There are lots of them, actually, but right up there is the fact that the ignorami who promote it know nothing about guns. Or rather, they know lots about them that is wrong.
106 thoughts on “The Problem With Gun Control”
Comments are closed.
There are lots of them, actually, but right up there is the fact that the ignorami who promote it know nothing about guns. Or rather, they know lots about them that is wrong.
Comments are closed.
The problem isn’t that they’re ignorant. The problem is we don’t seem to have a systematic way of marginalizing the ignorant so they can’t do any harm.
Fix that problem and the rest can be joke fodder.
The author of the article is married to Illinois congresswoman Jan Schakowsky. He was convicted on charges of writing bad checks and tax evasion and sentenced to 5 months in prison back in 2006.
Perhaps some of his frustration is that his felony conviction has put something of a damper on his ability to purchase and own guns.
For me, this is the key observation:
There was no measurable effect on the violent crime rate as a result of the ban
That’s hard to dispute. But why does it not affect anyone’s attitude? This is something I think that needs explaining. What is the genuine reasoning behind someone who wants to ban weapons of various types, or weapon components, if they are unmoved by the failure of such bans to change rates of gun violence?
I wonder if it’s a form of animism. People see the guns as alive and want to hit them as a “punishment” for their bad behaviour. I mean, after all, many of us do kick the car and curse it when it fails to start in the snow. Perhaps that’s what this is.
Carl said,
“People see the guns as alive…” that’s exactly right Carl. It’s where they get the moronic idea that “guns kill people”.
I don’t like guns. I also don’t much care for the people who like guns. But at least I understand the difference between the two antipathies. The latter is very much my problem, and my issue to get over.
I do think that if you’re going to have a well-regulated militia, that regulating the types of guns that people can have should be done on technical rather than aesthetic grounds. My father explained to me that calling something an “assault weapon” was meaningless but to talk about magazine capacity or rate of fire made, arguably, some sense.
Jane,
The phrase well-regulated does not mean what you think it means.
It means, in the context is was intended in 1787 English, as well-trained and equipped. Not ‘regulated as in the sense of government regulation. And to be regulated to preform a martial function as a well-regulated militia would, woud not logically one want weapons of significant firepower in order to enable the milita to be effective? If we do not allow them to be effective, what is the point?
And just what kind of people do you think likes guns? What stereotypes are you harboring?
I don’t like guns either, Jane. Or scalpels. Fortunately for my doctor, I distinguish between the tool and the tool user.
People often say the only purpose of guns is to kill people, but that seems to me as myopic and thoughtless as saying the only purpose of scalpels is to cut people and make them bleed. In fact, the legitimate purpose of scalpels is to cut and destroy flesh only in order to save life. In the same sense, the legitimate purpose of a gun is to save and defend lives. It’s certainly a shame that sometimes to save people you have to hurt or kill other people. But it’s also a shame that in order to save a woman’s life you sometimes have to mutilate her — cut off her breasts. These sad tradeoffs plague us in this life, alas.
All gun control does is disarm the surgeons or relegate them to dull scapels. The cancer doesn’t obey the law anyways.
Allow me to suggest that the “well regulated militia” argument against gun control is just nonsense for a minute here. Consider it devil’s advocate if it’ll stop people from flaming me.
Last President the US basically became a police state.. with warrantless wiretapping and “you can’t talk about this” seizure by federal agencies.. rendition.. the patriot act.. the restriction on travel.. vehicle searches miles away from the border.. bailing out of wall street.. etc, etc. The gun totting militia should have been reaching for their ammo box.. or at least for the jury box.. but they didn’t.
Then this President gets in, and doesn’t reverse any of the patriot act the-terrorists-are-coming hysteria. Next he makes a giant grab for power and, according to many, turns the US into a regular old socialist country – like Europe – trampling on the Constitution and American exceptionalism. Where’s the militia? Oh, right, they’re toning down the rhetoric. Maybe next President eh? Three strikes and you’re done? Waiting….
I remember back in the waning days of Waco people were talking about how powerful the federal military has become.. how despite the restrictions on them using force against US citizens that’s exactly what they were doing. Oh, they don’t send in the army to kill the militia.. that’d be too obvious. Instead they send in the ATF and the FBI – but does it really matter what you call it?
I have come to the conclusion that it has never been about facts, statistics or results. It’s about feelings. Congress passes these laws to make their constituents feel better. The congress person his or her self may be ignorant, stupid, or clever but completely uncaring about the after effect of a bad law.
