Course on guns changed my mind

[virginia mountainman]

Interesting read! It is amazing what you learn when your "just a little" open minded! Of course, this is how we win! By teaching and showing one person at a time.

http://www.torontosun.com/2011/07/01/course-on-guns-changed-my-mind

Edited, so the post won't be taken the wrong way....like it was...

[bowens43]

1. nothing here that would change the mind of a rational person.

There is no justification for owning hand guns. I like to shoot at cardboard things is not a justification.

This is just more propaganda from the death merchants.......

[shadowrider]

3. Excuse me, but in my mind, a "Rational" person prepares for what

may come at him/her. If that includes a handgun for self-defense, well, it is what it is.

Are you insinuating that those who choose to be pro-2A are irrational?

[ProgressiveProfessor]

10. So self defense and that it is a basic civil right is not enough for you?

What other rights and liberties do you oppose?

[spin]

18. So are you insinuating that all the posters here who enjoy shooting ...

and own firearms for sport, hunting and self defense are irrational?

[Common Sense Party]

39. Why not? jpak thinks we are insane and has said so. n/t

[PavePusher]

19. Yeah, that damn freedom and liberty, no-one needs that stuff.....

I thought we were supposed to be better than Republicans, not better authoritarians.

[RSillsbee]

25. I like to shoot at cardboard things is not a justification.

IDK it works for me

[WatsonT]

41. A rational person wouldn't use "death merchants" seriously

[Remmah2]

42. Nothing there that would change the mind of a closed minded person?

Was a typo posted?

[SteveW]

43. A number of problems, here...

There is plenty of justification for owning hand guns: Target shooting, hunting (with the heavy calibers), and home/self-defense. "I like to shoot at carboard things" IS justification if one wishes to safely engage in that activity. Your moral proclamations not withstanding.

"...propaganda from the death merchants..." That story in the OP was written by someone who DID NOT like guns until she tried one. And I believe she is a reporter. Has she now become the enemy in your "rational" eyes?

[gejohnston]

44. In most countries, shooting cardboard things is legal justification

and makes it easy to get a permit, where one is required. If it is good enough for the "civilized" countries in Europe and places like New Zealand, why not here?

[villager]

2. So those that disagree are "cockroaches," and that's your version of being "open-minded?"

Figures.

[Name removed]

7. Deleted message

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[geckosfeet]

4. It also helps to not call people who hold opinions contrary to yours cockaroaches.

This is part of my problem with my fellow gun owners. Their load mouthed beer gutted spewing of disdain for anyone who happens not to agree with them about worshiping their guns on the alter.

End zone spiking - 10 yards on the ensuing kick off.

[virginia mountainman]

5. I was not calling them cockroaches..

I was referring to the Brady campaign and their ilk.... They tend to "disappear" when the facts come out.

I fixed it, so their should be no farther misunderstanding.

[villager]

6. Except for the fact that, you know, you were

Though you did eventually get around to editing out the reference...

[virginia mountainman]

9. Mind reader?! nt

[Cirque du So-What]

13. Yeah, who you gonna believe?

The guy who just called his opponents 'cockroaches' or your lyin' eyes?!?

[Name removed]

8. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[gejohnston]

21. Umm I see more childish name calling on the anti side

than ours. In fact, anti arguments on most of these forums are exclusively childish insults about penises.

[Cirque du So-What]

28. Selective vision

A cursory glance at posts scattered throughout this forum shows 'antis' getting called cock-a-roaches, accused of racism, and their sanity questioned. I would like to think ostensible 'adults' could rise above such horseshit, but nobody wants to be the first to blink.

[gejohnston]

30. can you show me an adult anti?

there are a few. As for me, I just call out faux liberals. You may think of it as a slur, but my experience has shown it to be quite accurate.

[DanTex]

32. Actually, I have found that most gun control advocates

are very intelligent and well-informed. This probably has to do with the fact that liberals tend to be intelligent and well-informed, and some 75% of self-identified liberals support gun control.

So, if you consider the vast majority of "antis" to be "faux liberals", that pretty much means you consider most liberals period to be "faux".

Doesn't it feel just a little weird to be calling people "faux" when you are defending the Beck/Palin side of the debate?

