search
top

The Intellectual Corruption of the Anti-Gun Movement

Following up on a comment yesterday, it occurred to me that our opponents repeatedly suggest that civilians should not be allowed to carry firearms for self-defense, a key reason being that civilians don’t receive sufficient training compared to police. But then when we seek out the same kind of training as police, they disapprovingly exclaim, “Who needs ‘tactical firearm training’?”

So which is it? Do you want civilian gun carriers to be better trained? Or do you just hate the idea of people with guns. If the latter, just admit it and drop the charade of caring about gun violence, or wanting to reduce accidents. You know what reduces accidents? Training and education.

20 Responses to “The Intellectual Corruption of the Anti-Gun Movement”

  1. Michael says:

    Accidents happen because stupid people do stupid things without thinking. With some people, no amount of training will solve their problem.

    I will concede to training in order to practice my 2nd amendment right when training is required before practicing the 1st amendment.

    • Pyrotek85 says:

      Driving is a good example of this. Nearly everyone gets a driver’s license (or starts off with a valid one at least), yet there are tons of bad drivers. It’s not as if they don’t know how to drive, they’re just doing dumb things. Sending them back to class won’t fix it.

  2. Cargosquid says:

    According to them… “Civilians” don’t need to carry guns. Or own guns..unless, of course, you’re a gun banner that wants one…because THEIR intentions are honorable.

    So, their logic is infallible and self reinforcing. No training, more accidents. More accidents, more need for gun control.

  3. Once again you are looking for logic in the middle of a religious argument. Expecting an anti-gunner and a leftist (redundancy alert) to use logic is like looking for water in the Atacama Desert.

    Guns = Bad

    all other arguments are in service to that basic premise.

    A better thing to do is to examine why people are anti-gun. I suspect that once you get outside of the ignorant and past the clearly deranged (*cough* japete *cough*) what you will find is people with an explicit leftist agenda. They demand compliance with the government because the government knows best. Anyone who retains the ability to resist the government is a potential threat.

  4. Zermoid says:

    Speaking of accidents, hear about the off duty cop who had a ND and killed a young woman?

    Guess those “sufficiently trained” cops shouldn’t be allowed to have guns either then!

  5. TS says:

    because “training” to them means educating people on how bad and dangerous guns are- and training them on how to properly lock them up.

    • Steven says:

      Exactly – the only “education” they are concerned with is telling people endless anecdotes of horrible gun deaths and making anti-2nd Amendment “soldiers”.

  6. Zermoid says:

    Link to that story, you tube version anyways.
    Negligent cop kills with hug in Detroit
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lUacKD1L_7w&feature=youtu.be

  7. Chris Byrne says:

    AAAARgh!!!!

    Police Officers in this country ARE civilians.

    They are governed under CIVIL law, with CIVIL rights.

    They are not governed under military law.

    • Sebastian says:

      The definition of civilian has changed such that every dictionary mentions persons not part of military or police forces in the definition. It’s common usage, even if it never should have been. Some quick research shows the term was borrowed from French, originally describing what we would probably call civil servants:

      1388, from O.Fr. civilien “of the civil law,” created from L. civilis (see civil). Original meaning in Eng. was “judge or authority on civil law,” sense of “non-military person” is first attested 1829.

      I’m not sure at what point “civilian” started to be used to describe non military or police, since I can’t find anything about how the term evolved, but police organized along paramilitary lines started in the late 19th century. It wouldn’t surprise me if the use evolved alongside the militarization of police, which is certainly not a new trend.

      • Chris Byrne says:

        No, it’s absolutely not new; but it’s fundamentally wrong, encourages the separation of police from the general populace, and their militarization; and we should absolutely not reinforce it, and object to it when we see it.

        • Motor-T says:

          I think that we should embrace the separation of police and the people. When the founders warned against the dangers of a standing army, they specifically meant armed uniformed government servants enforcing the edicts of the government on the populace. The current police model is that standing army.

    • Cargosquid says:

      If you are writing about my use of the word, I know.

      That’s why I put “civilians” in quotes. I was using it THEIR way.

  8. James says:

    “So which is it? Do you want civilian gun carriers to be better trained? Or do you just hate the idea of people with guns.”

    Lol. I get it. You’re doing Raising Arizona…

    “Gale: All right, ya hayseeds, it’s a stick-up. Everybody freeze. Everybody down on the ground.
    Feisty Hayseed: Well, which is it, young feller? You want I should freeze or get down on the ground? Mean to say, if’n I freeze, I can’t rightly drop. And if’n I drop, I’m a-gonna be in motion. You see…
    Gale: Shut up!”

  9. Stephan says:

    I got stuck being the RSO when the police department took over our range for the day. Sure was scary. It is actually depressing to think that some of these officers are an accident waiting to happen.

