Why Combating Ignorance Is Vital To Pro-Gun Efforts

I read a lot of letters to the editor regarding guns. I find it a good way to see what people are thinking about guns, gun rights, and gun control.

Along the way, I tend to lose any faith in humanity I had beforehand. You see, there’s a lot of people that talk out of their rectums. They say some pretty stupid stuff.


Take this example:

I am not an activist. I own guns, have a carry license and don’t believe in disarming citizens. The gun control push is meant for sensible firearm controls that may limit the carnage today in America. Firearms went from defensive weapons to offensive ones when semiautomatic, large-capacity designs became easily available.

I have a six-round revolver, more than enough to defend my home. The ability to load 10-plus rounds in a pistol or long gun and have quick-replacement clips allows the mass carnage. Studley gives examples of crimes occurring with knives where guns are prohibited. Criminals and the deranged, no matter the cause, will always find a weapon. But how many people can you kill in a knife rampage before being stopped? With a revolver (it takes way too long to reload), maybe six? A semi-automatic handgun with clips?

The idea that some guns are “offensive” and others are “defensive” is popular in Fudd circles, to be sure. There are those who believe that at some point, a gun becomes less of a tool for self-defense and more of one for villainy.

But that’s just stupid.

For example, we had a case just last week of a single man holding off multiple assailants. This is someone who would have died if he’d been forced to use a six-shot revolver.

People like this think they understand the issue. Note how he points out he’s a gun owner and has a concealed carry license? He’s citing these as credentials. He’s signaling that he’s supposedly one of us and he knows all the same stuff we know.


The problem is, he doesn’t. He doesn’t understand the dynamic nature of a gunfight or how even with just one opponent, six shots may not be sufficient when the adrenaline is pumping through your system, and your opponent has the rude tendency to move when you’re trying to shoot him. It’s not difficult to imagine a revolver running dry.

Our “friend” here has already planted the seeds. He’s given anti-gunners all they need to justify magazine bans and things of that sort. They’ll ignore the actual cases of more than six rounds being used in a defensive situation and focus on the Fudd and his ignorance.

To paraphrase someone else, it’s not that he doesn’t know anything, it’s that so much of what he knows is wrong.

Folks, we need people to write to their newspapers. We need you to write letters to the editor to give people the truth about guns and magazine restrictions. During these, we don’t need what I call the Cold Dead Hands rhetoric. I’m not saying anyone is wrong to believe that way. Hell, I believe that way, but I’m saying it doesn’t change minds.

We need to educate people, including the Fudds, and do so in a way where they might listen.

Join the conversation as a VIP Member