You seem sincere, so I will reply (I actually started to earlier, but real life interfered as it sometimes does).
Have you been a gun rights advocate all your life...
No, I have not. I once took the position that ordinary people were too stupid, racist, hotheaded, careless, evil ...etc. to enjoy the right to keep and bear arms that I now believe in. However, as in other areas of my life, my first impression of things proved wrong. Fortunately, I was honest enough to research the arguments of gun control advocates and gun rights proponents objectively.
For example, I once believed that ordinary people often kill in fits of rage--similar to your "anyone with a gun can become enraged and deadly" statement. Here's what researching actual criminological science taught me:
Ordinary PeopleAnother scientific fact: ordinary people rarely murder. Very rarely.
Local and national studies dating to the 1890s show that in almost every case murderers
are aberrants exhibiting life histories of violence and crime, psychopathology, substance
abuse, and other dangerous behaviors. Looking only to prior crime records, roughly 90
percent of adult murders had adult records, with an average adult criminal career of six
or more years, including four major adult felonies.{37}
We are often told that most murder victims know their assailants. We are supposed to infer that normal,
law-abiding people kill their friends and loved ones because a sudden rage—accompanied by the
availability of a gun—is too severe a temptation. This may be true of gang members, drug dealers, and
armed robbers, but it is very rare among normal people. And we are never told the rest of the story—
national data on acquaintance gun murders in homes show that “the most common victim offender
relationship” was “where both parties knew each other because of prior illegal {drug} transactions.”{38}
The most rational response is to ban felons, the insane and habitual drug abusers from possessing guns.
Harsh general restrictions are inefficient. A National Institute of Justice funded study concluded that “there
is no evidence anywhere to suggest that reducing the availability of firearms in general likewise reduces
their availability to persons with criminal intent. . . .”{39}
Source: My open letter to Obama at www.obamaonsecond.com
do you think it's possible to discuss guns without insulting one another?
In context, this is rich and provocative. It implies that I have insulted you, and that I have done so unprovoked--in short that you are an aggrieved innocent person. Your first post suggests a solution; I should stop personally insulting and you agree to not insult either.
Let's look at your post...
One thoughtless shooting is worth a thousand words. I don't care that he was a gun control advocate. It just goes to prove that anyone with a gun can become enraged and deadly.
and my reply...
It just goes to prove that anyone with a gun can become enraged and deadly.
It proves no such thing nor could it, being a singular anecdote. It does illustrate what many gun control advocates probably fear, given their awareness of their strong criminal impulses and lack of self control. They would do well to avoid guns themselves; their problem lies in projecting their issues onto society at large.
I don't care that he was a gun control advocate.
Convenient and unsurprising given your expressed viewpoint.
Let's address the substance. You claimed that this singular incident PROVES that ANYONE with a gun can become enraged and deadly. The fallacy that any ordinary person is a potential murderer is wearisome to those of us who actually know the criminological, scientific facts. We've addressed this error before. It's tiring.
Besides not being backed by the scientific evidence, your point is logically flawed. You apply reasoning to guns that you would not apply elsewhere. I have a term that encompasses this "special logic" that applies only to guns--"the gun control reality distortion field."
Let's use your "special logic"--a single anecdote proves that anyone can do the same thing given the same tools or equipment--and see what we can come up with:
The history of Jeffrey Dahmer just goes to prove that anyone with kitchen utensils and a stove can become hungry and cannibalistic.
If you insist that your logic in post 4 was sound you must accept this result. I think you are much smarter than that.
There is yet another problem with your conclusion--anyone with a gun can become enraged and deadly--it is a broadbrush characterization of all gun owners. They all could become "enraged and deadly" and are thus a menace to society, at least potentially. (You probably make an exception for police, soldiers, and government agency employees in spite of the fact that many of them have killed innocents too, but you didn't say that so I just mention it in passing.)
