Poll: Curious how many will agree with a statement I found in an OP-ED

[Murph]

EDIT Sorry for the duplication, I didn't realize this bit had been published, I thought I had killed this in favour of the poll.


Recently, in a different venue, I was reminded of this article and of Nich's claim about Gun culture folks, (stereotypically the NRA, in his mind?)

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/13/opinion/13kristof.html?_r=0

What do you think about his assertion?

Would you be willing to trade free/legal access to a weapons market that in addition to guns and ammo also offered grenade launchers, machine guns, anti-tank mines, and anti-aircraft weapons; at the cost of a civil war?

POLL QUESTION

I am in favour of civil war if accompanied by unrestricted access to heavy weapons.

I am against civil war even if accompanied by restricted access to heavy weapons.

 

[Right-On-Target]

“The chances that a gun will be used to deter a home invasion are unbelievably remote, and dialing 911 is more effective in reducing injury than brandishing a weapon.”
Excerpt from article in American Journal of Lifestyle Medicine by David Hemenway

Before we get to your poll, the authors contributing to this article have lost creditability with me.

 

[uncle money bags]

I am in favor of not being sucked into an argument based on false pretenses where the only two choices are equally ridiculous.

 

[TerryMiller]

Well, I won't answer the poll questions because the "supposed" facts in the article are very suspect. Especially, this one:

"Just since the killings in Tucson, another 320 or so Americans have been killed by guns - anonymously, with barely a whisker of attention. By tomorrow it’ll be 400 deaths. Every day, about 80 people die from guns, and several times as many are injured."

Now, with that paragraph from a New York Times columnist, I have this question:

How many of those 320 killings were just in Chicago, a city with very strict gun laws?

The author is a "tool" and a fool.

And, that is a pretty old article, so I'm not sure of what the actual numbers were in Chicago between the times of the Arizona shooting and the date of the article.

 

[Werewolf]

The author of that article has an agenda. Don't validate it by walking down the path he wants you to follow.

 

[Murph]

Before we get to your poll, the authors contributing to this article have lost creditability with me.

Oh most definitely! I have Kristof in my news source database, (well ok, at this point it's a spreadsheet) as Dishonest and Manipulative. The whole piece reeks. I meant to fisk it but lost track of the project, maybe it's in my FB unpublished drafts.

 

[n2sooners]

The article was filled with too many false statements and statistics to even bother debunking. Such as ignoring Japan when talking about suicides or flat out ignoring the number of defensive gun uses or people killed while calling 911.... And then there is that statement about reasonable restrictions.

 

[HMFIC]

I'd like to ask how many firearms in the hands of law abiding citizens prevent or deter murders upon themselves or their loved ones. I am confident that this number is significantly higher than the murder rate.

I'll go one step further and also ask how many firearms in the hands of law abiding citizens prevent or deter all forms of crime. I am equally confident that this number is significantly higher than the gun crime rate.

It doesn't really matter what the question is or how it's framed though... the bottom line is ALWAYS this: Freedom is more important than any false sense of security that those who would deny our gun rights may gain over restrictions of any kind. Maintaining our freedoms may in fact require a civil war someday, but to begin the argument stating that we should trade one for the other is just ridiculous.


Perhaps the question that should be asked is of those who would like to trample the second amendment... ask them if they would be willing to trade a gun-free America for a Civil War?

- I am in favor of civil war if accompanied by a gun free America.

or

- I am against civil war even if it means America will not be gun free.

 

[HMFIC]

Ps. You can tell this article was written by an anti-gun person because they used the British spelling "favour" instead of the American "favor". Freaking redcoats are STILL trying to take our guns...

 

[tweetr]

POLL QUESTION

I am in favour of civil war if accompanied by unrestricted access to heavy weapons.

I am against civil war even if accompanied by restricted access to heavy weapons.

I am unable to participate in this poll, as the two choices are both absurd!

I did not bother to read the linked NY Times article. The construction of the poll question is a fallacy known as "begging the question." The implicit premise (premises?) is so absurd that I am terminally uninterested in following the author's reasoning. Not to mention that the limey spelling renders the presumed limey author's opinion on weapons irrelevant to an American discussion of Constitutional principles.