How (not) to convince people to support gun control.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

My impression is that a lot of the posts on DU advocating gun control are based on a fairly fundamental misconception about the people who oppose it.

There seems to be a widely-held attitude that opponents of gun control know that it would save lives, and oppose it even so.

That is true of only a small minority, I suspect.

If you want to convince people who *disagree* with you to *change their minds* - as opposed to just preaching to the choir, which is - lets face it - what most posters on DU are interested in, then you need to present convincing evidence that gun control will result in a reduction in the number of total deaths per year (*not* just "a reduction in the number of gun deaths per year).

Don't malign their motivation; accept that they love their kids as much as you do, and that the reason they want gun ownership to be unregulated is not because of bizarre sexual fetishism but because they believe that it will make them safer; and set about refuting that belief, politely.


One obvious place to start is with comparison with other countries. A scatter plot of *all* nations of gun ownership vs murder rate doesn't exhibit much correlation (a lot of poor countries have few guns but lots of murders), but if you only include countries with high human development indexes (which is to say, countries comparable to the USA) then I believe (although I should stress I'm just quoting, I haven't checked these numbers myself) that you get clear correlation.

Another thing worth doing if you have more time and easier access to the numbers than I do would be debunking the statistics the NRA produce about defensive firearm use - I remember seeing a post on DU a while back in which a more reliable source put out much lower numbers, but I can't remember the details, I'm afraid.

[AnotherMcIntosh]

1. Of course, you said it exactly right when saying, "If you want to convince people".

If.

I respectfully suggest that they don't.

[Pelican]

76. Preaching to the choir is fun...

No one tells you if you are full of it...

[geek tragedy]

2. Guns are a cultural issue, not a public safety one.

Politically, that is. Of course in real world terms it is a public safety issue.

But, in terms of politics, the pro-gun voters are going to oppose each and every piece of legislation that in any way makes it inconvenient for anyone to buy or own a gun.

Look at Toomey-Manchin. Policy-wise it was something the vast majority of pro-gun voters say they favor. But when it came time for a vote, the vast majority of pro-gun voters were glad it failed.

The cultural belief that guns are the solution to violent crime instead of an aggravating factor is not vulnerable to policy arguments. Like other ideological assumptions,,the more evidence one presents the more people dig in their heels.

How many minds has empirical analysis changed on abortion or prayer in public schools?

And, let's not forget that pro-gun voters are also overwhelmingly Republican. So, they're going to oppose any kind of gun reform, since such efforts are associated with Democrats.

Gun reform will not be possible until we break the spine of the Republican Party.

[Recursion]

31. I'm in a weird place on that.

I think the tribal signaling element could probably help our party, even though I disagree with the policy.

[Progressive dog]

3. No, this is a democracy, it doesn't require unanimous support

to change laws.
The proposed gun law changes including background checks, awb, and magazine limits are supported by a majority of voters. Even a majority of NRA members support universal background checks. So why would anyone have to convince a delusional fringe group that values "cosmetic features" above human life.
There is no way to be polite to people that deny that fewer guns means less gun crime, if we include comparably developed nations.
There is no way to be polite to people that deny that larger magazines means more bullets fired before having to stop to reload and becoming vulnerable to counter attack.
Gun regulation gains nothing from trying to convince these gun worshipers.
The only reason to interact with these people at all is to counter their continued deceptive propaganda.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

4. I think single-issue polling is misleading.

It appears that peoples voting patterns can be more accurately predicted by answers to "do you support tighter gun control" than to "do you support gun control measure X".

And the responses to the former polls are much less encouraging, making me think that the latter are causing false opimisation.

Also, if you want gun control which will actually make a meaningful dent in your gun death statistics, you'll need to repeal the 2nd amendment, which would need near unanimous support (and isn't going to happen). Banning assault weapons is about dog-whistling, mostly - it will save a handful of lives at most, out of the 30k people shot to death in the USA each year.

[Progressive dog]

5. All polling is somewhat misleading

but I don't believe you are a pollster, are you? If you are, what did you think of the Ayotte poll in NH right after her pro gun vote?
I'd also like to ask, what would you think that I should consider as a meaningful drop in gun death statistics? A handful of children saved, once in a while, say at a place like Newtown, would be about what I'm thinking. I would expect more just from background checks, mag. size, and AWB reinstatement. Those can easily be done without violating any 2nd amendment rights. Even if you are right, a handful of lives saved is better than none.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

7. No this is a republic with laws that can override a popular sentiment or vote

Prop H8 comes to mind.