[gejohnston]

34. intelligent and well informed on some things

I have clue what Beck thinks. That said, you are one of the very few who attempt to be well informed on the subject. Most have no clue what current gun laws are nor do they have a clue what the laws or crime rates are in the usual cherry picked countries or anywhere else. Again let me define faux liberal:

those who take center left positions but are authoritarian, bigoted (just different other) and dogmatic, including supporting police committing crimes and violating the bill of rights if it serves their purposes.

That describes some antis here. Shall I provide links?

I don't know if that describes most antis. It describes Republicans like Paul Helmke and America's Mayor Rudy who are antis.

[Cirque du So-What]

33. What was that saying...?

...oh, yeah! Something about pitching a fit about the bit of sawdust in the eye of a neighbor while ignoring the 2X4 in your own? At least I admitted that some namecalling occurs from some on the 'anti' side (which I do not consider myself, BTW. I'm just opposed to seeing the fucking repug point of view touted on an ostensibly 'democratic' forum), but not so much as a scintilla of admission from any on the 'other' side of doing the same damned thing - or worse.

[gejohnston]

36. over generalize much?

You don't know this issue well do you? Well, the AWB was the brain child of Bill Bennett. That said, it is simply a bone thrown to the common folk. Since the plutocrats don't like us little people voting or having a living wage, do you seriously think they like having us armed? No, but if they took the anti route, they would be in the wilderness for good. They know that, so they adopt the one (classically) liberal position on one or two things to keep working folks seeing invisible clothes.
Best thing for Dems is to abandon any feel good laws, get the ATF to enforce current laws properly, and shut up our own anti rural/working class bigots.
While we are doing that, hammer home that anti gun stances of major Republicans like Bennett, Rudy, Bloomburg, etc. Plus hammer home the inherited wealth elites that make up the GOP.

That said, the anti references to penis size out number cockroach references by several million to one. You have the 2X4 on this one.

[MineralMan]

11. I found this part especially interesting:

"They don’t go hunting, but rather shoot targets — puddles, broken TVs, frozen hams — often with a 12-gauge pump-action shotgun. It’s just what you did if you grew up in the country."

Yessir. They blowed them things up real good, I'm sure. Now that's what shotguns were designed for.

[AndyTiedye]

14. I grew up in the country and nobody I knew did that

Certainly if I had done anything so wasteful as to use a frozen ham for target practice
I woulda caught hell from my mom.

[DissedByBush]

16. We did milk jugs full of water

Now that was fun.

[MineralMan]

17. Of course. There was an impromptu range in the town where

I grew up in California. We used to take our .22 rifles there sometimes. It was littered with old radios and other junk people had dumped there and all were shot up. I'm not sure what the impulse is to blow stuff up and shoot old broken things to death is. But, it sure seems common enough. It just seems to be an odd part of the shooting sports to me, and not something I'd hold up as an example so much. :shrug:

[DanTex]

12. What pro-gun people never seem to understand...

...is that nobody is denying that it's fun to shoot at the range.

This OP based on the misconception that support for gun control is driven by some irrational fear and misunderstanding of guns. Another version of the right-wing caricature of "gun-grabbing liberals". But, in reality, support for gun control is driven primarily by concern about public safety. Yes, shooting is fun. But that doesn't imply, for example, that we should allow loaded guns to be carried into bars.

You see, the important knowledge in the gun debate is not knowing how to shoot. It's knowing the truth about how gun prevalence affects society and public safety -- that it results in more homicide, suicide, and accidental death. I guess that examining statistics and reading studies might not be as much fun as shooting things -- and that fantasies about shooting bad guys are more fun than facing the reality of the deleterious effects of guns on society.

But a rational discussion about gun control begins by understanding that guns on a shooting range are completely different from guns on the streets.

[TheWraith]

15. "gun control is driven by some irrational fear and misunderstanding of guns." Because it is.

I have yet to see someone strongly in favor of gun control who has a firm grasp on the facts, both legal and technical. From the people who think that an AR-15 is a machine gun, or that "assault weapons" are frequently used in crime, the arguments about gun control are firmly rooted in non-factual ideas. For instance, out of your own message:

"But that doesn't imply, for example, that we should allow loaded guns to be carried into bars."