I like the phrase “do something disease”. A horrible thing occurs. The politicians all jump in and suggest laws to fix the problem. In doing this the politicians are “taking action” and “doing the people’s business” giving the public the idea that they are going to be safe from a dangerous and unpredictable world. The logic here being that if something went wrong then all that is needed is a law that, had it been in place before, would have prevented the problem. Who in the heck knows where this idea comes from. (I actually have some thoughts but that’s for another discussion).
So a law is passed, the generally uniformed and blissfully unaware public thinks this form of tragedy is eliminated or reduced for the future, and the politicians look good for the next election cycle.
We are, sadly, left with a growing pile of insane legislation.
I am unable to express how discouraged I am that those without wisdom or reason dominate our society today. It’s not just ignorance. It’s willful stupidity. It’s intentional malice. It’s sickness.
Big lie after big lie are repeated daily from a multitude of sources and are hardly discredited and never shamed.
Those that know better are disunited and mostly ineffective in countering the lies. It is an existential threat which elections may delay but will not fix. We are in serious trouble on many, many fronts.
I know the majority of Americans still share some common principles, but our education system is working hard year after year to fix that.
I’m rooting for Sarah. She’s not perfect, except where it counts. We need several generations of real debate to correct this ship of state.
ken, so when the new great Messiah takes office and doesn’t reverse any of the crazy stuff that the last great Messiah put in place… and then introduces some more crazy stuff.. will you finally give up on the idea of “I just have to vote better next time”?
btw, you think you have problems: http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2010/09/09/3007320.htm
I grew up in Alaska where EVERYONE was armed. There was almost no crime. Even in the small towns whoth hugely transient fishing fleet changed the population by 4X there was no crime. Even if one might have been inclined to crime, the criminals were afraid of the populace.
In modern urban America the only group that is consistently armed are the criminals. the populace is afraid of the criminals. It should be the other way around.
A Note to Jane, as a women the only way for you to equalize the situation when confronted with a 250 lb tough guy is a firearm. When seconds count the police are minutes away. There have been a number of studies that show law abiding gun ownership actually reduces crime.
What is the genuine reasoning behind someone who wants to ban weapons of various types, or weapon components, if they are unmoved by the failure of such bans to change rates of gun violence?
One potential reason would be if it turned out it has made it easier to convict criminals. Is there any indication it has? But even if it had, you would have to weigh it against the loss of liberty. A reversed version of the question is also interesting. What if gun control could really prevent all gun violence? Would you, hypothetically, be willing to give up your right to bear arms in exchange for the certainty of not having any gun violence?
I think the whole well-regulated militia thing is a red herring. The reasoning behind the second amendment no longer applies, as the states no longer have civil militias, nor do they want them. It’s time for a new amendment that spells out what rights civilians have and do not have when it comes to possessing and bearing arms and who decides that (the Constitution, Congress, state consitutions or state legislators).
A side effect of making your constitution difficult to change is that people will subvert it to the point of making it pointless. If you make it too easy to change it will also become pointless. It’s hard to strike a good balance, but I think the US has been erring on the side of making it too difficult.
Absolutely. If a mugger chose to accost me with a gun, the odds are slightly more than 50:50 in his favor. If he used a knife, though, there is no question that I could kill him with my cane without harm to myself.
The reasoning behind the second amendment no longer applies,
The same can be said about the first, since almost no one uses printing presses any more. And considering that free speech is directly responsible for our current “uncivil discourse”, we need to change that. And since the gov’t has been so successful in all its other social engineering programs, we can expect everyone to love each other if only the First were repealed and proper regulations enacted.
I didn’t advocate regulation, I advocated a new amendment to supersede the one that has been overtaken by events. The solution might be as simple as removing the words referring to a well-regulated militia. I don’t think it is in anyone’s interest to have constitutional articles that no longer makes sense. I say that as a citizen of a country that still speaks of honouring the King of Spain in its national anthem…
“Absolutely. If a mugger chose to accost me with a gun, the odds are slightly more than 50:50 in his favor. If he used a knife, though, there is no question that I could kill him with my cane without harm to myself.”
Gun control means the mugger has a gun and you have a cane.
Gun control only disarms the honest. Criminals scoff at it.
Mexico has some of the tightest gun control lwas in the world and yet every day down there is a bloodbath.
The cartels have no problem buying weapons from corrupt Army officials and the internatinal black market. They seem to have not trouble acquring grenades, mortars and RPG-7’s from the images I have seen. Common-sense shows it to be a fools quest.
“Last President the US basically became a police state.. with warrantless wiretapping and “you can’t talk about this” seizure by federal agencies.. rendition.. the patriot act.. the restriction on travel.. vehicle searches miles away from the border.. bailing out of wall street.. etc, etc. The gun totting militia should have been reaching for their ammo box.. or at least for the jury box.. but they didn’t.”
