Another mass shooting tragedy, another in a series of opportunistic opponents of the second amendment, another in a series of ridiculous responses by the pro-gun crowd. When people bring up a need for more guy laws, the line about only criminals being able to get guns rings hollow for me. Looking at this through the simple prism of logic, the ease with which law-abiding citizens can obtain firearms, clips, bullets, magazines etc is directly related to the ease with which criminals can get them. Make it harder on the law abiding, and it will get harder on criminals.
Standing by for criticism of my apostasy.
If you'd like to read a few of my previous 2nd Amendment posts, go here, here, here.
Monday, July 23, 2012
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
13 comments:
Okay, I'll bite.
Depending on who is doing the counting, somewhere between 1.3x to 5x more people are killed by drunk drivers using automobiles each year than by people using guns. Applying your logic ad absurdum, why don't we make mandatory that all cars (existing and new) have ignition interrupting breathalyzers installed that requires the operator to breathe forcefully into it every half hour or so? If we make it harder for the law abiding non-drinking driver in his Jaguar, we also make it harder for the repeat offender to drive his primer-colored El Camino with a snoot full. And really, we ought to be doing this anyway since automobiles and the operation thereof are already heavily regulated and we still aren't getting the job done. And the founders didn't add an amendment to the Constitution to protect any particular form of conveyence, past or future, from government intrusion.
Hold people accountable for their crimes and quit coming after the law abiding just because society lacks the courage to really and truly make criminals pay for their actions.
There are approximately 215 million privately owned guns in the United States. That means that approximately 214, 999, 999 were not used for murder and mahem. Had the gentleman below not had a gun, who knows how many people may have been killed at the hands of the robbers?
http://www.nbcdfw.com/news/national-international/71-Year-Old-Man-Shoots-Would-Be-Robbers-at-Ocala-Internet-Cafe-Authorities-162941656.html
I look forward to someone--anyone--disputing the central logic of my argument--that the number of legally owned guns in the US is related to the number of illegally owned guns in America. Thus far, no takers.
Using your logic, the amount of alcohol in liquor cabinets across the US of A is related to the number of underage drinkers.
What's your point?
Also depends on the state there Fudge. I mean Mudge.
Of course there is a relationship to the number of legally owned guns in the us to the number of illegally owned guns...whatever the ratio is, there is a relationship.
Now whether that relationship holds as one goes up or down, I don't know. Nor do I really care, because the central logic is specious.
There is also a relationship between the number of legally operated (and Constitutionally non-protected) cars and the number of cars operated by drunk drivers who kill people. But again, and I believe most people would share in my reaction: "so what?" No one in his right mind would suggest that the solution to reducing drunk driving deaths is to limit or somehow further complicate the legal operation of cars. In fact I dare say there would be outrage by the law abiding drivers of this country if anyone seriously proposed it.
The difference seems to be related to the "logic-stition's" own relationship with guns or cars as applicable. Most law-abiding (ignore the rolling right turns on red and excursions above the speed limit) drivers have no trouble holding drunk drivers as the key component of the killings, not the car. I mean, it's even in the lexicon: we call drunk drivers, well, "drunk drivers". We call criminal shooters "gunmen." I've I told someone I was a "carman" I would probably receive some odd looks but raise little alarm. If on the other hand I announced that I am a "gunman", I suspect I could muster enough reaction to subject me to questioning by the authorities. We make guns the doer of evil when it is clearly, like the drunk driver, the person who is the doer of evil. I firmly believe that if we taught children to respect guns rather than pass on our own adult fears of them, we would change the way they are misused. I've always found that the places I go or have lived where children were raised that way and where most of the residents had guns, I could leave my doors unlocked and my keys in the car. Where guns are feared and reviled, I wouldn't think twice about such carelessness with the security of my belongings and my family. So, sure, there is a numerical relationship between the number of legally owned guns to the number of illegally onwed guns. To that extent, I grant you your central logic. But again, so what?
oh, and I know, good friend, that you are just getting started; however, I am just finishing so I must bow out of the conversation hereafter. At least for the rest of the week.
CW buy this book,
http://www.amazon.com/More-Guns-Less-Crime-Understanding/dp/0226493660/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1343216452&sr=1-1&keywords=john+lott
It appears that I am not being clear, as if I were, you couldn't possibly disagree.
So I'll try again.
There are all kinds of really, really nifty weapons (arms) that are simply illegal for law-abiding citizens to own. Without a large, relatively slack commercial market from which law-abiding citizens can shop (after all, to do so would obviate their status as "law abiding", there has not developed a large "aftermarket" in which straight out criminals can obtain these weapons. I hope you will not argue with this point, and I hope you will concede that its obverse is exactly what I describe in my point.
My intent with this tightly argued point is to undercut the gun folks who refuse to believe that there IS any causality between the large, legal market for weapons and the possession of illegal weapons by miscreants. I count you now among them, Mudge.
I do of course, recognize the great blind behind which you hurl your blogfodder, the second amendment. But I feel obligated to remind you that it is not absolute, that there have been all kinds of gun laws that have passed Constitutional muster, that appear to dampen the availability of certain weapons (I reference you to my above).
Finally, about this drunk driver argument...when I drunk driver operates an automobile, he is violating the law, AND he is improperly operating the vehicle. When he causes an accident and kills someone, he is obviously using the car in a way for which it is not designed.
When a criminal fires a gun in a crime and kills someone, he is operating the firearm exactly as it is designed to be operated. Cars are not designed to cross median strips and destroy human life in other cars. Guns are designed to propel a projectile--their design is generally speaking, agnostic to the target.
It is THIS truth that causes me to dispute the relevance of the Drunk Driver argument. We regulate the HELL out of the act of driving; we test people before they can drive, we limit their speeds and where they can drive, we inspect their autos on a regular basis. While not constitutionally protected, the act of driving has reached a level of importance in our society that arguably dwarfs the importance of owning guns---to the society. But driving is regulated to high hell, while any two-bit psychopath can gun up with an AR-15 and a a bevy of other toys and play shoot em up.
I am all for the second amendment... and I would heartily dispute any effort to eliminate the ownership of guns in this country...limit, regulate, control, yes. Eliminate? No.
Are We All Just Potential Criminals?
by Jeremy D. Blanks, Ph.D.
Over a dozen studies have been carried out by various pro-gun, anti-gun, neutral, and even Department of Justice investigators to determine the value of civilian gun ownership in how many times citizens use their firearms for self defense. The numbers have varied from a low of around 100,000 crimes prevented every year by armed citizens to a high of over six million crimes per year. The differences in the numbers are attributed to variations in methodology, sampling techniques, and the bias of individual researchers. While there are major differences in the aforementioned studies, the consensus is that there are several million crimes prevented each year in the U.S. by law-abiding citizens with a firearm. This is a staggering number of crimes prevented each year and it speaks volumes to the overwhelming value of gun ownership.
http://www.keepandbeararms.com/newsarchives/XcNewsPlus.asp?cmd=view&articleid=836
Take a look at the number of firearm related deaths in US compared to other industrialized countries. We lead the league and it's not even close. Not sure of the exact cause(s)but we seem to have a problem with this issue. The Wahoo's theory is as good as any.
Anonymous says "The Wahoo's theory is as good as any." Therefore any theory is as good as the Wahoo's.
Though it obviously undercuts support for my argument, Anonymous' last statement is logic at its best.
Post a Comment