[Progressive dog]

8. Believe what you will, people make the laws and can change them

Not an unelected sovereign like the NRA.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

9. I believe in the law and deplore mob rule

whether it is Prop H8 or something else.

In a republic, people do not make the laws, their representatives do. Some states do allow limited direct democracy, and like Prop 8 it mostly ends up in the courts.

[Progressive dog]

10. Deplore how you will, you'll have to endure living in a

democratic republic (see they are not mutually exclusive).
Very simply 1) Laws are written by legislators. majority rule
2) Legislators are elected by the voters. majority rule
3) Laws mat be vetoed by the President, who is also elected by the voters
No god or sovereign brought the laws to us. They do not exist outside of our system of government, which is a democratic republic.

And to get back to the point of the OP, which gun nuts continue to prove, there is no point in convincing gun nuts.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

12. Not for much longer

but that is another thread.

Anti gun nuts are as batty as the gun nuts. Seen that over many years. We don't have any of the latter here. The pro gunners here are pretty centrist. Those who find that comical have never run into serious gun nuts.

[Progressive dog]

13. Where are those pro gunner centrists

You must mean the ones against universal background checks. If 90% of voters disagree with them, they are not centrist. People who have "reasons" to oppose even the slightest move on gun control are not centrist. The gun nuts on here may be centrist in some spectrum but not in the USA and not in the Democratic party.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

62. Most here clearly are

I don't know any pro gun rights person here who opposes UBCs, myself included. Some are much further left than many other posters here.

[Progressive dog]

64. Then why all the posts complainig about the 90%

polling, which is about UBC. It doesn't make sense except as a tactic to oppose UWB without admitting to opposition.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

65. I have only posted once in this thread point out the contrary polling

and said polls were of little value.

I have supported UBCs well before the POTUS speech on it.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

6. There are no valid metrics for DGU from either side

Because there is no mechanism to collect them. Never has been and I am not sure one could be created that would be credible.

Anti gunners claim it almost never happens

Pro gunners say it is quite common

The police can only report what they are aware of, and that is clearly a subset. Additionally the templates used today do not always capture the events.

I compare it to helmet stats with motorcycles. Another metric that is clearly cooked.

[gulliver]

11. Find out who they are and fire them from their jobs.

I don't own guns now, but I have in the past. I probably will again at some point in the future if I ever move to the country or something. Normal gun ownership for hunting and, for some people, even self-defense makes sense to me.

But as a society we need to draw the line for unreasonable weapons somewhere. And if it can't be done by laws, then it should be done socially and economically. It's a matter of safety, peace of mind, and simple manners. That's why I advocate finding out the names of people who own over-the-top weapons and putting those people in their proper place in the grand scheme of things. Way down low.

You can have an AR-15 legally, but if I find out about it I won't let you past any job interview I conduct. You'll never know why you didn't get the job. If I google you, or find out from one of your neighbors or friends that you are big into Bushmasters and funny clips, then yes, I will even try to get you fired from your job. Again, you won't know why. It will just happen. I won't patronize your business. I won't let my kids anywhere near yours and I will make sure everyone knows about you and your not-so-funny gun nut Addams family.

We can have responsible gun owners, and there is nothing wrong with it. What I think the responsible gun owners ought to do though is drop the NRA like a hot rock like George Bush Sr. did. You lie down with dogs, you get fleas. That organization is infested with scum.

[Stretch714]

15. You would fire a guy who is supporting his family because of a gun he owns?

How would you feel is republicans started firing people because of how they voted? Would you be ok with it if it was democrats firing people for how they voted?



Some of you people are no different then the people you hate. Only difference is the side of the issues you have taken. Fucking sad.

[gulliver]

16. Yes, but it would depend on the weapon for me.

An AR-15? Yup. Fired immediately. No reason given.

A .357 or 12-gauge pump shotgun? A deer rifle? Not a criminal? No problem.

[hack89]

17. So you think I should be fired?

even though I have owned AR-15s for 20 years without a problem.

My daughter owns one too - should she be expelled from college?

