Gun Control.

“The problem is not that we have too many fools, it’s that the lightning isn’t distributed right.” Mark Twain.

 H/T Bill Lee at Progressively Conservative Conversations.

 The above site linked to a great article from the Kentucky Coalition to Carry Concealed called “40 Reasons For Gun Control.” This was in turn excerpted from an article by Michael Z. Williamson, called “It’s amazing what one has to believe to believe in gun control,” which unfortunately seems to have been deleted.

 One of the most difficult things about arguing for gun ownership in modern times is the incredible naivety of many of the supporters of gun control fostered by those who seriously promote this idea. The core promoters are those who seem to believe that the state should be the sole armed entity in the nation and push the concept that we will all be safer if the police and military are the only armed people.

 This item lists some of the more incredibly stupid ideas one has to subscribe to in order to support the whole concept: –

 Statistics showing high murder rates justify gun control but statistics showing increasing murder rates after gun control are “just statistics.”

We must get rid of guns because a deranged lunatic may go on a shooting spree at any time and anyone who would own a gun out of fear of such a lunatic is paranoid.

The more helpless you are the safer you are from criminals.

An intruder will be incapacitated by tear gas or oven spray, but if shot with a .357 Magnum will get angry and kill you.

 A woman raped and strangled is morally superior to a woman with a smoking gun and a dead rapist at her feet.

 The New England Journal of Medicine is filled with expert advice about guns; just like Guns & Ammo has some excellent treatises on heart surgery.

Ordinary people in the presence of guns turn into slaughtering butchers but revert to normal when the weapon is removed.

Guns cause violence, which is why there are so many mass killings at gun shows.

Most people can’t be trusted, so we should have laws against guns, which most people will abide by because they can be trusted.

 “Assault weapons” have no purpose other than to kill large numbers of people. The police need assault weapons. You do not.

 Trigger locks do not interfere with the ability to use a gun for defensive purposes, which is why you see police officers with one on their duty weapon.

 The whole article is here.

20 thoughts on “Gun Control.

  1. Statistics showing high murder rates justify gun control but statistics showing increasing murder rates after gun control are “just statistics.”

    Typically these are wheeled out as evidence that we still don’t have enough gun control. However this phenomena is not unusual. For instance Blowback is wheeled out as evidence that we are not waging enough war. Dead junkies are wheeled out as evidence that we are not waging enough prohibition. Economic decline is wheeled out as evidence that government spending is too low. In fact a debt crisis was used to argue that governments needs to borrow more. Hospital waiting lists are routinely used to argue that we need more socialised medicine. Starvation in poor countries is used to argue that free markets are immoral.

    Sometimes when bad stuff happens it does mean your existing strategy needs to be applied with more vigour. However just as often it means you need a change of strategy. Too often strategists blame failure on the process of execution rather than on the strategy.

  2. Most left-wing, nanny-state and socialist positions are rife with contradiction. We should make lists like these for more issues, eg:

    Government provided healthcare has unacceptably long waiting lists – this can be fixed by more funding through increasing the medicare surcharge for people who use private alternatives, then putting these people on the public waiting list if they can no longer afford the non-public option.

  3. I recently read a good argument to use with those who favour gun control.

    Begin the well-used phrase, “When guns are outlawed .. ” except that when the person indicates they know the rest of it ie “only outlaws will have guns”, add, “and the government”.

    I’ve made considerable progress when I asked if it would make someone feel safe knowing the only people who had guns were the police, military, security guards and criminals. Fairly reasonably, all but the dickheads say no.

  4. There are also other ways to promote freedom to own guns! Some gunmaker should come up with a gun or pistol that can kill crocs. Sell them to people who do live in dangerous places, and you’d have a natural environment for liberty-lovers! Try arguing for gun-control to someone in the NT! (But the crocs wouldn’t feel threatened if you didn’t have weapons!)

  5. ” ”Assault weapons” have no purpose other than to kill large numbers of people. The police need assault weapons. You do not.”

    Kind of scary this one. If their only purpose is to kill “large numbers of people”, then why do the police need them?

    Most of the time police are dealing with a single armed suspect. The only cause they would have to kill “large numbers of people” would be in a zombie apocalypse or to put down a revolution.

  6. Yobbo; The police in the US are going more and more paramilitary as time goes by and the use of SWAT teams seems to be turning into a preferred option. Armament and tactics are getting heavier, including the use of ‘no knock’ raids which are in turn leading to shootouts which could have been avoided, one example of which was a woman in her 90s who was shot dead after firing on what she thought to be home invaders. Turns out the police had the wrong address.

    Redley Balco at The Agitator frequently deals with this issue and there is growing disquiet among others over this including this one: –

    Frederick’s admitted marijuana growing and pot smoking contributed to the verdict; and whether they blamed the Chesapeake police for their large show of force against someone who had no prior criminal record, and who could have been arrested going to or from work. ….