  10. Chas says:

    The anti’s were dicey to begin with. Heller put them on Skid Row and deservedly so.

  11. RS says:

    Based on the performance of some of the law enforcement officers at our local range, it’s very clear they are NOT getting enough training or practice.

    The Sheriff’s office deputies seem to be the worst.

    • Steven says:

      Now now – let’s not bash our LEOs.

      Granted, some may not exhibit the best range safety, but that’s a leadership failure, not a failure in ability of the officer, nor a lack of desire to learn proper safety.

      I’m a very pro-LEO kind of guy. At the same time I realize our system of laws and our courts have become a machine, manned by elites who have made themselves immune to prosecution or liability.

      But, let’s not bash our cops – they are the tip of the spear and not the writers of policy.

      Just sayin’

  12. J says:

    On the other side of the equation their argument fails as many (many many) members of the military receive relatively little training on their assigned weapon. That is less true now than it was prior to 9/11 but there are still plenty of people running around downrange with minimal training with whatever they are carrying. Ask any servicemember that’s been through a CRC how much weapons training they got… much less tactical training. Ask any serving armorer how often they have to replace barrels or send weapons off for depot level maintenance because the weapon has exceeded the (highly conservative) round count.

    As noted by others, many police officers receive minimal training and some receive none since they need do little more than qualify with their weapon according to department policies.

    The “Only Ones” mentality fails for so many different reasons.

    Also, I meant “winged” as opposed to “winger” in the original post. I have teh stoopid.

  13. Steven says:

    I have several thoughts on this and would like to share.
    First, let me start with the premise that I do not take most anti-gunners arguments at face value. They say that [x], [y], & [z] are the reasons they oppose private gun ownership or the types of guns being sold.

    But, when you address [x], [y], and [z], they move on to reasons [a], [b], & [c]. Now this may be clear to many here – but we, as pro-2nd Amendment folk, need to learn to be leaders, and to explain to the uninitiated, that what is being put out there is often a smoke screen. Even if we were to address reasons [a] through [z] of the anti-2nd Amendment folks, they would simply move the goal posts and find new objections. We need to be able to educate others in how the anti’s work. That even if you address every concern they had, and gave them everything on their legislative, statutory, and regulatory wish list, that they would seek by increment and by anecdote, “just one more” “reasonable” restriction.

    In short – they first had their fixed goal, and then decided to tailor their arguments to that goal.
    In my life I have arrived at my positions by comparing and contrasting arguments, and coming to a conclusion. They have a conclusion and it will not be swayed by facts. Whiskey, Tango, Foxtrot.

    ##############@@@@@@@@@@@@@@

    But, to speak directly to this thread:

    For every argument the anti’s come up with, no matter how specious, transitory, convenient, or untrue, we should prepare a response. IF we were to take this argument seriously it’s easy to answer.
    1) Make gun usage available to each junior and senior high school, and make 2nd Amendment education and gun safety mandatory. While this does open it to abuse (by anti’s) the courses should only be taught by NRA approved instructors who have (say about) 10 years experience.
    When the “dangers” of teaching guns is objected to – we can counter that children are being given explicit instruction, as early as the beginning of pre-school, on how to engage in the risky life altering behavior of sex. The answer, according to progressives, is extensive years long education in how to properly HAVE sex. Should something as important as gun safety be left to chance.

    2) While this is a niche discussion on guns, we need to insist that our children be given instruction on the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. I am an NCO in the military, and it drives me to distraction the ignorance of my new young Soldiers, coming to me freshly minted from our “fine public schools” who swear to defend a document (and it’s ideals) but don’t know squat about it.

    3) Requiring people to get instruction is all well and good – but it should be noted in historical context. My father told me of how he grew up in Texas in the 60’s and how he’d have his shotgun in his gun rack in his car, which would be parked in the parking lot of his high school. No one’s guns got stolen, and it was unheard of for there to be a school shooting.

    What changed? IMO, our moral relativism, the rise and normalization of single parent homes, and the lack of punishment we are ‘allowed’ to mete out to our children. Stupid is supposed to hurt, and children should be given corporal punishment IF NEEDED – to spare them the idea that REAL punishments exist in real life. Or, hey, we can just visit them in prison when they become adults and they finally realize that lesson – and then we lament how we failed them (or we blame “society”).

    The answers are there – and we, as a community, need to be prepared to address them.

    I hope I added to the discussion.

    Steven

Trackbacks/Pingbacks

  1. Clean Clocks « Guffaw in AZ - [...] Shall Not Be Questioned poses THE question. …our opponents repeatedly suggest that civilians should not be allowed to carry …
top