[gulliver]

19. Yup, times have changed.

Civilians don't need those kinds of weapons. I wouldn't fire people who had them in the past. Times change. Just those who continue to have them.

[hack89]

20. So my daughter should be expelled from college? Really? nt

[gulliver]

21. Sorry. It's not personal.

But the job candidate or prospective student without the AR-15 gets in. The one with the AR-15 doesn't.

[hack89]

25. The NRA thanks you for their support

it is people like you that make their job of scaring gun owners that much easier.

As an aside, do you understand now why it is impossible for me to work with you on gun control of any kind? If you think you can get the laws you want without the support of gun owners, then more power to you.

[gulliver]

35. I'm not too optimistic about gun control laws.

They currently distort our politics. We don't need Kansans voting for shipping jobs overseas with the Republicans just because they are afraid of gun grabber bogey men.

I can see why you might vehemently disagree with me so much on the AR-15 that you would not side with me on background checks, but I don't think the reason is valid. Why let guns flow freely from the law abiding to criminals (through the gun-show loophole) and maybe kill a young cop just because you are angry about my AR-15 views? It makes no sense.

I think we will have to disagree about the AR-15. Maybe you and your daughter are responsible with them. I have no way of knowing. To me, hunting and self-defense guns are to the AR-15 like July 4th fireworks are to ANFO and other high explosives. The line needs to be drawn, either legally or with people's freely expressed individual judgments.

[hack89]

38. If your goal is to save lives then AR-15s are the least of your worries when it come to guns.

those "hunting and self-defense guns" you support kill tens of thousands more people than AR-15s. Hell, knives kill three times as many people as AR-15s.

[The Straight Story]

67. I call that being a control freak. And how would you find out what guns they owned

Ohhhhh that's right - you would ask those who own even worse weapons (joe blow down the street who is employed by the government) to invade their privacy.

Maybe you should look for causes of violence and real solutions - but then, that requires more work than writing an opinion online. Easier to just yell out to others to enforce your ideals.

Less than 1% of gun owners use them in crimes. How about we start plastering the news daily with every single story where someone with a gun did not use it? Your newspaper would be the size of a large phonebook each day.

But keep on getting worked up over what a few people do and falling into line out of fear - just like we did after 9/11.

People are easily controlled and manipulated. Tell them they have something to fear, offer them a solution, and they will run to you with their money and freedoms without thinking at all.

[premium]

18. You just named the 2 firearms I own,

a Colt Python .357, which I paid $50.00 for, and a 12 ga. shotgun.

[gulliver]

24. I've had shotguns of several gauges.

Only fired a .357 in a shooting gallery. It was fun but I wouldn't own one at this time, not while I have kids around the house anyway. And I live in a safe neighborhood.

[premium]

28. My kids are grown up and gone,

but before they moved out, we didn't own anything except an old single shot 12 ga. which was kept in a gun safe when not in use.

[Union Scribe]

23. That's an extremist position

and every bit as nutty as something Wayne LaPierre would say.

[gulliver]

27. I dunno...

Arming teachers (LaPierre) or firing people who like to have special levels of weaponry (me). I see a difference in nuttiness level there. So would a lot of people I think.

[Union Scribe]

29. Making millions of people unemployed

because you don't like the legal things they own = nutty. Some of you honestly need to get a grip and realize that these bizarre revenge fantasies where you punish gun owners aren't going to happen. All it does is give the extremists on the other side tangible proof that there are really people out there who fit their stereotype of gun control proponents. And no, "a lot of people" aren't going to go along with such rhetoric. That's what you, and the NRA, want people to think

[Duckhunter935]

39. One day

this views will bite them in the ass when they get fired for no reason. Maybe something they said or how they voted.

[Stretch714]

41. Do you hire based on how some one votes?

You did not answer the question in my reply.

Would you be ok with republicans doing that, hiring based on voting records? Would it be ok for democrats to do that?


Where would it stop? You don't like red cars so no job for you. He likes a football team you do not like so no job for you.

[gulliver]

69. There is a big difference between voting...

...and choosing to own an AR-15. Voting is a responsibility and the heart of democracy. People should be proud to vote, regardless of how they vote. Owning an AR-15 is actually disreputable and speaks strongly to a flawed character. Of course it should be a hiring consideration. I doubt anyone I know would hire someone they knew to own an AR-15 or anything like it.

