Post Sandy-Hook I’ve been following forums and comment boards and reading pro and anti gun control diatribes. In several places I have asked straight out, “Why is gun control bad?”. Asking for facts, not hyperbole.
I’m going to start this off by saying, I like guns.
I do. I like shooting. I like the discipline involved. I have been considering joining a gun club and purchasing a large bore target rifle as well as a hand gun so I can do some target shooting. When I was in the military I was a pretty good shot.
Of course, there are many, including in the anti gun control crowd that believe that I should never, ever have access to fire arms. Why? I suffer from a mental illness. I make no secret that I’m bi-polar….I’m also more stable than most “normal” people.
So, in the absence of absolute hard evidence that gun control doesn’t work, let’s take a look at some of the arguments the “gun rights” people make to support their point of view…
Point # 1
“Its not the gun’s fault!!!!”
Treating, or referring to a gun as a sentient being would be a sure sign of mental illness of some sort.
Having said that, this is a very true statement. A gun is an inanimate object and cannot operate autonomously (that’s a fancy word meaning “on its own”). I would be willing to wager that most inanimate objects are also horrible shots.
But seriously, talking about advocating gun control as “blaming the gun, not the person” is about as moronic an argument that a person can make. If the person can’t get a hold of a gun, then he/she can’t shoot anyone. There’s a word for this phenomenon …. “logical”.
And yes, there are people who get stabbed, and who die in auto accidents so by following this logic there are a whole parade of bright bulbs who feel that I’m advocating banning knives and vehicles.
To those of you who are smugly nodding right now let me point out that knives, and vehicles have practical and utilitarian purpose in our day to day lives. Unless you are a soldier you really have no need of an assault rifle with a 15+ round magazine. If you need a weapon for hunting, a good old 5 shot, bolt action rifle should do you just fine.
The idea, in my opinion, behind gun control is to limit the risk of another Sandy Hook.
So, in essence, in advocating for gun control I’m not blaming the gun. I’m blaming the dipshits who think they need near/to military grade fire power who don’t happen to be on-duty soldiers.
Point #2
“It is our constitutional right to bear arms!”
Most people spouting this line are talking about their 2nd amendment rights to the US constitution. Surprisingly, many Canadians believe that we too have our rights to bear arms enshrined in our constitution.
This isn’t true. The arguments I’ve read claim English Common Law and the British Constitution of the 1658 (or some year way back). The exact text of that particular caveat talks about being armed to protect yourself from illegally armed Papists. So yes, if you’re being attacked in the 17th century by Catholics with illegal firearms, you are in fact allowed to have firearms.
English Common Law does not give you the right the bear arms. I would argue that it means the exact opposite. English Common Law is the rule used to determine the outcome of a case where there is no law or precedent. Specifically it calls for the magistrate to consider The Common Good. So, unless you’re a soldier, police officer, a legitimate hunter, or a farmer with a legitimate need…English Common Law does not apply.
The whole constitutional thing, regardless of location, is trumped by everyone else’s right not to get shot while going about their daily business.
I’ll point out that the 2nd Amendment does not specify what type of firearms you have the right to bear. So perhaps everyone should be limited to muzzle loading muskets. Hard to shoot 20 kids with one of those eh?
Point # 3
“We need guns to protect ourselves from government forces!”
Yes, believe it or not, that argument cropped up in several places by, presumably, different people.
If you believe this, that would make you a criminal, as criminals are generally the only ones worried about government forces. (At least in democratic societies). If you are a criminal, why would you worry about gun control laws?
This leads to my next point…
Point #4
“If you take away guns from law abiding citizens, only criminals will have guns!”
Yes, and criminals will have a lot fewer guns as there will be fewer to divert through nefarious means into the criminal underworld.
Point #5
“We need our guns to defend ourselves!!!”
Most police officers the world over shudder at the thought of a civilian using a firearm to protect themselves.
Shooting a person is not easy. Soldiers and police go through training to desensitize them to the thought of putting holes through another living person. In fact, before this training was put in place it was common for soldiers in combat to deliberately shoot over the heads of their enemy instead of aiming at them.
This is because we are conditioned as a society to think that shooting someone isn’t very nice and shouldn’t be done.