In response to your broadbrush characterization I made a much narrower counter characterization:
It does illustrate what many gun control advocates probably fear, given their awareness of their strong criminal impulses and lack of self control.
This is apparently what you think an insult, but you are mistaken. This was not addressed at you personally. I do not have an opinion on whether you fall into this category; when I wrote it, I had only ever read one of your posts. Furthermore, if I wanted to insult you personally I could do much better than that. Trust me.
I said precisely what I intended to say. The incident "illustrates what MANY gun control advocates PROBABLY fear, given their awareness of their strong criminal impulses and lack of self control." Note a few things about what I said:
1) It was not a broadbrush characterization of a group that I don't approve of (as was yours).
2) It is based firmly in what I understand. (I have PERSONALLY HEARD AND READ GUN CONTROL ADVOCATES SAY THAT IF THEY HAD HAD GUNS THEY WOULD HAVE KILLED/SHOT SOMEONE.)
3) It expressed my opinion as an opinion. I extrapolated from my direct personal experience of hearing gun control advocates to an opinion about what PROBABLY motivates MANY of them.
4) It was logically consistent. I would apply the same logic elsewhere, and so would many rational people; I didn't employ special logic for the occasion.
The other substantive issue was your dismissal of gun control hypocrisy:
I don't care that he was a gun control advocate.
It was, as I put it, "convenient and unsurprising given your expressed viewpoint." I really hope you weren't insulted by that; it is simply the truth.
It may be that you don't care about hypocrisy in general, that you wouldn't care about it in a gun rights advocate. I haven't read enough of your posts to tell. But even if you are honest and evenhanded in your lack of concern about hypocrisy, it is convenient.
You see, hypocrisy is a big issue in gun control:
America’s Core ValueA monstrous principle animates gun control. Unspoken and unspeakable, it alone fits the facts. Simply put,
the people‟s servants have judged their masters and found them wanting—not in skill or knowledge, but in
basic human worth. Gun control‟s self-evident truth is that all people are not created equal.
Once you accept its premise, gun control makes sense. Special people—the Elite—are entitled to special
treatment, along with those who serve them.
Take Dick Heller, of the Heller case, for example. He carried a gun daily as a security guard for the
Supreme Court Annex. Those who imagine the purpose of gun control to be keeping guns from the unfit
will have difficulty explaining the rapid deterioration of his skills on his commute. By the time he arrived
home each evening he could not possess a functional gun—lest he shoot himself.
When we recall his servant role, however, Heller‟s limitation made sense. With no inherent right to selfdefense,
his fitness to bear arms was rooted in his job. Off duty, he no longer served the Judicial Elite.
Rosie O'Donnell, a champion of gun control, said in 1999 that anyone who owned a gun should be
imprisoned.55 To those who see gun control as an effort to keep guns from civilians, it is hard to justify her
allowing a would-be “criminal”—a man applying to carry a gun—to protect her son in 2000.56
The initiated, however, see no hypocrisy. Rosie and her children are Socially Elite—perfectly entitled to
the protection of arms.57
Bloomberg's confusion about carrying guns also makes sense. His armed detail protects the Political Elite;
the retired police officer he was talking about had no higher purpose than self-defense. Why would he, with
so meager an excuse, carry a gun? After all, “guns kill people.”
Katrina momentarily peeled back the veil on Financial Elitism. In the horrific circumstances following the
storm, police deserted their posts. Some were filmed apparently looting in uniform.58 The government took
decisive action:
At the orders of New Orleans Mayor Ray Nagin, the New Orleans Police, the National
Guard, the Oklahoma National Guard, and U.S. Marshals have begun breaking into
homes at gunpoint, confiscating their lawfully-owned firearms, and evicting the residents.