[Stretch714]

71. So any one who owns an AR-15 has a flawed character, wow. nt

[hack89]

78. So someone voting for the Tea Party does not have a flawed character? ok. nt

[NickB79]

66. I can only imagine your distaste for unions then

Because most on DU are strong proponents of unions, and in an ideal world where unions had their power back like it was in decades past, your "fired with no reason given" would have union members foaming at the mouth.

I'm sure that would go over really well in states vital to the Democratic Party like much of the Midwest

[NickB79]

68. Even though 12-ga. shotguns kill FAR more people annually?

At most, several hundred people are killed in the US by rifles of all kinds annually.

Pump-action shotguns and revolvers kill THOUSANDS more per year than rifles. Where is the logic in that?

[metalbot]

73. I don't get it

What you are saying is that if someone owns a gun that is MORE commonly used to murder people, you would hire that person over someone who owns a gun that is LESS commonly used to murder people.

Am I correctly restating your position?

[kudzu22]

22. Joe McCarthy would be proud

Let's blacklist anyone we don't agree with.

[AnotherMcIntosh]

30. We need to draw a line somewhere? Then draw it between criminals and noncriminals.

In the 2008 Heller case, the non-criminal was a police officers. He was allowed to carry his firearm while on dury in the District of Columbia but, under DC law, was not allowed to have his firearm in his home while off-duty for self-defense or to deter a need for self-defense.

In the 2010 McDonald case, the non-criminal was a long-term homeowner in a Chicago neighborhoods which had changed to being a gang-infested neighborhood. He was also a robbery victim from a home invader while in his home. He was not allowed to own a firearm in his home for self-defense or to deter a need for self-defense while the police were not making an adequate effort to take firearms away from the street thugs and home invaders.

If you won't distinguish between criminals and noncriminals, you will never have support from those who do.

[customerserviceguy]

37. I'm sure your bigotry is widespread

Not just for people who cross your artificial lines on guns, but by people who discriminate for a wide variety of reasons having zero to do with holding a job.

It's one of the reasons I tell the younger folks I know to avoid Facebook, and if they simply must have a page, put pictures of kittens and puppies on it. Few people hate those things.

[raccoon]

80. +1000. nt

[GeorgeGist]

14. ok

[Skittles]

26. OMG

not this shit again

[Recursion]

32. Well, what you've been trying is clearly working so well...

... I can understand why you'd be averse to advice.

[Skittles]

33. it's the NRA and BIG MONEY buying results

and people supporting their garbage against ALL REASON...and Newtown is YOUR STUFF "working so well"

[beevul]

45. Nonsense.

"and Newtown is YOUR STUFF "working so well"

Uh...lets see - Newtown:

Assault weapon ban - Check.

Gun free zone - Check.

One of the strictest sets of state level gun laws in the nation - Check.

All the federal firearms laws that apply everywhere else, on top of one of the strictest sets of state level gun laws in the nation - Check.


That's not "your stuff"? Really?

[Skittles]

47. check Australia's stats and get back to me

so fucking sick of this NRA pimping

[beevul]

48. Australia's stats...

Australia's stats, have no bearing on whether the things I listed are "your stuff" or not.


So are they, or aren't they?

[Skittles]

49. BULLSHIT

READ UP

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_politics_in_Australia

[beevul]

50. I'll take that non-denial denial as a confirmation. N/T

[Skittles]

56. DONE here

[DainBramaged]

53. Oh and the nuts, come marching in oh and the nuts come marching in

there is no way to stem the tide, except more gunz gunz gunz.



It's always the same tired excuses for gun rights, their freedoms, that try and argue the hardest.


Frankly, we just need to ignore them all and they'll have nothing to talk about.




PROUDLY Unarmed and unharmed over 60 years.

[Skittles]

55. I am so fucking tired of them Dain

they make a mockery of America

[DainBramaged]

57. They are simply trying to wear America down.

Remember, your kids are more important than their gun rights and THAT will put it in perspective.


My ignore list is 50% gun bunnies now, and it seems every week another gets the granite cookie and two more appear.



NONE OF US can change the debate, the Senate proved that. 90% of us want change, and the NRA gun fucks block us.


Maybe in my next life guns will be outlawed and these snakes will be gone.


Be well.

[billh58]

34. Here is yet another

NRA-promoted myth masquerading as an honest appeal for understanding and kumbaya.

