More ridiculousness from the gun control opposition

[resqgeek]

When will the shouting stop? It has been more than a month since my last post, and the volume of the arguments about gun control continues unabated. It have taken to hiding some posts on my Facebook news feed, and I have come really close to unfriending a few people because they continue to proclaim their support for the second amendment in obnoxious ways that are becoming increasingly difficult to ignore.

One thing that has struck me about the arguments being advanced by those who most strongly oppose gun control measures is that they seem to be grounded in contradictory expectations regarding the abilities of the government. On the one hand, as I pointed out in my last post, they seem terrified that the “government” is going to impose some type of tyranny upon the populous, robbing us of our liberties. While I think that this is unlikely in the extreme, this fear is used to justify massive private arsenals which would, supposedly, be used to defend our freedom and liberty from such a powerful, overreaching government authority.

At the same time, the gun control opponents also argue that private gun ownership is necessary so people can protect themselves from criminals. This implies a significant failure of the government, in that it is clearly unable to protect its citizens from such crimes, so that the citizens must take up arms to defend themselves. And this is the same government that is apparently on the verge of imposing some massive tyrannical police state upon us all, stealing our freedom? Really? While I don’t find either argument particularly persuasive, to argue both at the same time is simply laughable.

The first argument is a red herring. There is no massive government conspiracy to rob us of our rights. And even if there was, the weapons that are available to the general public, even the most extreme models, are not going to serve much purpose against the full military power of such a government. No rifle is going to stop a jet fighter armed with missiles or a heavily armored artillery piece. The resistance that they envision is as outdated as the technology that was prevalent when the second amendment was written.

And while it certainly can be argued that the government has failed to sufficiently protect people from crime (especially in certain places), more weapons are likely to make things worse, not better. To those that argue that having armed viewers in the theater in Aurora, CO last summer would have save lives, I want to know how you reach that conclusion. In the darkness and chaos of that theater, those extra weapons may well have been fired, but I am not convinced that those additional shooters would have any clue who they should be shooting at, or that they would be able to discharge their weapons without significant collateral victims. Unless those in that theater were carefully and specifically trained to respond to a situation like that, they are not likely to properly assess the situation and respond appropriately. It isn’t about how well you shoot at the target range…it is about how well you can grasp the situation in the midst of chaos and temper your emotions so that your response is controlled and measured. This does NOT come naturally, and while we can sit in the comfort of our homes and say that we can do it, the reality is that most of us can’t.

Do we need sensible gun control measures? Absolutely. Too many people are dying, needlessly, because we have created an environment where access to guns is far too easy. Are such measures a magic cure? Not at all. People will still find ways to kill each other. But guns make it FAR too easy, and if we can start to restrict access, to make guns more difficult to obtain, that would at least be a beginning.

Comments

[skyring.livejournal.com]

Exactly right. The "defend against the government" line is a furphy. If push came to shove, an armoured unit is going to roll right over even the best infantry if they have nothing better than handguns and assault rifles. No contest.

The self-defence argument holds more water. But why do people feel they need a gun? To defend against armed attack. So where are these attackers getting their weapons? From some illegal firearms factories? No, of course not - they are being manufactured legally and presumably sold legally, at least at first.

So far as I can see, the "gun rights" proponents are the gun manufacturers playing both sides against each other to maximise sales. They don't need to sell too many guns to the criminal element for the "self-defence" market to react out of all proportion, and then a certain number of those purchasers are going to use their weapons for crime, or have them stolen.

Find out where new guns are being sold and who to, crack down on criminal purchasers, seize guns being stored insecurely, and the problem starts to solve itself.

[resqgeek]

So far as I can see, the "gun rights" proponents are the gun manufacturers playing both sides against each other to maximise sales.

I've been trying to track down a link (without success), but I read an editorial that argued quite persuasively that the most visible gun lobbying organization, the National Rifle Association, no longer truly represents the interests of the gun owners that make up its dues paying membership, but instead has become the primary lobby for the gun manufacturers. If the NRA has been co-opted by the gun manufacturers, it would certainly explain many of the extreme positions they have advocated for. They are also doing a really good job of indoctrinating their membership, convincing them that the extreme positions are the only tenable ones.

[discoverylover.livejournal.com]

I read this on tumblr (yes I know, probably not the best way to have an informed discussion, but I agree with the sentiment:

(from http://fishingboatproceeds.tumblr.com/post/41451338785/you-cant-really-compare-guns-to-nuclear-warheads-they)

"Anonymous asked: You can't really compare guns to nuclear warheads. They have totally different circumstances. We have the right to bare arms so we can defend ourselves. Lets say that the government took away our rights to have guns. They could pretty much take away anything else from us and we wouldn't be able to rebel. Also, if we couldn't own guns in the Revolutionary War, America probably wouldn't be here today. I'm not trying to start a fight... I guess I'm just stating an opinion.

Right, this is precisely the reasoning behind the 2nd amendment, that an armed citizenry can protect against the tyranny of the government.

The problem is, that has just become completely ludicrous, because the government has unmanned drones and long-range nuclear missiles and RPGs and tanks and automatic weapons, and even if you have a semi-automatic assault rifle with a large magazine, you will not be able to stop the United States army from doing whatever the hell it wants to do to you. (But of course that isn’t HOW we check government tyranny in the 21st century, thankfully. We check it by voting.)

If you’re going to argue that a well-armed citizenry is necessary to protect against government tyranny, you have to argue that gun laws need to be drastically changed so that regular citizens have weapon capabilities similar to the U.S. Army. So armed drones need to be available, for instance.

Also, since the constitution establishes this as a right and not as a privilege, the government needs to ensure that we have access to arms appropriate to defend ourselves against the potential tyranny of our government. That means that if I cannot afford a drone armed with thousand-pound bombs (and I can’t), the United States government should buy one for me.

So we can interpret the constitution that way. Or we can accept that it’s a living document, and that Hamilton and Jefferson did not foresee a time when governments (not just ours, but many of them) would have access to firepower that can eliminate the human species.

So assuming that we don’t believe the government should provide bombs to citizens, the question becomes, “What kind of guns should people have, and what kind of people should have them?” And that’s how you decide, for instance, that felons should not be allowed to own automatic weapons.

I would argue that private citizens also shouldn’t own assault rifles, and that large magazine clips should be illegal. Maybe you feel differently. That’s a conversation we can have, because it’s a conversation about policy and about what kind of policies make sense in the world as it exists, instead of trying to have a conversation about ideals and absolutes that really don’t hold up well to scrutiny.

So to be very clear: We already have gun control in the United States. And no one is proposing taking away people’s ability to buy guns. Restricting or eliminating private citizens’ ability to purchase assault rifles will not result in an unarmed citizenry, just as current restrictions on automatic weapons have not resulted in an unarmed citizenry."

[teotakuu.livejournal.com]

I cannot get my head around 'the right to bear arms' argument extended to modern military assault weapons, huge magazines, destructive bullets etc etc. The environment in which the 2nd Amendment was framed no longer applies but the style of armaments owned by ordinary citizens at that time were those used for hunting. Had the US continued along that line, I don't believe the discussion would even be necessary today.

I do think that the point of the NRA being a lobby group for the gun manufacturing industry rather than hunters and sport shooters is a valid one.

The most frightening thing I have seen on the debate was the piece by Piers Morgan where he was able to fire a machine gun that the gun shop owner owned, legally! WTF is that about. Why should ANY private citizen have legal possession of something like that.

I dream of a world where no one owns a gun for any reason other than hunting but I know that this is my fantasy, never a reality