Friday, November 13, 2009

More Guns Equals More Gun Violence

Doug Pennington wrote a wonderful article for the Brady Blog in the aftermath of the Ft. Hood tragedy. He describes how Lt. Gen. Robert W. Cone defended the military policy of not allowing weapons on base except for the MPs and designated security people. Then he quotes the pro-gun response, as expressed by Jacob Sullum of Reason.

…If someone else at the processing center had a gun when Hasan started shooting, it seems likely that fewer people would have been killed or injured….

I've heard this argument so many times I can't count them. I think it's a good one, actually. My only problem with it is although it may work out that way in some cases, overall it would do more harm than good. The Brady article explains that very clearly.

The shooter was issued a Virginia concealed carry permit in 1996. (See his permit application here. ) This means, according to people like Jacob Sullum and John Lott/”Mary Rosh,” the alleged Fort Hood murderer was, by definition, a “law-abiding citizen”… right up to the point he massacred 13 people and wounded another 30. This also means that Sullum’s “more guns” policy would help put guns in the next “law-abiding” mass murderer’s hands, and make it legal for him to carry them virtually anywhere he chooses.

What's your opinion? Are you concerned with the fact that the more armed people we have in the country, the more armed unstable people we'll have? The reasons for this are several, which I covered in my 10% post.

All these warning signs. All these holes in the ability of law enforcement to do their job, shot through by lobbying from the NRA.

The ease with which America’s weak gun laws permitted a deranged killer to arm himself and massacre so many of our servicemen and -women should be a national tragedy.

Yet the only answer Sullum can manage is the “breathtaking inanity” to play the gun lobby’s broken record of “more guns… more guns…more guns….”

Of course, his conclusion can only follow from an equally inane assumption that mass shootings beset us like natural disasters, as if nothing can be done to prevent them.


What's your opinion? Do you think these incidents are as inevitable as natural disasters? Do you think it's about the people and not about the guns therefore we should keep moving towards more and more guns? As I asked above,
wouldn't you be concerned with the fact that the more armed people we have in the country, the more armed and unstable people we'll have?

One idea that occurs to me is that the gun owners actually agree with the gun control folks about this, about the fact that the more guns there are the more gun trouble the will be. The reason they refuse to admit it is because otherwise they would look incredibly self-centered. They want their guns and that's that. They don't care about the cost.

This would be especially true of the architects of these policies, the NRA spokespeople, for example. Among the regular gun owners, I suppose there are those who actually believe this stuff, but I don't suppose they're too numerous.

What's your opinion? Please leave a comment.

22 comments:

  1. It is silly to point fingers and say that it is the NRA's fault those people are dead. It is the fault of a terrorist. However, since the man had never been convicted of a crime, how was anyone to know. Maybe we should add that question to form 4473: "Are you planning to use this gun in an act of terror". If they say "yes" then we can't sell them the gun. I mean, a terrorist wouldn't lie would they? A criminal wouldn't commit a crime would they? How silly of us to not think everyone will snap and kill people.

    Yes, he bought his guns legally and of course Brady thinks that is the NRA's fault. How about we say it is Brady's fault? They pushed for legislation creating the NICS check. That was a total Brady invention that was supposed to save us all. We need the NICS check because it will stop all criminals from buying guns they said. They even said that it was a small inconvenience on legitimate gun owners. So, since NICS failed to prevent this tragedy, it must be NICS fault and Brady's fault too.

    Yes that is a silly argument though no more silly than Brady trying to use such an event to their own, perverse, anti-American agenda.

    "This means, according to people like Jacob Sullum and John Lott/”Mary Rosh,” the alleged Fort Hood murderer was, by definition, a “law-abiding citizen”… right up to the point he massacred 13 people and wounded another 30."

    Yes, that is everyone's definition. Innocent until proven guilty and all that inconvenient rubbish.


    As to the 1996 Virginia Concealed Carry License, Virginia was amiss in failing to ask "In 13 years, are you going to go all jihad on some soldiers?" If he answered yes then all of this could have been avoided. So it's Virginia's fault.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Typical anti-gun crap from you MikeB. Blame anyone and everyone you can except the crazy guy who murdered people.

    Also, people have rights. I know that pisses you off and you think people who have never been convicted of a serious crime should be barred from exercizing their rights.

    Luckily this is America. If you don't like individual rights move to the UK or Russia.

    ReplyDelete
  3. are you saying you legitimately don't know any better, Mike?

    Seriously, let this shit GO!

    Every variation of gun control and gun rights have been readily available in this country, but also can be observed in other nations.

    The data is clear.

    For this specific case Major Tango got a Virginia conceal carry permit. He likely lawfully carried a gun there, and any state that recognized it.

    He didn't shoot anybody, or even threaten people.

    He didn't kill until he broke the law by taking his guns onto the base (where all his victims were also unarmed by the same law).

    Cut-and-dry. Gun control enabled Major Tango to kill 13 people and wound 30 others, as well as threaten the lives of countless others.

    He also wasn't stopped until a lawful person with their own gun shot him.

    please stop this foolishness, its irresponsible and will get more people killed.

    ReplyDelete
  4. So, FWM, Do I take it that you have no problem with terrorists being able to acquire firearms?

    Doesn't this mean that other freedoms will be curtailed just so that people can still have unfettered access to firearms?

    How does one prevent a terrorist act using a firearm such as shooting up a shopping mall or a sniperfest like happened in the Washington, DC area?

    Remember that the DC Snipers paralyzed the nation's capital for three weeks.