This OP assumes that ALL gun owners are represented by the gun nuts who inhabit DU and the NRA. They are not. American gun owners are just as divided along political, philosophical, religious, and ethnic lines as ALL Americans are, and a sizable percentage of them support some forms of gun regulation.

The reason that the USA is up to its ass in guns, is because the NRA surreptitiously bought and paid for politicians at all levels of our government over the years, and pushed through insane gun laws which allowed the unfettered proliferation of guns in this country. Their motives were not the "preservation of the Second Amendment" but the preservation of the profit margins of their gun manufacturer sponsors and masters. The mindset that we now need to be "nice" to the NRA and its apologists in order to restore some semblance of sanity to our gun violence problem, is a red herring.

The right-wing NRA and its supporters (mainly Republicans and Libertarians) will not allow ANY changes willingly, even if we kiss their putrid white asses at noon on Main Street. The only way that we can secure meaningful change, is to appeal to the moderate segments of the voters, and to fight the anti-American NRA, and its backers, at every opportunity.

This is not about "statistics," and the interpretation of the Second Amendment, and has nothing to do with confiscating all guns. It is about getting guns off of our streets, and regulating the sale and transfer of guns. It is about making gun owners accountable and responsible. It is about common sense and decency. It is about preventing needless injury and death from lethal weapons.

[Bake]

43. Admittedly, I've only ventured into the Gungeon once or twice

But I seriously doubt we have more than a handful of true "gun nuts" here on DU, although I have been accused of being one, despite my support of stricter regulation including universal background checks.

I've met a few REAL gun nuts. I'm not one, and I can't name one here on DU.

Bake

[beevul]

46. Its part of the overall effort.

Label anyone who disagrees with them "gun nut"and try to get them tombstoned.

I support background checks, provided registration is strictly forbidden, yet I get labeled "extremist" and "gun nut" and "nra type" quite regularly.

Its proof of the most elegant kind, that a "conversation" is never what the pro-more control side of the debate wanted. They are not the least bit interested in a conversation. Their actions show quite clearly, that they'll settle for nothing less than a lecture.

[Bake]

51. I've been called a gun nut, gun lover, gun humper, etc., ad infinitum

Mostly by DUers who are intent on banning ALL gun ownership, and those who disagree with them can be neither liberals nor Democrats.

I haven't lost any sleep over it.

Bake

[friendly_iconoclast]

75. I've been subject to the same treatment, but that's not the part that bugs me.

The part that bugs me is that the gun Puritans seem hellbent on dragging the rest of the Democratic Party
along with them in defeat and irrelevance-

"Chained CPI? Budget mess? Dammit, there are people out there with AR-15s!"

[MattBaggins]

36. It's called Gun Safety Measures

[edhopper]

40. The only opinions that need to be changed

are those of politicians that don't see any political fallout from going against the vast majority of Americans.
As long as they see that a small special interest cabal will hurt them worse than voting with the rest of the country, we won't have gun control.

[Aristus]

42. I must respectfully disagree.

All of the convincing evidence in the world will not persuade gun lovers to give up their guns. Not when their obsession with weapons of mass murder is emotional, not logical, in nature.

Rational arguments do not sway people with an irrational obsession.

[Bake]

44. "Weapons of Mass Murder?"

That's a little over the top, don't you think? WMDs are usually reserved for nukes or really big bombs or chemical weapons.

If you consider every firearm a "WMM" then you've already lost the debate.

Bake

[Aristus]

59. I don't consider every firearm a weapon of mass murder.

Certainly a black powder, muzzle-loading, single shot flintlock musket is not.

But it's hard to argue that the Bushmaster the guy used in Newtown isn't, either...

[supernaut]

77. What about a single shot bolt action .577

aimed at a fuel tanker stopped at a busy intersection during rush hour?

Is that also a weapon of mass murder, or would that be the fuel tanker? Or do they somehow combine, once the trigger is pulled, and at that moment become a weapon of mass murder?

[Uzair]

52. It's not a small minority

It is, in fact, all of them.

Because this debate has been over for decades. When you present the facts to the gun nuts, they change the subject. Every single time. They will talk about everything except the gun laws. They may love their kids, but they love their guns a hell of a lot more.

Anybody who looks at the facts agrees with gun control.