Of course, many criminals have no such inhibitions. They would happily take your gun away from you as you point it at them with shaky hands and turn it on you…and then divert your legally acquired handgun into the criminal underworld.
The second, very large, problem with this is that you might decide to “defend yourself” from someone cutting you off in traffic by shooting at other cars, or some equally silly rage-fuelled reason that, without access to a firearm would’ve resulted in nothing more than rude gestures.
Point #6
“If [insert people here] had been armed, that mass shooter would’ve been stopped dead!”
Before I say more let me point out that, according to reports, there was at least one armed guard at Columbine.
Next, I will say, rolling my eyes and in a tone dripping with sarcasm…”Yes, MORE GUNS!!!! That is the answer to gun violence!
I talk about the difficulty it would take to properly identify, engage and neutralize a shooter in this post
To this utter bit of nonsense I will counter
If the mass shooter hadn’t had access to a fire arm, he/she would not have shot anyone!
I would further suggest that in cases such as Sandy Hook, instead of arming teachers, that only former special forces commandos who have passed rigorous psychological screening be permitted to be teachers…..that, or ninjas. Because everyone knows ninjas don’t need guns.
Point #7
Only an armed populace could’ve prevented Leftist Socialist Dictators like Hitler and Stalin.
Well, yes, this doozy was floated around and staunchly defended.
Let me point something out first (being a “Loony Lefty”)….while Hitler and Stalin and their ilk claimed to be left wing socialist/communist types, they were in fact the polar opposite. For those who believe they were truly left wing I would suggest that first you run out and educate yourself as to what being left wing really means, and then I would ask you if I put on a red suit and told you it was blue, would you believe me? Because believing those nutjobs are leftists is tantamount to the same thing. I was going to say something about bacon being labelled as a health food, but you know…I don’t want to get anyone’s hopes up.
A bit of a history lesson here folks…
Hitler was elected to office. Yep, popular vote. He then, through manipulation of the media, and intimidation by police and his brown shirts eventually took over. An armed populace would’ve resulted in a lot more innocent people being gunned down in defense of the Fatherland.
Stalin was a compatriot of Lenin. They overthrew the Czar to free to Russian people. Of course, they had millions of ordinary Russian people helping them. After a few minutes of true communist every man is equal utopian bliss they decided, essentially, that all men were equal, only that some were more equal. If you had a problem with that, you’d be kindly asked to carry this blindfold to a nearby wall and to put it on and stand still for just a second.
The populace was armed in this case…first with pitch forks, then with firearms taken from the Czar’s military and police.
All those guns and still Stalin managed to purge hundreds of thousands of innocent Russians for silly things like reading the wrong books, or saying the wrong thing, or having an opinion.
In Closing…
Gun Control and Gun Rights should be about balance. Gun Control should give society the ability to feel reasonably safe without placing onerous restrictions on those responsible and law abiding citizens who partake in shooting sports.
Gun Control should mean that no citizen has the ability to engage in a firefight. Gun Control should mean that if someone attempts a mass shooting that their fire power is limited so someone has a chance to stop them. There is no reason for a citizen to have an assault rifle, even a semi-automatic one. There is no reason for a citizen to have a high-capacity magazine for any weapon.
In fact, maybe Gun Control should include something like, “No citizen shall have the ability to fire more than one round every two seconds.”.
Guns have no rights. They are inanimate, unfeeling, unthinking objects. Gun enthusiasts need to understand that regardless of how responsible and law abiding they are, there is always a risk that their legally obtained firearms will fall into the wrong hands. It is for that reason that advocate for the ban on assault weapons and high capacity magazines.
Anyway, here are some other posts I found…
- M.D. Harmon: The charge for gun control is not about controlling guns (themainewire.com) (I like how this writer invalidates gun control advocates opinions by putting quotes are “argument”. I personally found this kind of rambling, and wholly pointless…not making much of an “argument” for gun rights)
- Gun control, libertarians and a first step towards sanity (mojoey.blogspot.com)
- Republicans & Gun Advocates Petition the White House to “Deport” Cnn Host Piers Morgan (bonjublog.com) (This is really funny! Its like the gun rights folks are saying, “OH MY GOD, HE MUST BE RIGHT!!!!! SILENCE HIM…S I L E N C E H I M!!!!!)