So you are arguing that those rose to the level of requring an armed insurrection and civil war to fix? I was unaware Bush had also declared himself Dictator for life and suspended Congress and all future elections! HAIL EMPEROR BUSH!
“I think the whole well-regulated militia thing is a red herring. The reasoning behind the second amendment no longer applies, as the states no longer have civil militias, nor do they want them. ”
It may not be was well-trained and equipped as it should be but the militia still exists in the US. It is essentially every able-bodied male of adult age not already serving in the military or national guard.
It is defined by the Code of the United States: 10 U.S.C. § 311 declares that the militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least seventeen years of age and under forty-five years of age, who are citizens or who have declared an intention to become citizens of the United States. The act further divides the militia into two classes: (1) “the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia”; and (2) “the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia.” The unorganized militia is not further defined.
10 U.S.C. § 311
Interesting, I didn’t know that. But I still think it is undesirable to have the right to bear arms (or restrictions on that right) depend on there being a militia and whether it is necessary or not. How difficult can it be to come up with an amendment that says whatever you think it should say without mentioning the militia. Why not clear up any confusion? If you’re in favour of the right to bear arms, you’d simply remove the militia verbiage. If you want to leave it to the states, you could say so to. If you want to restrict the right of states to legislate, you could require any legislation to be part of the state constitution and therefore subject to a supermajority decision. And so on. Whatever view you hold, mixing things up with the existence of a militia doesn’t help.
Gun control means the mugger has a gun and you have a cane.
He was answering a hypothetical question. What if gun control did in fact prevent gun violence, would you still be opposed to it on the grounds of loss of liberty or would you consider it a worthwhile trade? I think it’s an interesting question of principle and it also requires you to compare the relative value of safety vs liberty. Some would hold that if you compromise one you deserve to lose the other, others might disagree. An interesting question either way.
You failed to read (or understand) MPM‘s statement and my response.
It (note use of non-sexist language) stated:
My response indicates two things:
1. “Gun violence” is a proper subset of violence. Violent criminals would still use knives, clubs, fists, and boots, even if there was not a single gun on the planet.
2. I am able and willing to kill an armed assailant without a firearm. (Contrast with several well-known squishes who, if their public statements are to be taken as halakhot deMoshe miSinai, would allow an unarmed assailant to walk up to them, pluck the gun out of their trembling hands, and pistol-whip them to death with it.) For many, of course, this is not true; the saying is that “God made men, but Sam Colt made them equal”.
MPM,/b>, from conviction or otherwise, is playing the game of, “Imagine no one is ever killed with a gun again”. My response is, “So? There are lots of other ways to kill people”.
“What if gun control did in fact prevent gun violence, would you still be opposed to it on the grounds of loss of liberty or would you consider it a worthwhile trade? ”
To me, that is like asking It’s kind of like asking if your Grandmother had wheels, would you consider her a wagon or a dolly? Some things are so far beyond the realm of the realistic, it isn’t worth the expenditure of mental energy to contemplate.
“A well-read populace, being necessary to the promotion of an educated community, the right of the people to keep and read books shall not be infringed”
Martin, how is the former a limit on the latter in any way if the populace is currently less than well-read?
It fails to close an avenue of attack by opponents of the right to a free press. “You know, our schooling system is now so much more advanced than the framers could have imagined, that it is now safe to impose a little bit of control over the press so that other worthy goals can be accomplished.”
“But I still think it is undesirable to have the right to bear arms (or restrictions on that right) depend on there being a militia and whether it is necessary or not.”
It doesn’t, MPM. THe part of the 2nd ammendment about the militia is essentially irrelevent. The operative phrase is “..the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.” Anything else in the ammendment is subordinate to that and cannot limit or negate it. If there were no militias, the right of the people to bear arms would still be intact.
Then why have it in there? As it is people can argue the amendment means “as long as a well-regulated militia is necessary” and then go on to demonstrate to their own satisfaction that in the modern world the well-regulated militia is in fact no longer necessary, so that one would stay entirely within the intention of the founders by imposing certain constraints. Heck, I’m not personally convinced having a well-regulated militia is in fact necessary, a regular army might do. In fact, maybe Rothbard was right and we don’t even need that. Not that he’d be in favour of gun control of course.
You couldn’t make that argument if the amendment simply said “the right to bear arms shall not be infringed”.
I didn’t advocate regulation, I advocated a new amendment to supersede the one that has been overtaken by events
It’s a test, M. If the common sense required to understand that the “militia” bit doesn’t affect individual rights is sufficiently widespread, then the populace can be trusted with guns. If, on the other hand, the stupid interpretation widely prevails — why, people who can’t be trusted with a republican Constitution can’t be trusted with guns, either, and we deserve the tyranny that will surely follow the absence of both.
