Gun Control's Twisted Outcome

Reason ^ | Nov, 2002 | Joyce Lee Malcolm (somewhat long)

[neverdem]

It's a good read. I didn't know how to post when I read it. I did a search, and it wasn't posted under the author's title. Enjoy, FWIW.

[Auntie Mame]

Very good post. Thanks.

[neverdem]

BANG

[Monty22]

I wouldn't call that a 'twisted outcome'. More like a totally predictable and obvious one.

[BenLurkin]

Bump

[fourdeuce82d]

When are you moving down to Tejas? Writing this response w/a kimber on my hip, and two or three other sidearms nearby....

[basil]

Thanks for getting this posted. We all need to read it and spread the word--or we'll be looking at the same thing over here. We must fight day and night to keep our Second Amendment rights.

Join the Second Amendment Sisters rally in Washington DC on Mother's Day, 2004.

[Billthedrill]

Interesting read, thanks for posting! If I understand the author's thesis correctly, it devolves back to the old adage that a firearm is simply a tool, and that what is significant is the user and the usage, not the tool itself. Certainly people prosecuted for carrying rudimentary weapons such as chains and fakeries such as cap guns indicate that the real issue is other than the physical item.

The root of the pernicious notion that protection of one's person is a duty to be arrogated only to "society" and not to the individual is curious - it is, I think, simply a manifestation of the notion of which the socialists are so enamored that the proper repository of such things as civil rights, specifically the right of self-defense, ought to be placed in the collective and not in the individual. Hence the suffering depicted above is irrelevant, being relegated only to individuals, and the beneficiary is society in the form of overall lower rates of "gun crime." That this is purely illusory (an illusion maintained, if necessary by jimmying the numbers) is unimportant as long as the impression of safety prevails, regardless of whether it is actually a fact. It's a very strange notion, actually, and it isn't restricted to the British - many American gun-control advocates have the same odd idea.

[cavtrooper21]

Merry olde (gun free) England ping.

[The KG9 Kid]

Notice that im many cases it's the useless police who pressured the British government to impose the restrictions.

That's why I can't stand 'Police organizations' that stand onstage behind political candidates in their uniform while the said candidate pats themselves on the back for garnering the support of the 'National Association of Police Chiefs', or whatever the outfit is.

Policeman should have no more say in an election than their own private vote. We'll tell them what the laws are, and to what limits they will enforce them. America is supposed to be about liberty, not 'safety' or 'equality'.

[NRA2BFree]

The Brits have learned the hard way what gun owners have been saying all along. The government is going to have a heck of a time trying to disarm Americans.

[neverdem]

It seems to me lefties all over the world embraced that notion. The number of folks of a righty persuasion who endorse gun control I can count on one hand.

[sourcery]

[neverdem]

Watch out for that trigger! Someday Tejas. Airborne

[GeronL]

Dan Rather actually told the truth???!!!!!

[uncbob]

BTW
Where is MADIVAN these days ?

[xp38]

I seriously doubt he pointed out the gun control factor relating to the crime rate or put any emphasis on it. Rather gets no gold star from me. His bias is an ocean. The odd correct factiod are but drops in it.

[Siamese Princess]

The root of the pernicious notion that protection of one's person is a duty to be arrogated only to "society" and not to the individual is curious - it is, I think, simply a manifestation of the notion of which the socialists are so enamored that the proper repository of such things as civil rights, specifically the right of self-defense, ought to be placed in the collective and not in the individual.

In my opinion, you cannot separate the welfare state from gun control. At one time, self-reliance was thought to be both a virtue and a necessity and the ultimate expression of self-reliance was self-defense. Nowadays, the same big government that promises to send you to college, look after you in your old age, etc. (because you are too stupid and childish to do so for yourself) promises to protect you from the bad guys. Socialists (sometimes known as liberals) hate self-reliance because they seek, one way or the other, to force you to become completely dependent on Big Momma Government and thus empower themselves.

That this is purely illusory (an illusion maintained, if necessary by jimmying the numbers) is unimportant as long as the impression of safety prevails, regardless of whether it is actually a fact. It's a very strange notion, actually, and it isn't restricted to the British - many American gun-control advocates have the same odd idea.

Definitely. Symbolism over substance. But liberalism is a pack of lies and so liberals are by definition liars, aren't they?

[RippleFire]

bump

[neverdem]

"BTW
Where is MADIVAN these days ?"

I had the same question. He hasn't posted for quite awhile. I hope he's OK. Anybody have a clue?