“No one is allowed to be armed. We're going to take all the guns,” says P. Edwin
Compass III, the superintendent of police.59
Mr. Compass, the police superintendent, said that after a week of near anarchy in the city,
no civilians in New Orleans will be allowed to carry pistols, shotguns, or other firearms
of any kind. “Only law enforcement are allowed to have weapons,” he said. 60
Under color of law, officials took personal property at gunpoint—a clear violation of the Fourth
Amendment. Louisiana‟s Constitution received similar contempt:
Louisiana statutory law does allow some restrictions on firearms during extraordinary
conditions. One statute says that after the Governor proclaims a state of emergency (as
Governor Blanco has done), “the chief law enforcement officer of the political
subdivision affected by the proclamation may...promulgate orders...regulating and
controlling the possession, storage, display, sale, transport and use of firearms, other
dangerous weapons and ammunition.” But the statute does not, and could not, supersede
the Louisiana Constitution, which declares that “The right of each citizen to keep and
bear arms shall not be abridged, but this provision shall not prevent the passage of laws to
prohibit the carrying of weapons concealed on the person.”
The power of “regulating and controlling” is not the same as the power of “prohibiting
and controlling.” The emergency statute actually draws this distinction in its language,
which refers to “prohibiting” price-gouging, sale of alcohol, and curfew violations, but
only to “regulating and controlling” firearms. Accordingly, the police superintendent's
order “prohibiting” firearms possession is beyond his lawful authority. It is an illegal
order.61
From the gun control perspective, ordinary people should be disarmed in emergencies. So Mayor Nagin—
who, “incoherent and weeping,” “fled to Baton Rouge”—courageously defied the highest legal authority.62
He was not so bold, however, as to defy his fellow Elite:
That {disarmament} order apparently does not apply to the hundreds of security guards
whom businesses and some wealthy individuals have hired to protect their property. The
guards, who are civilians working for private security firms like Blackwater, are openly
carrying M-16s and other assault rifles.
Mr. Compass said that he was aware of the private guards but that the police had no plans
to make them give up their weapons. 63
If you are rich and fear for you{r} property, your employees may carry fully automatic (true) assault weapons;
your property rights will be respected. If you are “average” and you fear that roving gangs may want to
entertain themselves with your wife and children, you are out of luck. The Constitutions, federal and state,
are impotent. This is an emergency!
Source and to read the footnotes: www.obamaonsecond.com
So not caring about hypocrisy in a gun control advocate but taking his actions as proving what anyone with a gun can do is very convenient. It is also not surprising, at least to me.
To return to your original question, no, I was not always on this side of the fence. I have diligently studied the issue of gun rights from legal, practical, moral, political and criminological perspectives. What I found astonished me. In every area, almost without exception, the gun control position was distorted, exaggerated or outright false. That is not to say that gun control advocates had no legitimate points or that gun rights advocates had no BS, but when comparing the best of each side's arguments the gun rights advocates consistently won.
If you are interested in a basic expose of the fallacies of gun control hitting on many areas--law, history, public policy, safety, etc.--you can read my open letter cited here. If you prefer a less biased and / or more official source (my bias comes from research, but it may turn you off) consider the Brief of the Law Enforcement Trainers (the officers and other professionals who train police officers in things like tactics and use of force) available at
http://www.chicagoguncase.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/11/08-1521tsacileeta.pdf . Pay special attention to the "Summary of research data" starting on page 3 (or 13 on the PDF pagination).
Yes, it is possible to discuss guns without insulting one another. I haven't insulted you, to my knowledge, nor was I particularly offended by your broad characterization of what "anyone with a gun" is capable of doing. I will, however, insult condescending stubborn ignoramuses as I see fit (within the rules, of course). And I will not make a deal to change my entire behavior on this site at the invitation of someone with whom I am having my first conversation. (This has nothing to do with your post volume, you could have been here since day one as far as I am concerned, it would make no difference.)
Unlike many here, I have come here
to have my ideas challenged. If you do not insult me or others or behave boorishly, I will not insult you. (Or at least if I do I will admit to it and apologize.)
But please, be my guest. Smack my ideas around if you can. If they can't handle it, they deserve to be replaced with valid ones.
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