As it is people can argue the amendment means “as long as a well-regulated militia is necessary” and then go on to demonstrate to their own satisfaction that in the modern world the well-regulated militia is in fact no longer necessary
The 2nd amendment says otherwise making their opinion irrelevant.
It should perhaps be remembered that in the Tuscon case the armed assailant was restrained (it would have been even easier to kill him) by unarmed citizens. Guns seem to be a lot less practical, convenient, effective and generally on hand than people seem to think. A crowd of people and yet no one else could use a gun to restrain the assailant??? For whatever reasons, guns can obviously not be depended upon.
I suspect that if as much effort went into unarmed combat training as goes into guns, America would be safer and healthier. Average life expectancy would be higher, and people would be generally more likely to survive any number of incidents that might befall them (violent and non violent). Note I am not arguing against hunting rifles, which I would think far more appropriate for an armed and considered militia (and more useful for hunting down criminals with hand guns).
In this day and age, why do we generally not have mostly non lethal weapons to protect ourselves with? There are plenty of options, some of which are quite effective, and a bigger market would prompt a lot of great innovation in the area. It seems strange that non lethal weapons are frowned upon because they might kill someone (the fear of getting sued…), while lethal weapons are just fine.
I can not help but suspect that many in the US have an almost paranoid attraction to penis compensating hand guns, and little interest in actual practical safety and defense. Would people seriously go hunting with hand guns? Hand guns seem to be weapons of terror not war in an otherwise civil society. With a little personal training and fitness, the use of some advanced non lethal technology (which the US should be good at developing), and the back up of proper rifles, the need for and random messiness of hand guns might be greatly reduced.
Maybe there is just a technological solution to the ongoing hand gun problem – spend a few millions developing mostly non lethal hand gun equivalents and the problem might largely go away.
The 2nd amendment says otherwise making their opinion irrelevant.
Not if, hypothetically, it can be proven to be false. Consider this:
“The value of pi being three, the right to bear arms shall not be infringed.”
“Then why have it in there?”
It is there as a justification/explanation. My point is that the operative phrase defines what the 2nd ammendment does and does not depend on the justification. The operative phrase is still operative even if the stated justification no longer exists.
That’s one reasonable interpretation, but the phrase is ambiguous. Another interpretation, also reasonable, would be “as long as a well-regulated militia is necessary”. Such ambiguity is undesirable.
will you finally give up on the idea of “I just have to vote better next time”?
Well Trent, since I never held that view there’s nothing to give up. I strongly suspect we are well past the point where voting alone can fix our problems. We have enemies and they’ve been successful. We have a marxist muslim in the whitehouse (and arguing he isn’t is part of the absurdity of it.)
The joke about Reagan was an actor in the WH. This is no joke.
These enemies have been so successful that if I were to state the honest truth, the 2nd amendment is there to make the government have a healthy fear of the people, I’d be immediately labeled an extremist cuckoo.
The 2nd amendmant says, “A well-regulated militia being necessary ..”. Perhappes the problem is that we have forgotten how to create and use a militia, so we nolonger experience its necessity in maintaining a free state. The militia is like the jury system, an opportunity for the citizen to directly participate in the actions of the community. Jury duty is more often tedious than risky, yet many people will go to great lengths to avoid jury duty. How much more likely would be their desire to avoid armed service to the community? So we have standing armies and a police force, not state regiments or armed neighborhood watch committees. But we are arguably less free than when we did; the standing army and professional police are clearly felt as at least potential oppressors.
Pete plaintively asks:
and then answers his own question in the next sentence:
One thing I noticed about politicians and members of the Permanent State who support gun bans, they tend to be lenient towards gang members and other violent criminals.
Hmmm, disarm the public and unleash the armed criminals on the streets! The people who promote gun control aren’t interested in public safety, what they want is Anarcho-Tyranny where the gangs (check out the link in my name) act as their secret police.
Not if, hypothetically, it can be proven to be false. Consider this:
“The value of pi being three, the right to bear arms shall not be infringed.”
So? Your argument seems to be, I can have the opinion that a statement made as justification for the Second Amendment is wrong, hence, we don’t have to honor the amendment. It doesn’t work that way.
If ALL crime ceased today, from murder to shop lifting to speeding to jay walking, I’d still be unwilling to give up my guns or my rights to have them.
Having a Right to Bear Arms has nothing to do with CRIME.