This ignores the fact that for someone to do so legally, they are not able to drink. And if they're going to drink illegally, what exactly is stopping them from carrying a gun into the bar illegally? It's akin to the belief that someone intent on committing murder is going to be stopped because there's a sign out front telling them it's illegal to bring their gun somewhere. As it stands, you're attempting to penalize someone who wants to go into an Applebees and have lunch, because they carry a firearm.

Another one from your post, mixed in with some general insults:

"I guess that examining statistics and reading studies might not be as much fun as shooting things -- and that fantasies about shooting bad guys are more fun than facing the reality of the deleterious effects of guns on society."

First off, the statistics are on our side. There's a hundred million handguns and a couple hundred million long guns in this country, and yet crime is lower than it's been in 40+ years. The claim that more guns equals more crime is entirely a fiction. In other countries which have banned guns, the overall rates of homicide and suicide have stayed exactly the same. Banning guns did nothing, except insure that the public was unarmed. But you attribute any support of armed self defense to "fantasies about shooting bad guys," ignoring the fact that even the lowest figure available for the number of times per year that a firearm is used defensively, such defensive uses outnumber murders, suicides, and accidental deaths by a factor of twenty.

[PavePusher]

20. I suppose you can cite to evidence for your claim?

"It's knowing the truth about how gun prevalence affects society and public safety -- that it results in more homicide, suicide, and accidental death."

[DanTex]

23. Sure

There are a lot of studies about gun violence, and I've cited many of them in other threads in this board recently during recent debates. For a quick overview, here is a recent survey paper that covers research on a number of topics, including accidents, suicides, homicides, deterrence, and self defense. It's by no means the only or final word, but it's a decent overview. Also, it's also got a pretty good number of citations, so you can check them out and delve deeper into individual topics or studies if you want.

http://ajl.sagepub.com/content/early/2011/02/01/1559827610396294.full.pdf


Here's an excerpt from the conclusion.

However, for most contemporary
Americans, the scientific studies suggest
that the health risk of a gun in the home is
greater than the benefit. There are no credible
studies that indicate otherwise. The
evidence is overwhelming that a gun in the
home is a risk factor for completed suicide
and that gun accidents are most likely to
occur in homes with guns. There is compelling
evidence that a gun in the home is
a risk factor for intimidation and for killing
women in their homes, and it appears
that a gun in the home may more likely be
used to threaten intimates than to protect
against intruders. On the potential benefit
side, there is no good evidence of a deterrent
effect of firearms or that a gun in the
home reduces the likelihood or severity of
injury during an altercation or break-in.

[gejohnston]

24. can you come up with one that isn't written by the same five or six people

who take money from Joyce Foundation?

[eqfan592]

38. And how about one that actually supports the conclusion they come to in the paper?

So far, not a single paper DanTex has linked to has effectively established a real causal link between firearms and violence, just a lot of correlative evidence (that is in and of itself flawed at best).

Oh, but of course, I'm just "blinding" myself to the "clear scientific consensus" on the issue....:eyes: :eyes: :eyes:

[spin]

40. One day I pick up the newspaper and read about a study that says coffee is bad for me ...

the next day I pick up a newspaper and read about a new survey that says that coffee is good for me.

I cut way back on eggs because a scientific survey said eggs will increase my cholesterol. Ten years later I read that the cholesterol in eggs isn't all that bad.

The Truth About Eggs


Eggs have gotten a bad rap over the last few decades. Deemed bad for the heart by health experts, they have been the subjects of criticism and scrutiny. But are our white (sometimes brown) friends really that unhealthy for us? In the last few years, numerous health organizations have been vindicating eggs' reputation. So what are we to believe; why were eggs chastised, only to be acclaimed again?

It was previously thought that eggs raised blood cholesterol levels -- one of the main causes of heart disease. The yolk in a single large egg contains five grams of fat, so it was only natural for nutritionists to assume that eggs clogged up people's arteries, especially since they also contain dietary cholesterol.

***snip***

So now you know the truth about the incredible, edible egg. Once a foe, now a friend, this mighty whole-food contains many great nutrients and isn't as bad as people once thought. A great source of protein and easy to prepare, eggs are nature's golden food... if you don't eat too much of them, that is.
http://www.askmen.com/sports/foodcourt_60/66_eating_well.html

[SteveW]

45. You may wish to review the Center for Disease Control's findings...

on gun "interventionist" strategies wherein the Center found no evidence that any of the gun-control strategies has been shown to mitigate the social ills which gun-controllers address.

