search
top

Perhaps the Most Absurd Argument by Antis I’ve Seen in Some Time

Last legislative session Ohio passed a comprehensive pro-gun reform bill, as many of you may remember. Earlier this week, the Executive Director of Ohio Coalition Against Gun Violence “writes in opposition to HB 234, which deals with gun regulations,” to a Cleveland paper. Now, I’m not any kind of high-price political consultant, nor do I hold any kind of political science degree, but I think I’m on safe grounds when I say that the time to “write in opposition” to a bill is before the bill is passed and signed into law by the Governor. I had to check the date on the article to make sure it wasn’t post dated. But it gets better.

One of the provisions of the law is that it made an Ohio CHL a substitute for a NICS check. This is pretty common in other states which meet the federal standards. But Ms. Thorne doesn’t like that:

Let’s say your neighbor Bob wants a gun or applies for a concealed weapons license. He has to pass a background check before he can get either. Everything checks out, so now he’s a “good guy with a gun.” One day, Bob commits a crime. Previously, since Bob now has a record, he can’t buy more guns. However, under the new law, his concealed weapons license allows him to bypass that background check, allowing him to buy more dangerous weapons.

No. If Bob is convicted of a crime that strips away his gun rights, he cannot possess or purchase firearms, and his concealed carry license will be taken from him. This is finding a loophole where there is no loophole. Bob won’t be able to pass a NICS check or have a CHL to present to the dealer. He’ll have to either put up a straw buyer (illegal), buy the gun on the streets (illegal), or steal one (illegal) like every other criminal.

It’s time that we all start taking responsibility for the presence of gun violence in our society. Studies show this public health risk doesn’t discriminate. Gun violence is not just limited to urban areas. In fact, gun violence is increasing across the country, while decreasing in cities.

This is called making up facts. Gun violence is pretty much limited to urban areas, and even there, usually only in a handful of places. Gun violence absolutely does discriminate, or our nation wouldn’t be spending so much time debating about horrifyingly high numbers of black-on-black violence. But nonetheless, gun violence has been going down across the country, not up. And it’s been doing this while we’ve been liberalizing our gun control laws nearly across the board.

The solution lies in personal conversations to create culture change. We can’t be afraid to talk about gun violence.

We’ve been talking about gun violence for years. Our assertion has always been it’s the culture of violence that’s the problem, and it’s not going to be solved by taking guns away from ordinary people, which is what gun control does (criminals still get them). It’s been our assertion that gun control laws interfere with the right of the people who need firearms for self-protection the most: the majority of people who are stuck living in violent neighborhoods who are not themselves violent. We’ve been having this debate, and we’ve been winning. Suddenly the other side acts like the debate has never been had. It has been, and you lost.

4 Responses to “Perhaps the Most Absurd Argument by Antis I’ve Seen in Some Time”

  1. Matthew Carberry says:

    Even “urban areas” is too general. Violence, much less “gun violence”, is concentrated in particular parts of particular streets on particular blocks, among an incredibly small group of loosely associated people.

    http://news.yale.edu/2013/11/14/study-finds-social-networks-are-key-city-violence

    http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2014/jul/7/uw-study-gun-victims-more-likely-to-be-shot-again/

    Basically, if you aren’t in an ongoing violent domestic relationship or in one of the above social groups you are not, as a gun owner, any “part of the problem.”

  2. Pyrotek85 says:

    What, they can’t even be bothered with the mental gymnastics now, and they’re just going to straight up lie?

  3. Boyd says:

    Correct me if I’m wrong, but even if you can bypass the NICS check based on the presentation of a qualifying license or permit, the buyer still has to fill out a 4473, right? The one that asks if you’re a convicted felon, so Bob would have to lie on the form (illegal), or tell the truth and the dealer won’t sell him the gun. That one.

  4. Archer says:

    “We’ve been having this debate, and we’ve been winning. Suddenly the other side acts like the debate has never been had.”

    That’s because the debate we’ve been having isn’t the debate they wanted to have … which was less of a “debate” and more of a “lecture”.

top