[DanTex]

54. The problem is, the fact-based community already agrees with gun control.

The opposition to gun control is largely cultural. For the most part, it's the same people who think that global warming is a conspiracy against capitalism and that evolution is a lie from the pit of hell.

Yes, it is a good idea to repeat the factual case for gun control, including the various studies, the international comparisons, the statistics on gun violence, etc. But, given that about half of Americans think creationism should be taught in schools, I wouldn't get too optimistic about changing the minds of gun nuts using science.

I can't think of many (any) people who oppose gun control who actually do so for rational or factual reasons.

[hughee99]

58. A great way to get someone to not listen to you is to tell them

they're too stupid to know what's best for them, they want children to die, that something they personally had nothing to do with is personally their fault, or that they are bigots. After that part of the conversation, you could give them the winning lottery numbers and they won't listen to you.

[DanTex]

60. Stupid bigoted gun nuts who don't care if children die aren't going to listen to logic regardless.

[billh58]

61. +1000 n/t

[hughee99]

63. Of course, but if you start your argument off like this,

even the people who aren't stupid bigoted gun nuts who don't care if children die aren't going to listen to a word you say either.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

81. I presume you can see the circularity of your own argument without my needing to point it out? N.T.

[hunter]

70. I mock gun owners. I have nukes. Drones too, not those weenie remote contol kind, smart AI...

...brighter than most humans, actually.

And a dragon. Don't mess with dragons,

Sometimes I find handguns in Spot's poop.

[baldguy]

72. Thank you for your concern.

However, your post presupposes that those who honestly oppose gun control do so through honorable motivations. They don't.

"One obvious place to start is with comparison with other countries."



http://tewksburylab.org/blog/2012/12/gun-violence-and-gun-ownership-lets-look-at-the-data/

Any reasonable person would look at this and understand that the US is doing something wrong in regards to guns. We're a strong and unusual outlier in both the number of weapons we have and the number of homicides.

When gun nuts - yes, GUN NUTS - look at this, they first see nothing wrong at all. When pressed, they admit that there may be some problem - but it's all due to mental heath issues, or drug abuse, or video games. In short, they cast about in search of ANYTHING AT ALL to blame it on other than the obvious culprit, which is the guns. And they will go out of their way to criticize any public figure who supports gun control, whatever the issue is.

And the most amazing thing is that they seem to parroting these same RW talking points coming from Alex Jones, Wayne LaPierre, and the other well-known RW crazies. Doing so while claiming to be a liberal/progressive Democrat is neither honest nor honorable. They don't offer respect, and they don't deserve to get any respect in return.

One way to insure that arguments against gun control are mocked & ridiculed is to get them from the most unreliable & extreme RW sources. Such posts NEED to be exposed for what they are.

[ellisonz]

74. This is perhaps the most asinine thing I've read in hours:

If you want to convince people who *disagree* with you to *change their minds* - as opposed to just preaching to the choir, which is - lets face it - what most posters on DU are interested in, then you need to present convincing evidence that gun control will result in a reduction in the number of total deaths per year (*not* just "a reduction in the number of gun deaths per year).

[Pholus]

79. One does not combat religious fervor with facts.

Initially tried your approach in May of 2011.

A gunner was presenting statistics for the 90 "most violent" and "least violent" nations on earth and concluded based on a regression coefficient of -0.25 that the data completely supported their argument.

I pointed out each and every problem with the data. I pointed out the correlation was actually going the WRONG way to support the "hypothesis." But you can't argue with someone who not only doesn't understand statistics but is full of confirmation bias on the level you suggest.

It didn't matter. You simply do not argue matters of fact when the issue is faith. Period.

So, the only thing left to do is poke them with sharp sticks through their cage walls and let them say stupid things that can be held against them later.

I've racked up quite a collection.

My latest addition is some guy that states that he is a "longhorn" while everyone else is "sheep." See he has a gun to protect his "herd" and the rest of the "sheep" just let each other die cause they're liberal idiots who don't see that we all need guns to survive our trips to the local 7-11. Funny stuff, when you can get at the offal that lurks just beneath the surface of a gunner. They are the worst sort of social darwinist. Every time I see a gun post by this guy I now get to point out that he has also categorically stated in the past that he is a cow. I don't think he knows how to counter that yet cause he always goes away.