[gejohnston]

22. a rational discussion begins with reality

and not the comic book version. But then, you only like statistics and studies that you like but can not defend. That said, for the most part gun control advocates really don't care about public safety. They care if a gun is used, but not safety in general. That is why they use the term "gun death" instead of homicide rate. If it was also a honest concern for public safety, pro control arguments would be void of irrational ranting, regional bigotry, childish references to penis size, negative stereotyping of rural and blue collar people.

But that is most of the pro control arguments here and other "progressive" forums.

[spin]

26. Perhaps it's you that needs to review statistics to see how "gun prevalence" affects society ...

From your post:

You see, the important knowledge in the gun debate is not knowing how to shoot. It's knowing the truth about how gun prevalence affects society and public safety -- that it results in more homicide, suicide, and accidental death. I guess that examining statistics and reading studies might not be as much fun as shooting things -- and that fantasies about shooting bad guys are more fun than facing the reality of the deleterious effects of guns on society.

Facts and statistics show that "gun prevalence" has not caused an increase in the violent crime rate. First let's look at gun sales.

Gun Owners Buy 14 Million Plus Guns In 2009 – More Than 21 of the Worlds Standing Armies
Wednesday, January 13th, 2010 at 11:43 AM



Washington, DC --(AmmoLand.com)- Data released by the FBI’s National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS) for the year reported 14,033,824 NICS Checks for the year of 2009, a 10 percent increase in gun purchases from the 12,709,023 reported in 2008.

So far that is roughly 14,000,000+ guns bought last year!
The total is probably more as many NICS background checks cover the purchase of more than one gun at a time by individuals.

To put it in perspective that is more guns than the combined active armies of the top 21 countries in the world.
http://www.ammoland.com/2010/01/13/gun-owners-buy-14-million-plus-guns-in-2009/

So more than 110,000,000 firearms were sold between Nov. 1998 and Dec. 2009. Surely the violent crime rate must have skyrocketed.

Violent Crime Rate Reduction
FBI Statistics Show Major Reduction in Violent Crime Rates

Dear friends,

Did you know that according to official FBI and U.S. Department of Justice reports, the rates of violent crime in the U.S. are now at their lowest level in 40 years? Did you know that violent crime rates of 2010 were 1/3 the rates of 1994? Other countries are experiencing a similar decline. And deaths of law enforcement officers are at their lowest in 50 years according to this Boston Globe article. What inspiring news!!! Yet I'm amazed at how little media attention this is drawing.

About three years ago, I came across a major media article stating violent crime rates were on the decline. Given all of the violence reported in the news every day, I was amazed and somewhat skeptical about this. To verify the claim, I searched for and found the FBI's webpage listing cumulative crime statistics. I was most surprised to find that not only were violent crime rates steadily declining over the last 17 years, the cumulative decline was huge! What great news!!! Yet I was also fascinated that the article I read didn't mention the inspiring extent of this decline.

So for the last few years, I've been following this topic with great interest. And the rates have continued to decline in most impressive ways. Yet as I search the news, though every year I find a few major media articles which state that crime has decreased for the year or for the last few years, I've only found one major media article which talked about violent crime being at the lowest rate in 40 years, and even that article failed to mention that the overall violent crime rate has dropped to 1/3 of what it was 17 years ago.
http://www.wanttoknow.info/g/violent_crime_rates_reduction

Steady Decline in Major Crime Baffles Experts
By RICHARD A. OPPEL Jr.
Published: May 23, 2011

The number of violent crimes in the United States dropped significantly last year, to what appeared to be the lowest rate in nearly 40 years, a development that was considered puzzling partly because it ran counter to the prevailing expectation that crime would increase during a recession.

In all regions, the country appears to be safer. The odds of being murdered or robbed are now less than half of what they were in the early 1990s, when violent crime peaked in the United States. Small towns, especially, are seeing far fewer murders: In cities with populations under 10,000, the number plunged by more than 25 percent last year.