    Not to mention that 5 of the shootings occurred in Virginia, a concealed and open carry state!

    Those facts make this a ridiculous argument.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Anon - So what do you propose we do?

    Prohibit "suspected terrorists" from buying guns and do away with due process, presumption of innocence, and the rest of the BOR?

    Sorry, but I will not give up the rights I enjoy as an American due to the illusion of temporary safety under the guise of "fighting terrorism."

    What exactly is a "suspected terrorist" if said person has not been charged, arrested, or convicted of any crime under due process of law?

    Oh that's right, those folks are called innocent people.

    As far as "he was law-abiding" up until the murders at Ft. Hood. By definition everyone is law-abiding until they commit a crime. We don't treat citizens as guilty until proven innocent. Not in America.

    ReplyDelete
  6. ANON,

    No one believes terrorists should have access to firearms and they do not now. How did you get that as my opinion from my post?

    If a terrorist has been convicted of committing a terrorist act, then they cannot legally buy a firearm. So what are you proposing? Please explain.

    ReplyDelete
  7. http://weerdbeard.livejournal.com/584743.html

    Let's put this dog to bed. You preach stupidity.

    ReplyDelete
  8. So you would trade your freedom of movement for gun rights?

    ReplyDelete
  9. If more guns equals more violence, why are all mass shootings stopped by people with guns? Why is it when someone is committing a mass shooting, we call people who have guns?

    "Are you concerned with the fact that the more armed people we have in the country, the more armed unstable people we'll have?"

    I think unstable people will arm themselves whether they are permitted or not.

    "How does one prevent a terrorist act using a firearm such as shooting up a shopping mall or a sniperfest like happened in the Washington, DC area?"

    You can't buy a gun if you're in Gitmo. If someone is a terrorist, they should be locked up. Like i've said before, if you can't trust someone enough to buy a gun, you can't trust them to walk around free in a world filled with cars, matches, gasoline, fertilizer, and other freely available dangerous items.

    ReplyDelete
  10. 1) Hail to Mikeb for providing a forum for rebuttal.

    1) The Brady blog does NOT provide a forum for rebuttal. They did at first, but when facts with links were posted on their site that DID convincingly refute many of their claims, they announced that comments would be suspended while thay made changes to their site. A year or two has passed, and still no comments permitted.

    Mikeb, why do you think that is? No comments permitted seems to be the usual policy on gun control sites.

    ReplyDelete
  11. So you would trade your freedom of movement for gun rights?

    Where did anyone say that? And no, I will not trade ANY of my enumerated Constitutional rights.

    If this is the same Anonymous then it appears what you mean by "freedom of movement" is in actuality "freedom from fear." No such right exists, nor will it ever exist.

    ReplyDelete
  12. Weer'd, Of course you say "the data is clear," but that doesn't make it so.

    FishyJay said, "No comments permitted seems to be the usual policy on gun control sites."

    When you say gun control sites, do you mean the Brady Blog and The Gun Guys? Are there others?

    Even if there are a few more, our numbers are dwarfed by the pro-gun sites. Why do you think that is?

    ReplyDelete
  13. Mikeb: "When you say gun control sites, do you mean the Brady Blog and The Gun Guys? Are there others?

    There WERE others, but blocking comments seems to have been a prelude to expiration.



    Mikeb: "Even if there are a few more, our numbers are dwarfed by the pro-gun sites. Why do you think that is?"

    I dont think that this is an original comment, but: The pro-gun folks believe that an important right of theirs is severely threatened. That seem to be quite a motivator.

    ReplyDelete
  14. "Even if there are a few more, our numbers are dwarfed by the pro-gun sites. Why do you think that is?"

    Because you have no rational support.

    ReplyDelete
  15. MikeW. Don't you realize that your rights ARE being infringed by terrorism? You realize that the Patriot Act cuts civil liberties.

    How do you propose that the US deal with terrorists? Take them to Gitmo?

    Additionally, incidents such as this have costs in terms of lives, money spent, and other ramifications.

    Anyway, thinking about what you and others have said here, why don't aren't you happy for this exercise of the Second Amendment freedom?

    ReplyDelete
  16. "We don't treat citizens as guilty until proven innocent. Not in America."

    Which "America" are you talking about, Mike?

    ReplyDelete
  17. pretty cool stuff here thank you!!!!!!!

    ReplyDelete
  18. Just build this forum via google. Glad to connect you. I came here to learn your lingo . thanks all.

    ReplyDelete
  19. Hey Guys,

    Well I have downloaded it, and it's amazing!

    I have uploaded it here for you guys: http://www.3nr.in/download.php ,

    Free to download!, no torrent, no lazy rapidshare, shitcash links shit, just pure download speed!

    Get it now, and start battleing your friends over LAN :D

    ReplyDelete
  20. Вот еще немного ссылок на тему, как похудеть.
    Похудеть http://tylerleonard.t35.com/

    ReplyDelete
  21. Hey Guys,

    I got my hands on this new unreleased single from Eminem, and boy must I say its great!

    Dont ask me where I got it from! But I got contacts, and this is one of his greatest singles in long time!

    And featuring Kelly Rowland how cool is that?

    Get it here friends:

    http://filesmy.com/1GDo1

    Share youre oppinion m8's!

    Cheers

    ps. Try google it, and I can promise you that you can't find it anywhere else than here!

    ReplyDelete
  22. HI, I just joined this community. I m from romania. I like this forum.......hope to learn lot of things here ;-)

    ReplyDelete