I know that we don’t truly have a militia like we used to circa 177?. But does anyone EVER think about WHY the USSR never tried a “Red Dawn” scenario? Or why China doesn’t now? IMHO, it’s because average Americans own too many trucks, dirt bikes, people have camping gear and backwoods skills and we own too many GUNS.
No, my point was that the statement can be taken to mean “as long as pi equals three the right to bear arms shall not be infringed”. If that interpretation is taken, then once it is proven that pi does not in fact equal three, it follows that the right to bear arms is no longer shielded from infringement. I’m not saying this is the only reasonable interpretation, just that it is one reasonable interpretation. You would seem to prefer the interpretation “Pi equals three and by the by the right to bear arms shall not be infringed”. That’s another reasonable interpretation. I don’t know which interpretation of “x being necessary” the framers had in mind and I’m not sure you do either. Either way, not having it crystal clear seems suboptimal to me.
“Hmmm, disarm the public and unleash the armed criminals on the streets! The people who promote gun control aren’t interested in public safety, what they want is Anarcho-Tyranny where the gangs… act as their secret police.”
Manipulating the lawless elements of society to keep the law-abiding citizens under control is an Old World tradition. It’s one reason we fought against the British and why we set up the sort of government we did.
Look: as long as the taxpayers are barricaded in their homes trembling with fear they aren’t able to work against the powers that be. If you combine a weak criminal justice system that is more obsessed with being nice than catching and locking up criminals with policies that place restrictions on what sort of weapons law-abiding people are allowed to own, that’s what you’ll get. There will be no freedom of assembly — not when you’ve turned every law-abiding citizen into a sitting duck for thugs that don’t care about the law (and so of course carry whatever weapons they can get their hands on). The ruling class doesn’t care — they can just hire protectors in the name of “national security.” But you, and you and you and you, who aren’t members of the government, can go piss up a rope as far as they are concerned. This is why the Second Amendment is so important and why “gun control” has nothing to do with making people “safer.” It’s all about power and control.
The prefatory clause states A/b> reason for th eright to keep an bear arms, not an exclusive reason. Did you not pay attention to my book example?
“A well-read populace, being necessary to the promotion of an educated community, the right of the people to keep and read books shall not be infringed”
The latter is a route to the former, not the other way around. Books must come first in order to achieve th elatter.
The latter is a route to the former, not the other way around.
That depends on whether you take the word “being” as a condition or as a (possibly nonexclusive) reason. As far as I can tell both are correct English usage. Ambiguous language in legal documents is undesirable. Maybe inevitable too, but also undesirable.
I see that, as usual, the pro-gun people have the facts and the gun control subhumans have the dick analogies. Pete, just assuming you’re right, just what other basic human rights do you want to deny based on penis size? Do men with small penises also lose their freedom of speech?
Incidentally, I wouldn’t be getting too prideful about your huge member. One of the meanest, toughest, dirtiest fighters I’ve ever known had–according to people in the know–a two-and-a-half-incher. So don’t even dream that your anaconda means you can kick my ass.
Having dispatched Pete and sent him home crying to his mommy, I have to be honest now. I truly believe that gun control, for all our arguments, is pretty much a done deal. The gun control lobby is too powerful to be defeated politically. The deal has already been struck; at some point, we will have nationwide Wacos to disarm gun owners, as well as to kill them and their family members.
At what point will we choose to die like men, taking as many of them with us as possible, rather than being slaughtered like sheep?
Guns seem to be a lot less practical, convenient, effective and generally on hand than people seem to think.
You’re drawing that conclusion from exactly one incident? Don’t you think that’s a little ridiculous? You might as well argue that because so-and-so lived to be 96 and die of getting hit by a bus, despite smoking two packs a day for 45 years, there is no danger to smoking.
A crowd of people and yet no one else could use a gun to restrain the assailant???
Er…Pete, did it occur to you that the guns weren’t used because it was a big crowd of people? And that folks saw that the guy was under control already? Again, it’s a little mystifying that you draw so much conclusion from one incident. If you saw one accident in which the driver’s life was saved by a seat belt and the airbag didn’t go off, would you argue airbags are clearly useless?
I suspect that if as much effort went into unarmed combat training as goes into guns, America would be safer and healthier.
My impression is that it takes a lot more time and effort to get a black belt in karate, say, than it does to buy a gun and learn how to use it. Additionally, what do the old or handicapped do? Small women? To hell with them? Or would you bring back their complete dependence on big, strong men for their protection?
I like Pete’s suggestion that everyone have unarmed combat training, so we’d be “healthier” and shit. 1) I guess cripples will just have to stay indoors; 2) Pete’s kungfu paradise will last until the day the nations’ thugs realize that karate doesn’t make people bulletproof.