***snip***

Criminology experts said they were surprised and impressed by the national numbers, issued on Monday by the Federal Bureau of Investigation and based on data from more than 13,000 law-enforcement agencies. They said the decline nationally in the number of violent crimes, by 5.5 percent, raised the question, at least in some places, of to what extent crime could continue to fall — or at least fall at the same pace as the past two years. Violent crimes fell nearly the same amount in 2009.
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/05/24/us/24crime.html?_r=1

Here's a graph from the Bureau of Justice Statistics that shows this decrease.

source: http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/content/glance/cv2.cfm

But we are talking about firearms.




source: http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/index.cfm?ty=tp&tid=43


source: http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/content/glance/homage.cfm

Well surely with all those firearms the suicide rate with firearms must have increased.


source: http://www.dailykos.com/story/2009/12/12/813529/-Suicide,-unemployment,-and-gun-ownership:-why-the-right-is-wrong

How about the accident rate involving firearms?

source: http://www.pbrtraining.com/pbr-firearms-training-biography.htm

And since 198 many states have allowed honest citizens to carry firearms in public.





When I look at the data I make these conclusions:

1) While the sale of firearms has skyrocketed in recent years, the violent crime rate and the rate of crimes involving firearms has dramatically decreased. This does not prove that more guns = less crime but does indicate that the number of firearms IS NOT the prime factor in determining crime rates. More guns do not equal more crime and more guns do not equal more gun crime.

2) More firearms have NOT led to a large increase in suicides involving firearms.

3) More firearms have NOT led to more accidental firearm deaths.

4) The fact that far more people have licenses to carry firearms in public has not led to an increase in violent crime.

[DanTex]

27. When scientists look at the data they come to the opposite conclusion, though.

For example, from the survey I linked to above:
http://ajl.sagepub.com/content/early/2011/02/01/1559827610396294.full.pdf

I suggest reading the whole article, but here are some paragraphs about suicide and homicide:

Ecological studies try to explain varying
rates of suicide across different geographical
areas. Within the United States,
researchers have looked across US
regions,37-39 states,40-44 and urban areas.42,45
The studies using validated measures of
firearm ownership levels typically find
a strong significant positive association
between levels of gun ownership and
rates of suicide because of higher rates of
firearm suicide.

...

Many ecological studies link gun prevalence
with overall homicide rates because
gun prevalence is associated with high
gun homicide rates; there is typically no
association of gun prevalence with nongun
homicide.12,57 Articles include international
studies of high-income countries58
as well as US studies of regions,38,54
states,55,59-62 and counties.63,64

So now that we have the scientific point of view, let's see where your more informal analysis of the data goes wrong.

While the sale of firearms has skyrocketed in recent years, the violent crime rate and the rate of crimes involving firearms has dramatically decreased. This does not prove that more guns = less crime but does indicate that the number of firearms IS NOT the prime factor in determining crime rates.

We can agree that the number of firearms is not the prime factor in determining crime rates. Of course, nobody that I am aware of has ever claimed either of the following:
1) that the total number of firearms is the correct way measure of gun prevalence
2) that gun prevalence is the prime factor in determining crime rates

The argument you make is very common in the NRA bubble: gun sales are up, crime is down, thus no link. This is straight case of being uninformed, and it betrays a lack of knowledge regarding the scientific research on gun violence. Put another way, people familiar with the scientific literature would simply not say the things you are saying.

I've repeated the following several times in the last few weeks on this board, but here's why:
1) Virtually all serious scholars agree that the key statistic linking gun prevalence to crime is not the total number of guns in circulation, but the % of households and/or individuals with guns.
2) The ownership rates, for both households and individuals have in fact dropped over the last two decades (the plot you got from dailykos shows this, for example). Gun sales have increased, but most guns have gone to people or households who already own one or more guns. For obvious reasons, this has a much weaker effect on homicide and suicide rates than an increase in the number of households or individuals who have access to a firearm.
3) Most important, though, there are many factors that affect the crime rate,and thus nobody serious (on either side) attempts to base conclusions on the fact that homicide and gun ownership rates have dropped while the total number of guns has increased. This is the most significant point of all. Nobody is claiming that guns are the only factor or the main factor, so the whole game of trying to draw conclusions from general trends over the last two decades is flawed (despite the fact that, due to points 1 and 2, an informal look at the last few decades would actually support the scientific view rather than the NRA view).

