The plain truth of the matter: the more you attempt to restrict criminal access to firearms, the harder it is for non-dangerous people to get access to firearms to protect themselves against these dangerous people. It’s a balancing act without a perfect solution.I must admit, Robert has drawn a bead on the truth, and he does know how to direct reasonable discourse. As proof, just look at that admission that we're involved in a balancing act without a perfect solution. The Truth About Guns is certainly not just another gun blog waging all out war with the gun control world.
Utopian-minded gun control advocates simply can’t—or won’t—get their heads around this fact. They start with the [flawed] idea that the police are responsible for personal self-defense: an oxymoronic concept that attempts to infantilize the average American. And leave him or her defenseless. From there, gun control advocates would err on the side of restriction, trading one type of collateral damage for another.
The even plainer truth: gun control groups view ALL civilians as dangerous people. The Brady blog, Mikeb302000, VPC and the rest seize on stories of “average” citizens who commit gun violence—rather than everyday tales of gang and drug-related shootings. You don’t have to read between the lines to see that gun control groups would restrict access to firearms to a very small group.
Nevertheless, I must take issue with the following: "The Brady blog, Mikeb302000, VPC and the rest seize on stories of “average” citizens who commit gun violence—rather than everyday tales of gang and drug-related shootings."
Speaking for myself, I don't limit it to stories of concealed carry guys or policemen who do wrong. I frequently present stories of criminals who do their thing in order to question where the weapons come from. The answer is always the same. Guns used by criminals come from lawful gun owners. Somewhere through the chain of ownership, either through theft or straw purchase or bad private transfer, there is a lawful gun owner who knowingly or unknowingly passes it to a criminal. That's why the two groups are inextricably connected.
What's your opinion? Don't the Brady and the VPC folks do the same thing I do?
Please leave a comment.
Farago is simply out to lunch; he parrots the standard NRA talking points and then cretes a few easily dispensed with strawmen.
ReplyDeleteFirst, it has never been difficult--or even onerous--for a lwa-abiding citizen to get a firearm. What Farago is militating for isn't about getting a suitable handgun, rifle or firearm--he wants an assault weapon. That's what his agenda is. It's really difficult to say you need a firearm for self-defense when the weapon you desire is only suitable for offensive combat operations.
Second, nobody claims the police are responsible for self-defense. Nobody claims the police are supposed to guarantee your personal safety. Hence, Farago's strawman collapses.
Of course, left unsaid by Farago is the fact that his unfettered access to all firearms by anyone policy makes police work more dangerous and society, as a whole, more criminal.
WRT "average citizens," I can only laugh.
Each and every gunloon believes he--or the rare she--is an expert in all things firearm. Further, each gunloon believe that he will only and reluctantly use his firearm for good and as a last resort. Yet, we see--time after time after time--gunloons using their weapons improperly. Accidents, murders, murder-suicides--all accomplished by folks who knew everything there is to know about guns.
Huh? When did I say that I want an assault weapon. I have one already! OK, another one wouldn't go amiss, but I'm a one weapon per genre guy. In each caliber.
ReplyDeleteNor did I say I wanted other people to have better access to a modern home defense sporting rifle. Seems to me they're pretty easy to buy, even in the People's Republics of California, Massachusetts, etc.
If anything, a handgun is the hardest weapon to attain or carry legally. If we're going to have a proper fight, let's fight about that. I say everyone who passes a criminal background check and isn't nuts should be able to carry a concealed weapon, Vermont-style.
In sum, let he without straw burn the first strawman. Or something like that.
[BTW, an assault rifle is a terrific self-defense weapon, depending on the circumstances. Quite the conversation stopper, if you know what I mean.]
Second, lots of gun control folk insist that the police are sufficient for self-defense. But at least we agree they're wrong: the cops can't guarantee personal safety. Which raises a question: do you approve of personal defense weapons OTHER than guns? Knives? Baseball bats? Mace? Or just open hands?
I'm not getting how more guns in society makes society more criminal. Gun sales have gone up significantly in the last three years. Concealed carry permits have doubled. The crime rate has gone down. Go figure.
I'm not 100% on the epithet "gunloon." For one thing, that's rude. For another, I can't think of a snazzy comeback. Also, I've never claimed to know all there is to know about guns. Far from it. That said, although I'm a piker, I'm also a patriot. So that's MR. Gunloon to you.
This much I know for sure: if guns are widely available---as they are---people will die from firearms-related accidents, suicides and murder. As they do. Again, we agree.
But, at the risk of seeming heartless, I reckon it's a small price to pay---as a society---for the security that firearms provide their owners (and democracy, but do we want to debate that as well?).
You might say it's perceived rather than actual security, and we can argue that point. But that's the way Americans thought when they ratified the Second Amendment. And that's the way most of them think now.
Not to mention the whole hunting culture thing. Oh, and the doctor whose murder inspired the creation of Handgun Alert was my family physician. Just thought you'd like to know.
Robert, This may be exactly what we need to discuss:
ReplyDelete"This much I know for sure: if guns are widely available---as they are---people will die from firearms-related accidents, suicides and murder. As they do. Again, we agree.
But, at the risk of seeming heartless, I reckon it's a small price to pay---as a society---for the security that firearms provide their owners (and democracy, but do we want to debate that as well?).
You might say it's perceived rather than actual security, and we can argue that point. But that's the way Americans thought when they ratified the Second Amendment. And that's the way most of them think now."
I reject the relevance of the way Americans thought in the 18th century and I disagree that most feel that way now.
I don't believe legitimate DGUs outnumber incidents of gun misuse. In fact I think it's so lopsided in favor of gun violence that your "heartless" idea that it's worth it is, in my opinion, wrong.
About the privately owned guns protecting Democracy, I'm laughing.