad decisions.
    Even if every firearm related crime — approximately 400,000 per year according to the Bureau of Justice Statistics — was done by a different gun owner (approximately 85,000,000); we are still looking at 0.47% of gun owners being criminal. Accidents are approximately half the violent crime rate and fatalities are around 30,000 a year.
    Of course, most gun owners aren’t involved in violent crime. The F.B.I. estimates that 50% of all homicides and 85% of all violent crime is drug and or gang related. Should that be the focus?

    Gun laws in Canada are, at least, far stricter than those in the U.S. Opposition to gun control and gun registries really shows how careless and immature you are. No one is going to collect your guns.

    You might want to tell that to the people in California where cops are doing door to door collecting guns – because they are prohibited person – in some cases retroactively for crimes they committed before the law changed.

    Or tell that to the people in New York City where the cops just issued notices for people to turn in guns or have them confiscated.

    The real issue here is do gun control laws work – and according the the CDC the answer is they couldn’t find any evidence of that.

    During 2000–2002, the Task Force on Community Preventive Services (the Task Force), an independent nonfederal task force, conducted a systematic review of scientific evidence regarding the effectiveness of firearms laws in preventing violence, including violent crimes, suicide, and unintentional injury. The following laws were evaluated: bans on specified firearms or ammunition, restrictions on firearm acquisition, waiting periods for firearm acquisition, firearm registration and licensing of firearm owners, “shall issue” concealed weapon carry laws, child access prevention laws, zero tolerance laws for firearms in schools, and combinations of firearms laws. The Task Force found insufficient evidence to determine the effectiveness of any of the firearms laws or combinations of laws reviewed on violent outcomes. (Note that insufficient evidence to determine effectiveness should not be interpreted as evidence of ineffectiveness.) This report briefly describes how the reviews were conducted, summarizes the Task Force findings, and provides information regarding needs for future research.

    So why does it make sense to push laws that can’t show they will work?

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s