The strongest pro-gun argument, and the hardest question for antis I understand that anti-gunners sometimes lurk here in hopes of finding material to support their "cause". I rather suspect that this thread won't be getting copied for that reason.

If any anti-gunners are reading this--here's a simple, straightforward question: Why do you find it necessary and even praiseworthy to LIE so much?

Perhaps the most important key to judging the rightness of a cause is observing whether or not its adherents tell the truth. Simply put, if you have to lie to defend your cause, there must be something wrong with it. And THAT, to me, is by far the most effective and telling argument against you anti-gunners. If your cause is so righteous, why can't you promote it without a consistent pattern of deliberate distortions and outright lies?

Your anti-gun organizations, like Handgun Control, Inc., publish statistics on the enormous number of children killed by handguns. The public reacts with horror, as well they should--IF those numbers were accurate. If one examines them, though, one finds that you define a "child" as anyone under the age of 25; the numbers include, e.g., the deaths of two 20+ year-old drug dealers in a gang shootout; they include the death of a 24-year-old murder suspect shot by a police SHOTGUN (not a handgun); they include the suicide of a 19-year-old after he committed murder; they include the deaths of armed robbers who were shot by store owners defending themselves; and on and on. You know that these statistics are deceptive, yet you continue to present them as meaningful. Why?

You publish statistics on the number of "children" killed in handgun "accidents", claiming that this happens daily and that "hundreds of thousands" of children die from this cause every year; but, again, examine those numbers and one will find that they include "children" in their 20s and even "accidents" that are deliberate shootings and suicides. The actual number of children under 10 who are killed in genuine accidents in any given year is less than 15, and that has been true for decades--and those accidents almost invariably involve a loaded handgun left lying around by an irresponsible adult, often a criminal drug dealer or the like. You know all this, but deliberately withhold this information. Why?

You routinely ignore, ridicule, or "debunk"--without even an attempt to produce any actual evidence--statistics that show that guns in the hands of legally armed citizens prevent more crimes than are committed by armed criminals. You DO pay attention to reports of civilian self-defense, though; those reports are routinely included in your tallies of "handgun deaths". You know this is dishonest, but you continue to do it. Why?

You deliberately blur the distinctions between semi- and full-automatic weapons and between military and civilian weapons; you repeatedly imply that full-auto "machine guns" are available for casual, unregulated purchase. You are not ignorant or "confused" on this matter. If one goes to your websites, one will see you speak openly about exploiting the ignorance and confusion of the public about guns, and in so many words. You are conducting a well-planned and carefully conducted disinformation campaign worthy of the KGB. Why?

And the major media are in your pockets. I have personally seen stories (plural) about semi-automatic weapons on the major broadcast networks that were accompanied by video of NFA-regulated Class III weapons in full-auto fire--and seen those same stories REPEATED, without comment, correction or alteration, AFTER the network had been informed of the inaccurate and deceptive nature of the pieces. Why?

In the same way, falsified statistics from HCI and their ilk are slavishly parroted by the networks and big-city papers, while the countering facts and genuine, accurate statistics from the pro-gun side remain invisible. Why?

For instance: What about the fact that armed citizens frequently STOP or PREVENT crimes? The LOCAL media (depending on where one lives) will sometimes carry stories of civilians defending themselves and their families with legally-owned weapons; here in Dallas, such stories appear a couple of times every week. Nationwide, they must happen hundreds of times every day. But one will NEVER see such a story make the national news. That is a set policy that appears to be carved in stone. You know it happens--but you won't talk about it. Ever. Why?

(A note to pro-gunners on countering falsehoods and distortions in the media: By all means, write and email the major papers and networks with your objections and corrections--they need to know we're awake and watching out here--but don't expect it to do any good. You will inevitably be dismissed as a benighted redneck. Better to address your LOCAL media. They're much more likely to respond. When you see a biased story on TV, write the network--but write the local station, too. THEY are ultimately responsible for what goes out under their call letters. If the reporting is especially bad, it could be fun to write their competition, too. It might be hard for an editor to resist a story on how a rival station or paper aired or published an egregious falsehood...)

It seems to me that the strongest single argument we gunowners have in this fight is that simple question: If your cause is so righteous and morally correct, why do you have to lie so much? Why, in fact, is your "case" made up almost ENTIRELY of lies, deliberate distortions, and omissions of fact? Can you not defend your positions by simply telling the truth? We gunners do that all the time. Why can't you?

I'd like to see that question aired more publicly and much more often. I'd like to see someone--anyone--on the anti-gun side try to answer it.

And answer it without lying.

Well? Can you? And if not-- WHY?