You know it’s a slow day when I’m linking to anti-gun blogs, which, I have to say, are few and far between, and as best I can tell, mostly unread. Let’s start fisking:
The Virginia Tech shooting – 33 dead, 25 wounded – was another spark for the gun control debate in the United States. The National Rifle Association continues its campaign on the erroneous belief that the 2nd Amendment confers individual gun rights, and gun control advocates fight a rearguard action against some of the more heinous assault weapons (the linked gun can empty its 30-round magazine in 3 seconds).
Well, it does protect an individual right. Even the liberal constitutional scholars think so. The assault weapon you linked to has been illegal to import into the United States since 1968, as has any other foreign made rifle capable of fully automatic fire. Domestically made full-autos have been illegal to manufacture for civilian use since 1986. Possession of fully automatic firearms has been tightly regulated since 1934. You really don’t have any idea what an “assault weapon” is do you?
- If gun control doesn’t help reduce violence, then why was the Irish Republican Army asked to destroy its weapon caches as part of the peace process in Northern Ireland?
- If gun control doesn’t help reduce violence, then why has the United States insisted that the Iraqi Prime Minister disarm the militias?
The IRA is a terrorist organization. Terrorist organizations agreeing to lay down arms, we all agree, is a good thing. But the IRA agreed to renounce violence and disarm itself. If the IRA had wished to keep murdering people and being terrorists, can you explain how they would have been stopped? The UK has had very strict gun control laws since the 1950s. How did the IRA get their guns in the first place?
Second, in regards to Iraq, we allow families to keep fully automatic weapons in their homes for self-protection. Yes, we’re trying to disband the militias who are fighting the elected government of Iraq, but gun control isn’t the primary method we’re using.
Despite the overwhelming evidence that guns are not a social good, lobbying groups like the NRA continue to advocate for “right to carry” or “concealed carry” legislation. While such legislation is unrelated to higher gun ownership rates, it also has no deterrent effect on crime.
What overwhelming evidence? Studies show that guns are used in self-defense from anywhere from 800,000 to 2 million times a year? And it’s also shown that concealed carry liberalizaion has had no effect in terms of increasing crime either. So, living in a free society as we do, the burden is on you to show why the law restricting people’s right to defend themselves is necessary.
The facts show that gun ownership is correlated with gun crime, homicide, suicide, and violent deaths of children.
No, it doesn’t. Stating it doesn’t make it so.
OK, so it’s a really slow day. Hopefully I can find some better stuff to blog about.
11 Responses to “Anti-Gun = Don’t know crap about the issue”
- SayUncle » In case you wanted to know - [...] well, that was fast. In other news, I don’t even have to do my own fisking [...]
- Alphecca » Like Fish in a Barrel - [...] in Hell fisks an idiot. Call it a [...]
- Snowflakes in Hell » The Importance of Civility - [...] linked yesterday to a blog in this post. Well, it looks like he’s changed his tune. This is a …
- Pro-Gun Progressive » Wow, That Was Fast - [...] of really poor Brady-esque antigunnery; I was going to give it a thorough debunking, but the other Sebastian did …