Skip to comments.Guidance to a Misinformed Reader
Posted on 01/26/2013 8:32:05 PM PST by marktwain
A reader, John, took the trouble to post the following comments, so I will take the trouble to post a reply. Johns comments are numbered and lettered. My reply will be below Johns comments and not numbered or lettered.
1. Gun control does not mean gun bans. No one is coming to take your gun so please keep your paranoid fantasies out of this.
One counterexample disproves this argument. I have several. Canada, May, 2010. The RCMP confiscated firearms that were formerly legal.
California gun ban 1997.
Australia, 1996. Owners of Semi-automatic rifles and shotguns are required to turn them in.
UK, 1996 total handgun ban.
New York Gun ban, 1991.
2. The guvamint isn't out to get you. You are most likely so insignificant to them you aren't even on any radar.
In a way, John has a point. The purpose of all these anti-rights laws are to make firearms ownership more difficult and rare, until the American gun culture is small and politically irrelevant. It is a form of cultural genocide. To do this, you do not have to prosecute most gun owners, not even a sizable minority. You only need to make examples of a few to get the rest to fall in line, or to gradually delegitimize the ownership of guns until grandchildren gladly turn in grandfather's shotgun. That is what was done in the UK. Of course, that does not help the people that are made examples of, such as Randy Weaver at Ruby Ridge, or the Reese family in New Mexico.
3. The second amendment is NOT absolute, see 2008 DC vs Heller. Just like the first amendment, it has restrictions.
Correct. You do not have the right to shout Fire! in a crowded theater, when there is no fire. Nor do you have the right to fire a gun in a crowded theater when there is no justification to do so. No one is claiming the right to unjustifiably fire in a crowded theater. No one is claiming a right to have nuclear weapons without tight government controls. The anti-rights people are trying to impose onerous restrictions on the most Constitutional of arms, those of most use to a militia, semi-automatic rifles. As those firearms are also the least used in crime, it is hard to see any utility in their arguments.
4. If you are against gun control, you are against background checks and for selling guns to criminals. Those are forms of gun control already in place.
I am against background checks. It is already illegal to sell guns to criminals. Background checks have proved to be a failed paradigm and should be repealed. They have proved to be ineffective. There is no point in putting burdensome restrictions on the 99 percent of the population that is no threat in order to ineffectively attempt to prevent the 1 percent that is dangerous from acquiring a gun. They are simply a cover to gradually implement registration which is equivalent to confiscation. If the resources spent on background checks on the many were spent on prosecuting the few who should legitimately be barred from possession of guns, it would be much more effective. This has been shown to be true in several cases. See project Exile.
5. If the constitution is sacred and can never be changed, do you think women should not have been given the right to vote? Or African Americans equal rights? That was amended in the constitution.
As John notes, there is a method to amend the Constitution. The anti-rights forces know that they cannot repeal the Second Amendment through this legitimate process, so they resort to trying to redefine words to eliminate the Second Amendment through fraud. John is welcome to work at repealing the Second Amendment. There is a known process. It has been successfully used several times. What that has to do with this debate is unknown, but John seems to think it relevant.
6. Just because a form of control isn't perfect does not mean it is completely useless.
True. By the same token, just because a form of control might do some good does not mean that it will not do great harm.
7. PLEASE, and i mean PLEASE stop comparing guns to other things that cause fatalities (cars, ladders, medical malpractices).
a. Because cars have many many regulations and because of this we have limited the amount of car fatalities over the years. Same with ladders, same with medical malpractice. All of those things have a history of regulation, laws passed to help prevent deaths.
Cars and ladders are not specifically constitutionally protected. Nor are there powerful political forces pushing to outlaw them. Guns are more highly regulated than cars and ladders in many ways, and have become considerably safer by private industry standards without government safety regulation. The fatal firearm accident rate today has been reduced by 94 percent since 1905.
b. Guns have only one function, to kill or damage. By removing/restricting them you don't lose a lot. Remove cars and see how you do. Remove doctors and see how you do.