    In a Mississippi case that’s surprisingly similar to Frederick’s, Maye had been on death row in the December 2001 slaying of a police officer during a drug raid. And Maye, who also had no prior criminal record, can make a strong argument that Mississippi law enforcement officials screwed up – and that he’s now paying the price. ….

    Maye, who has said he drifted off to sleep that evening and was there with his 18-month-old daughter, was awakened by the commotion and pounding at his door and did not hear police announce themselves. He retreated to his bedroom and fired three shots at a person entering the room. An officer was killed. Only a tiny stub of a marijuana cigar was recovered from his apartment. ….

    “It was a very troubling case,” attorney Abram J. Pafford told me by phone this week. He initially learned about it from reading Balko’s updates.

    Maye “had no criminal record, no history of violence,” attorney Pafford continued. “It seemed so clear to me that Cory’s explanation for what happened was so logical… and made so much more sense.” The amount of marijuana uncovered from his apartment would have led to only a misdemeanor fine.

    It is worrying to think some of our governments may start thinking this is a good idea in order to be seen as getting tough on crime.

  7. I like the way that John is one step ahead of ASIO. For his sake I hope he manages to keep it that way. 😉

  8. His hearts in the right place Terje but he could be taking a risk, isn’t Nicholas a foreigner from one of those small European socialist nations? 😀

  9. Jim, it’s called GREAT Britain because it’s a BIG socialist nation!
    John, if the revolution is not starting now, did you mean Monday NEXT week instead? I must have been confused on Friday last, at the dinner. Good nosh-up, and just the sort of place you’d need a gun- did you see some of the shady characters?

  10. I love the assault weapon hysteria. People who absolutely have no clue what an ‘assault weapon’ actually is seem to hold the strongest of views how they should be illegal. Often times a classification of an assault rifle is that they have multiple features. A rifle with a pistol grip, or a folding stock, or a detachable magazine, is legal, but a rifle with two or more features is considered an ‘assault rifle’ used for just total indiscriminate killing.

    One totally dishonest use of statistics they do here in the states is compare the US (all 300 million of us) to other countries which have lower murder rates. However, rarely do they ever take individual US states into consideration. Places which are known for being very gun friendly are typically the safest. New Hampshire an Vermont probably have the best gun laws in the country, NH has open carry, and VT has universal concealed carry without any kind of permits, both are the two safest states in the nation. Places like Washington DC with the least friendly gun laws in the nation are the most dangerous.

    Another awful use of statistics people do is when they claim ‘death by gunshot wound’, they manage to lump murder, suicide, and accidental shootings into a single statistic. Self inflicted gunshot wound being the top method of suicide here in the states really jacks up the statistic even though the US has a comparatively low suicide rate. Then compare ‘death by gunshot wound’ to other countries, which may have a high murder rate and high suicide rate, but since guns are not as commonly used for murders and suicides they will have a lower “death by gunshot wound” rate.

  11. Does anybody know of any reliable statistics that show that gun control has lead to a solid increase in the crime rate? Say, in Australia after the nationwide gun ban, or in an American state?
    It’s hard to argue with a group of centre-leftists/pragmatists when you can’t produce solid evidence that your philosophy works in the real world, regardless of individual examples and anecdotes.

  12. Shaun, I suggest you read the following article by Gary Mauser. He gives several examples where increases in crime followed the imposition of strict gun control. However, I caution against concluding cause and effect – usually, gun control simply makes no difference. The only clear evidence that gun control influences crime is where concealed carry is introduced and certain types of crime fall.

    http://www.garymauser.net/pdf/KatesMauserHJPP.pdf

  13. I’d like to get hold of one of those metal storm handguns. Put less-lethal rounds in it. I think this would be a good combination of stopping power and the possibility of leaving a survivor.

    I like the look of the AA12 shotgun. I think if this were married up with less lethal rounds that would be a good combination too. Since you’d have marvellous stopping power. And a good weapon to swap to heavy lead delivery in times of tyranny or invasion.

    This fascination for less lethal ordnance ought not be miscontrued as an underhanded plot to take lead bullets off people who currently have access or make current licensing more restrictive. Only to open up a new class of license and a new level of access.

  14. I’d like to get hold of one of those metal storm handguns.

    Birdie, there are plenty of people in this country who would think that is frightening idea.

  15. Graeme, this is simply a full-auto shotgun. It’s got nothing to do with Metal Storm.

    Like any shotgun, it can fire everything from bird shot to solids. To make it less lethal you simply choose cartridges with smaller projectiles.

    Shotguns are a good defensive weapon at home because they work well at close range and don’t require good aim (except for solids). But they tend to stick out from under your bomber jacket. And if you shoot one at night, the flash is so fierce you won’t be able to see the bad guy for half an hour.

Comments are closed.