- Gun group offers training for Utah teachers (cnsnews.com) (a whole SIX hours of training!)
- Gun control, libertarians and a first step towards sanity (mojoey.blogspot.com) (I like what this guy says)
Like this:
Like Loading...
On Gun Control…
December 28, 2012
davidrothbauer Random Blatherings, Social Commentary Firearm, Gun Control, Gun Rights, humor, National Rifle Association, Right to keep and bear arms, Sandy Hook, Second Amendment to the United States Constitution 3 Comments
Post Sandy-Hook I’ve been following forums and comment boards and reading pro and anti gun control diatribes. In several places I have asked straight out, “Why is gun control bad?”. Asking for facts, not hyperbole.
I’m going to start this off by saying, I like guns.
I do. I like shooting. I like the discipline involved. I have been considering joining a gun club and purchasing a large bore target rifle as well as a hand gun so I can do some target shooting. When I was in the military I was a pretty good shot.
Of course, there are many, including in the anti gun control crowd that believe that I should never, ever have access to fire arms. Why? I suffer from a mental illness. I make no secret that I’m bi-polar….I’m also more stable than most “normal” people.
So, in the absence of absolute hard evidence that gun control doesn’t work, let’s take a look at some of the arguments the “gun rights” people make to support their point of view…
Point # 1
“Its not the gun’s fault!!!!”
Treating, or referring to a gun as a sentient being would be a sure sign of mental illness of some sort.
Having said that, this is a very true statement. A gun is an inanimate object and cannot operate autonomously (that’s a fancy word meaning “on its own”). I would be willing to wager that most inanimate objects are also horrible shots.
But seriously, talking about advocating gun control as “blaming the gun, not the person” is about as moronic an argument that a person can make. If the person can’t get a hold of a gun, then he/she can’t shoot anyone. There’s a word for this phenomenon …. “logical”.
And yes, there are people who get stabbed, and who die in auto accidents so by following this logic there are a whole parade of bright bulbs who feel that I’m advocating banning knives and vehicles.
To those of you who are smugly nodding right now let me point out that knives, and vehicles have practical and utilitarian purpose in our day to day lives. Unless you are a soldier you really have no need of an assault rifle with a 15+ round magazine. If you need a weapon for hunting, a good old 5 shot, bolt action rifle should do you just fine.
The idea, in my opinion, behind gun control is to limit the risk of another Sandy Hook.
So, in essence, in advocating for gun control I’m not blaming the gun. I’m blaming the dipshits who think they need near/to military grade fire power who don’t happen to be on-duty soldiers.
Point #2
“It is our constitutional right to bear arms!”
Most people spouting this line are talking about their 2nd amendment rights to the US constitution. Surprisingly, many Canadians believe that we too have our rights to bear arms enshrined in our constitution.
This isn’t true. The arguments I’ve read claim English Common Law and the British Constitution of the 1658 (or some year way back). The exact text of that particular caveat talks about being armed to protect yourself from illegally armed Papists. So yes, if you’re being attacked in the 17th century by Catholics with illegal firearms, you are in fact allowed to have firearms.
English Common Law does not give you the right the bear arms. I would argue that it means the exact opposite. English Common Law is the rule used to determine the outcome of a case where there is no law or precedent. Specifically it calls for the magistrate to consider The Common Good. So, unless you’re a soldier, police officer, a legitimate hunter, or a farmer with a legitimate need…English Common Law does not apply.
The whole constitutional thing, regardless of location, is trumped by everyone else’s right not to get shot while going about their daily business.
I’ll point out that the 2nd Amendment does not specify what type of firearms you have the right to bear. So perhaps everyone should be limited to muzzle loading muskets. Hard to shoot 20 kids with one of those eh?
Point # 3
“We need guns to protect ourselves from government forces!”
Yes, believe it or not, that argument cropped up in several places by, presumably, different people.
If you believe this, that would make you a criminal, as criminals are generally the only ones worried about government forces. (At least in democratic societies). If you are a criminal, why would you worry about gun control laws?
This leads to my next point…
Point #4
“If you take away guns from law abiding citizens, only criminals will have guns!”
