Common sense gun sense.

At least, it should be.

me024
wavingflag
0004cb18-d6de-b154-8cfb-ffd7a9056cb4_958-1

Be sure to check out the awesome videos at the bottom of this page.

11molonlabe
thankyoucasket

 

Imagine if we split up the country into two sections.

One section housed all the anti-gun crowd and no guns at all. A gun-free zone.

The other section housed all the law-abiding gun owners and the citizens in this section had access to any and all the guns and ammo they wanted.

Now imagine you're a criminal organization. Any one will do. MS-13, ISIS, Al-Qaeda,
Hamass, the IRS, EPA, drug cartel, etc. Just pick one.

For whatever reason, you are determined to attack and destroy one of these two nations, or overrun that country and take it's land and resources for yourself, which is what criminals do.

Which one would you choose? The one with the guns and patriotic citizens who will fight back? Or the one full of anti-gun citizens who will be an easy conquest?

The answer is obvious, right? Of course it is. Criminals want unarmed victims. Except for groups like Hamass, ISIS and other muslim groups who think it's a glorious thing
to die in the execution of terrorism, most criminals don't want their intended victims
shooting back at them. They don't want to die. They want you to die...or at least
surrender your money or property without a fight.

This seems like a no-brainer, common sense analogy, right? And, you can change the
specifics to make the point valid in any scenario.

Instead of an entire country, let's just say there are two separate towns. One full of
law-abiding gun owners with access to any and all the guns and ammo they want,
and the other a gun-free town.

Which would you attack?

Or, make it a neighborhood that's spit into the two factions. You're a drug addict
and you need to rob or mug someone to get your daily fix of meth. Which neighborhood
would you go to to find a victim to mug?

Let's make that an apartment complex and split it into two sections. Or even a duplex.

The point is the same and equally as valid for all these analogies and any others you can think of.

Now, about that "gun-free" section of the country, house, neighborhood, whatever.

Will it actually be gun-free? No. Do you honestly think there would be no one smart enough to look at this and realize they can build an empire in a gun-free zone? All they need are a few guns, and they're king. It's the same mentality and situation that allowed
a few Nazis to herd hundreds or even thousands of Jews onto trains during WWII.
A few soldiers with guns herded hundreds of people to their deaths simply because
they had guns.

So in reality, the gun-free zone would be rife with crime and criminals, while the
gun-owner side would be peaceful, content, well-protected and people could move about their sector with relative confidence that they were safe and secure. They would be a much more difficult group to conquer and subdue for any criminal organization who wanted to overrun their land, subdue that population or just kill them because of a religious decree.

I tried this out on a liberal guy I know, and his response was.....umm.....enlightening.

He listened to my entire analogy then said,

"Okay. Now, imagine NO ONE had guns. End of story."

I said, "Then the physically stronger would rule the sector through force. Most women would have to belong to men for protection. The weak would have no defense against the strong, and criminals would run free."

He said, "No, there would still be a police force to keep the peace."

I said, "There is a police force now, and they can't keep the peace. They only investigate
crime after it happens. Why would it be any different if no one had guns? Especially if violent crime was easier to commit? Look at St. Louis right now. Are the police keeping the peace? No one is shooting up the place in St. Louis, but rioting and looting is turning the place into a war zone. The police can only contain the area and make a few arrests when they see someone breaking a law."

He avoided this point and gave me that deer-in-the-headlights look for a moment.
Then he said, "Your entire analogy is flawed. It's not realistic to think you could ever
separate the country, or even a neighborhood into two sections like that."

I said, "Well, it may not be realistic, but it IS possible. Technically, you COULD separate this country or a town or whatever you wanted into those two groups. What ISN'T realistic and what CAN'T be done is wishing all the guns away. They will NEVER just magically disappear off the face of the Earth, nor will they ever just be gone from the American culture."

He looked at me again for a moment and said, "You're a racist terrorist. You hate Obama because he's black and if you had your way guns would be sold out of vending machines. Guns are the problem. More guns logically create more crime."

I stayed calm and said, "So you would want to live in the gun-free zone?"

He said, "Get away from me...redneck. Go f@#& your sister."

I actually don't have a sister, but I left him alone.

The emotion and passion of the liberal will NEVER mix with the logic and realism
of a conservative. Oil and water.

 

four_boxes
gunfreezone101
bt0ugoxcyaemgnl
yardsign2
dosomethingaboutguns
gunfreezone

The myth of gun-free zones

A public service message from criminals who support gun control

Another public service message from criminals who support gun control

John Stossel exposes the myth

that gun control reduces crime

Penn & Teller call Bull Shit on gun control Part 1

Penn & Teller call Bull Shit on gun control Part 2

Penn & Teller call Bull Shit on gun control Part 3