Completely false. The major function of guns is to deter the use of force. They do this very well. Many studies show between 2.5 million and 400,000 uses of private firearms a year to prevent crime, the vast majority of which occur without firing a shot, in the United States. Most police officers go an entire career without firing a shot but most find their guns very useful. If the only function of guns was to kill or damage, then the 300 million plus guns in the United States are doing a terrible job. Killing is sometimes required and necessary, and when it is, one desires the best instrument for the job. Guns also serve as a deterrent to runaway governments. The mere presence of hundreds of millions of guns gives pause to would be dictators. Hundreds of millions of people were killed by their own governments in the twentieth century by democide. Guns are very commonly used for less exciting purposes, such as subsistence hunting, pest control, and many varieties of sport.
John may not own guns, therefore it is easy for him to believe that you do not lose much by removing or restricting guns, but tens of millions of Americans disagree with him. It is very easy to give up something that you consider of no value. I respect John's use of the First Amendment, and will defend to the death his ability to make what I consider dangerous arguments. Why is he not willing to disagree about my choice to have and own guns, but be willing to defend it? Ideas are far more dangerous than rifles.
And finally, why is it that ANY other source of fatalities are subject to be made safer but for some reason, guns are completely exempt from this logic. No one cares about the 10+k homocides each year, or the 30K total gun fatalities.
The above statement is simply false. There have been tremendous improvements in gun safety over the last 100 years. The homicide rate has fallen in half in the last 20 years. Suicides are simply not a gun problem because so many other methods can be substituted. It always puzzles me than many people believe that it is alright for someone to commit suicide with a doctor, but not with a gun.
Homicides in this country are not a gun problem. They are a cultural problem. Gun control is simply a convenient scapegoat for those who do not wish to face the cultural problems.
European Murder Rates Compared to the United States
Canadian Confiscation Link
California gun ban link
Australia Confiscation Link
UK handgun ban Link
New York 1991 Gun Ban Link
Background Checks Ineffective
Registration is Confiscation Link
John is obviously a complete buffoon
The argument the regime is presenting is falacious.Right now I’m listening to CBS radio news and there is no mention whatsoever of the counter protests Weingarten has been presnting in the Gun Watch website. Which should surprize no one particularly when you have an news executive preaching the destruction of the Republican party.
In previous posts on this subject I’ve urged the regime be challanged on its inability to make a dent in gang killings being done in areas where it has direct control suggesting that their solution is to seize all legally obtained firearms protected under the second amendment and call it cured. Some defenders have made this point but it is not being sustained.
There shound be no doubt whatsoever in any gun owners mind that if given a chance this government will seize their guns however obtained. Hence this suggestion for this sign
Democrats and RINOS are
GOD DENIERS AND CONGENITAL LIARS
SAY YOU MUST SHARE THE WEALTH
SHED YOUR MONEY THEN YOUR GUNS
BE DEFENSELESS WHEN CROOKS COME
What’s the name of John’s TV show? Or maybe he’s at OFA?
I disagree with that. The use of a gun is the use of force.
It might be more accurate to say that the major function of guns is to use force to attain one’s objectives and to keep others from attaining their objectives.
A guy robbing a liquor store with a gun isn't primarily interested in killing the clerk, his objective is to get money and he may use a gun to force the clerk to give him some money. At the same time, the liquor store clerk isn't primarily interested in killing the robber, his objective is to keep the robber from robbing him and he may use a gun to force the robber to stop.
“The major function of guns is to deter the use of force.”
In the hands of the law-abiding, this is absolutely the case. It is THE major justification of the right to bear arms.
It enables the liquor store clerk to foil the robber’s evil intent. It empowers the citizen by putting disquiet into the minds of government enforcers.
Twice my husband and once my sister have prevented a potential crime against them by simply pointing a gun at the person. Both never fired a shot. My sister probably never would have. But the people trying to get into their cars ran away when the guns were pointed at them.
First, most people are not criminals. Second, most private sales are to someone you know.
If you do not know the person, and you think he may be a criminal, do not sell to them.
No system is perfect, but the current system that imposes an expensive and intrusive bureaucracy that is almost completely ineffective, is worse than not having it.
“In the hands of the law-abiding, this is absolutely the case.”
Be that as it may, the author didn’t limit his statement to the law-abiding. And consider: in some places to even have a gun in your hands means you aren’t one of the law-abiding.
Ping for reference on gun control
Ping for reference on gun control