One way to show that your methodology here is flawed is to show that the same type of coarse reasoning would lead you to reject other factors which essentially everyone agrees contribute to crime rates. For example:
1) Over the last two decades, the % of population in urban areas has increased, while crime has dropped. Despite this, there is virtual unanimity among social scientists that urbanization is a factor that contributes to crime.
2) Over the GW Bush decade, poverty increased, while crime dropped. Again, despite this fact, there is virtually unanimity that poverty is linked to higher crime.

So in both these cases, looking at changes in the entire country over the course of a decade or two leads to flawed conclusions. If some conservative tried to use the poverty statistic to argue that poverty and crime were unrelated, I'm sure you would object. And with good reason.

And so it is with guns. To tell what's going on, you need to look at the data more carefully and in more detail. Researchers have done so, and repeatedly found that higher gun prevalence leads to higher homicide and higher suicide rates.

[gejohnston]

29. once again

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=118&topic_id=431497&mesg_id=431959

[DanTex]

31. Yes, once again...

I think we're all aware that the only move you've got is to dismiss all of the science on gun violence as being written by "Joyce Foundation shills".

Well, that's not exactly true, you're also fond of accusing gun control advocates of "bigotry", which you did earlier in the thread.

But substantive argument, not so much.

[gejohnston]

37. Yes and once again you mischaracterize what I said.

I do not dismiss all of the science on gun violence as Joyce Foundation shills, just the ones written by Joyce Foundation shills. Those are the only ones you embrace. You dismiss all of the ones written by criminologists that have no foundations to suck up too. Please, don't drag out AEI shill Lott as your favorite straw man.

I did not accuse gun control advocates of bigotry simply because of being for gun control (which everyone is for gun control, the disagreement is to the degree) but many of the arguments here are examples of bigotry. Those are two different things and you know it. You simply chose not to read closely and answer honestly.

[spin]

35. Thanks for the reply ...

Well if higher higher gun prevalence was a clause of higher homicide and suicide rates, the area I live in right now would have an enormous homicide and suicide rate. I am surrounded by gun owners. Of course, most use their firearms for hunting which is very popular in this area of northern Florida. Both men and women hunt deer and hog in this area.

Before I retired, I lived in Tampa, Florida and gun ownership and people with concealed carry permits were very common. Yet in 2009 there were 20 murders in Tampa (down from 27). source: http://beta2.tbo.com/news/news/2010/feb/09/police-tampas-crime-rate-down-nearly-16-09-ar-85606/

Now Chicago is a much larger city but Chicago has what could be politely called draconian gun law compared to Tampa, Florida. Chicago had 453 homicides. You would think that if gun proliferation caused homicides, there would be few homicides in Chicago.

But comparing Tampa to Chicago is a stretch. Chicago is the third largest city in the U.S. with a population of 2,851,268. Houston is the fourth largest with a population of 2,257,926. source: http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0763098.html It would be far fairer to compare these two cities as gun laws in Texas are very reasonable and Texas does allow honest citizens to carry concealed.

Homicides rise in Harris, but fall in Houston
Two opposing trends of 2009 continued patterns of previous years
Dec. 31, 2009, 10:38PM

***snip***

As of late Thursday, there were 281 homicides within Houston's city limit in 2009, down from 295 in all of 2008. The city recorded 353 murders in 2007, HPD reported.

Read more: http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/metropolitan/6794405.html#ixzz1R5WnmPXD

Report: Homicides in Chicago down in 2009
Dec. 31, 2009, 10:38PM

***snip***

There were 453 homicides in the city in 2009 as of Monday, and non-deadly shootings in Chicago are also down in 2009 by 6 percent compared to last year.
http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/metropolitan/6794405.html

I find it interesting that if your contentions are correct, a city that has possibly the strongest gun laws in the United States has more homicides than a city that is nearly the same size but has very liberal gun laws.

All this really proves is that there are far more important factors than firearms ownership and allowing people to carry concealed involved in the equations for what causes violent crime and homicide.

[SteveW]

46. So, "more guns" has NOT led to "more crime?" Sure seems that way.

Yet gun-controllers have pumped that gas for decades.