1) Gun control fanatics were happy when police started using tasers. They hoped tasers would replace guns, thinking that tasers won't kill.
But tasers do kill. They have killed suspects caught by police.
http://the.honoluluadvertiser.com/article/2005/Feb/16/ln/ln03p.html
If that's the case, I might as well have a taser myself, so I can electrocute people I dont get along with.
2) Leftist punk-ass/gun-control fanatic/ race-card abuser Michael Moore loves to accuse pro-gun people of being white supremacists. Bullshit!
I was at a Honolulu gun expo in 2003, and I saw whites, blacks, Asians, and Hawaiians selling, buying and checking out guns and other related items. In fact, some of the Asians I saw were the types who looked so clean-cut that very few would suspect that they would be interested in guns. But they were. However, Micheal Moore and his allies would ignore that fact.
Moore also ignores the fact in the late 1800's, Southern states passed gun control laws for the sole purpose of keeping African Americans defenseless. This gave advantage of the KKK to ride their horses, beat African Americans to death, and burn their property.
To learn more, check out
http://www.reason.com/hod/dk021505.shtml
3) Talking about stereotyping gun owners, when anthropologist Abigail A. Kohn did research on San Fran Bay Area gun club members. The reaction Kohn recieved from other academics were so idiotic you had to laugh at them. Here are some excerpts and my comments
http://www.reason.com/0502/cr.ed.humanizing.shtml
From “public health” articles proposing gun control as a cure for the “epidemic” of gun violence to highly regarded sociologists who argue that gun research should be informed by “moral principles” rather than hard facts, she confesses her surprise at the ill-informed and often tendentious research conducted by academics.
This is so idiotic. Those "higly regarded sociologists" who cared "more about moral principles than hard facts" forget what the whole purpose of sociology is. It wasn't supposed to be about advocacy per se. Sociology was supposed by about studying social interactions with (drumroll please) hard data! It was supposed to use scientific methods in studying social interactions. Anyways, one more excerpt!
Kohn’s own research for Shooters, some of which appeared in this magazine (“Their Aim Is True,” May 2001), elicited predictable responses. One colleague said she was performing a “social service by researching ‘such disgusting people.’” Another said that unless Kohn acknowledged the “inherent pathology” of gun enthusiasm, she was disrespecting victims of gun violence.
Disgusting people? Sociologists have been infiltrating drug-trafficking mafias, street gangs and other dangerous groups for research purposes. That's been going on for DECADES! Yet, liberal sociologists feel that they're above researching people who (gasp) just shoot at targets?
Studying target shooters as disrespecting shooting victims? That's as stupid as saying "studying martial arts enthusiasts is disrespectful towards those brutally beaten to death"