Yes, and criminals will have a lot fewer guns as there will be fewer to divert through nefarious means into the criminal underworld.
Point #5
“We need our guns to defend ourselves!!!”
Most police officers the world over shudder at the thought of a civilian using a firearm to protect themselves.
Shooting a person is not easy. Soldiers and police go through training to desensitize them to the thought of putting holes through another living person. In fact, before this training was put in place it was common for soldiers in combat to deliberately shoot over the heads of their enemy instead of aiming at them.
This is because we are conditioned as a society to think that shooting someone isn’t very nice and shouldn’t be done.
Of course, many criminals have no such inhibitions. They would happily take your gun away from you as you point it at them with shaky hands and turn it on you…and then divert your legally acquired handgun into the criminal underworld.
The second, very large, problem with this is that you might decide to “defend yourself” from someone cutting you off in traffic by shooting at other cars, or some equally silly rage-fuelled reason that, without access to a firearm would’ve resulted in nothing more than rude gestures.
Point #6
“If [insert people here] had been armed, that mass shooter would’ve been stopped dead!”
Before I say more let me point out that, according to reports, there was at least one armed guard at Columbine.
Next, I will say, rolling my eyes and in a tone dripping with sarcasm…”Yes, MORE GUNS!!!! That is the answer to gun violence!
I talk about the difficulty it would take to properly identify, engage and neutralize a shooter in this post
To this utter bit of nonsense I will counter
If the mass shooter hadn’t had access to a fire arm, he/she would not have shot anyone!
I would further suggest that in cases such as Sandy Hook, instead of arming teachers, that only former special forces commandos who have passed rigorous psychological screening be permitted to be teachers…..that, or ninjas. Because everyone knows ninjas don’t need guns.
Point #7
Only an armed populace could’ve prevented Leftist Socialist Dictators like Hitler and Stalin.
Well, yes, this doozy was floated around and staunchly defended.
Let me point something out first (being a “Loony Lefty”)….while Hitler and Stalin and their ilk claimed to be left wing socialist/communist types, they were in fact the polar opposite. For those who believe they were truly left wing I would suggest that first you run out and educate yourself as to what being left wing really means, and then I would ask you if I put on a red suit and told you it was blue, would you believe me? Because believing those nutjobs are leftists is tantamount to the same thing. I was going to say something about bacon being labelled as a health food, but you know…I don’t want to get anyone’s hopes up.
A bit of a history lesson here folks…
Hitler was elected to office. Yep, popular vote. He then, through manipulation of the media, and intimidation by police and his brown shirts eventually took over. An armed populace would’ve resulted in a lot more innocent people being gunned down in defense of the Fatherland.
Stalin was a compatriot of Lenin. They overthrew the Czar to free to Russian people. Of course, they had millions of ordinary Russian people helping them. After a few minutes of true communist every man is equal utopian bliss they decided, essentially, that all men were equal, only that some were more equal. If you had a problem with that, you’d be kindly asked to carry this blindfold to a nearby wall and to put it on and stand still for just a second.
The populace was armed in this case…first with pitch forks, then with firearms taken from the Czar’s military and police.
All those guns and still Stalin managed to purge hundreds of thousands of innocent Russians for silly things like reading the wrong books, or saying the wrong thing, or having an opinion.
In Closing…
Gun Control and Gun Rights should be about balance. Gun Control should give society the ability to feel reasonably safe without placing onerous restrictions on those responsible and law abiding citizens who partake in shooting sports.
Gun Control should mean that no citizen has the ability to engage in a firefight. Gun Control should mean that if someone attempts a mass shooting that their fire power is limited so someone has a chance to stop them. There is no reason for a citizen to have an assault rifle, even a semi-automatic one. There is no reason for a citizen to have a high-capacity magazine for any weapon.
In fact, maybe Gun Control should include something like, “No citizen shall have the ability to fire more than one round every two seconds.”.
Guns have no rights. They are inanimate, unfeeling, unthinking objects. Gun enthusiasts need to understand that regardless of how responsible and law abiding they are, there is always a risk that their legally obtained firearms will fall into the wrong hands. It is for that reason that advocate for the ban on assault weapons and high capacity magazines.
Anyway, here are some other posts I found…
Related articles
Share this:
Like this: