Tuesday, December 11, 2012

Roll Out the Gun (Control) Nuts

A guy shoots up a mall in Oregon.  How do we stop this from ever happening again?  Ban gun ownership in America, of course!

But let's consider a few things before we start talking out of our asses about banning guns.  Let's say that tomorrow, owning and buying a gun is illegal.  Now, me being Mr. Law-Abiding-Citizen would probably just obey the law and not buy a gun.

But how about a guy like the mall shooting nut job?  Or the guy who went on a rampage at the theater in Colorodo?  Do we really think the law is going to stop them from buying a gun?  Probably not.  If you think about it, the law wasn't even enough to keep these guys from murdering human beings in cold blood.  Knowing that they don't even have a shred of regard for human life, what makes you think that they have any regard for less horrifying offenses like owning contraband?

Here's the answer: they will not give a shit.  They already don't give a shit.  "Owning a gun makes you more likely to use it."  Okay, just like owning a knife makes you more likely to use it?  How about a hammer?  How about some ammonia bleach and aluminum foil?  Just about anything can be used as a weapon, and it can be wielded easily.

"It's harder to kill with a knife than a gun."  Oh really?  Last I checked, a knife is more easily concealable.  It's quieter, so you could potentially kill a lot of people before anyone is even alerted to your misdeeds.  Think a knife is less threatening than a gun?  Well, just a few dudes with some knives were able to keep a bunch of plane passengers at bay (the 9/11 terrorists were only armed with knives).

So should we ban all knives as well?  That's the answer!  No more steak knives in America!

Hell, let's even look at the War on Drugs.  It's illegal to own crack cocaine in America, yet it's still here.  Mary Jane is illegal in 49 of 50 states, yet it's ubiquitous.  Manufacturing, distributing, and owning hard drugs all carry hefty penalties--production and distribution carry prison sentences--yet it still happens.  A lot.

The sad truth is that the law can only do so much.  You can ban every gun and bullet outside the police and military in America, and you will STILL see these crazy shootings happening.  In fact, it'd probably be worse because in this scenario, all firearms and ammo would go underground, and we wouldn't even be able to TRACK the sale of firearms and ammunition.  You wouldn't need to go through a background check or anything: you just have to know a guy who knows a guy and save up a little more money.

Ever hear the phrase "locks only stop honest men?"  Well, it's the same with the law: it only stops those who have some sensibility about them.

So to the Gun Control Nuts (see what I did there?): dream on.  You can control guns as much as you want, hell you can even ban them altogether.  It won't make a damn bit of difference, and if you think it will then you're living in a fantasy world.

Pro-tip: if only it was against the law for that guy to bring a gun into a mall, so many people could have been saved!  Oh wait . . . it IS against the law to bring a gun into a mall.

***By the way, I DO NOT own a gun.***

12 comments:

Silverfiddle said...

Well said. I can't wait to hear the rebuttals from the Jerseys of this world...

Jersey McJones said...

Well, you didn't have to wait long, Silver.

I'm not going to bother to engage the notion that a knife is just as dangerous a weapon as a gun, because if you don't understand the difference, than you can't understand why that is such a specious argument.

But let posit this hypothetical and then ask a question: Let's just say I don't want to ban any guns (a silly position, but let's roll with it), but yet I still say I want more "gun control." What do you suppose I might mean by that?

(I'm just trying to elevate the conversation beyond some of this silly gun-nut talking point silliness)

JMJ

Anonymous said...

I can get ya some guns Jackie.

Jack Camwell said...

Jersey,

http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/china/2010-05/10/content_9826814.htm

THis guy in China killed eight people with a knife.

The jackass in Oregon only managed to kill 2 people in a crowded ass mall with a semi-automatic rifle.

There are 3 things that factor into the deadliness of any given weapon.

1. The intent of the person. If the weilder isn't psychotic and doesn't want to kill people, then that weapon will likely never be fired at another human being (on purpose).

2. The weilder's skill with the weapon. If you're a terrible shot, you'll probably miss a lot of your intended targets. If you're a really good shot, you'll do a lot of damage. With a knife, if you're skilled at concealed killing (which honestly only takes half a brain and some internet research), you can kill A LOT of people before anyone even realizes that something is wrong.

So no, my argument is not even close to being specious. Do you even know how difficult it is to be a good shot with a gun? It's tough to hit a stationary target with a gun, let alone a moving target that is frantically searching for cover. Sure, you can spray and pray into a large crowd, but that doesn't guarantee anything.

You're not trying to elevate the discussion, you're trying to ignore just about every point that I brought up because you know that you don't have anything to actuall refute them.

The point is that if you want to kill someone, you're going to find a way to do it. Period. If you want to kill a lot of people, you will find a way to do it. Look at Timothy McVeigh. He killed over 100 people--including some children--and he never fired a single shot. All he had to do was buy a shit ton of fertilizer.

I could make like 30 molatov coctails and set 30 houses on fire in the dead of the night.

What I want to know is that if you don't want to ban guns, what do you propose to do in order to keep guns out of the hands of the crazies?

Here's another thing to consider. What if a totally fine, law abiding citizen buys a gun when he's young, but then goes nuts when he gets older? He's already got the gun, and probably went through whatever extra measures you may propose, but he still goes off the deep end and kills a bunch of people.

How does gun control factor into something like that?

Jersey McJones said...

Jack, it is an intellectually specious argument, period, and I find it beneath me to engage it other than to say this - the easier it is to kill someone the more likely someone might try to do it.

You do get that basic fact, right?

Now, can you imagine any regulation of the militia at all?

JMJ

Jack Camwell said...

It's not intellectually specious. Period.

See what I did there? I made a statement as if it were fact simply because I uttered it.

Right now, it would be way, WAY easier for me to go murder someone with a knife because I own knives, and it would take a considerable amount of resources (that I don't have) to obtain a gun.

You're purposely dodging the argument because you likely don't have any real basis from which to argue.

Now please, PLEASE tell me how more gun control is going to limit all the insanity?

If you actually argue against my points beyond your apparent end-all-be-all judgment that I'm simply wrong, or that my arguments are specious, then we can have a real conversation about this.

Pick any one of my points and break down to me why you think I'm wrong.

Jersey McJones said...

Jack,

I think you and I have to agree to disagree as it comes down to the difference between guns and other types tools used lethally.

While it's true humans can sometimes be very violent, there are times when we'd like to think it could be avoidable, call it risky sentimentally.

But then wouldn't it also be true, that if we are prone to violence at times, that we must make sure we have accountability for the ownership of weapons?

If we want to have these unusually deadly tools, and the Constitution says the armed populace should be at least acknowledged (and it more than does), then why can't we as a people at least track the sales and manufacture and trade of arms?

Would it hurt?

Who would it hurt?

Would it be a bad idea?

Too much government for you?

I mean, you're not some End Timer, right?

JMJ

jez said...

I recommend gun control in countries where guns are not already rife. That is not America. But lifting controls in the UK, for example, would be to loose something very precious.

Anonymous said...

For any random day in the past 10 years, I want the media to buckle down and report on every unnatural death that occurred in this country on that day.

24 hours of non-stop death, by any means other than "old age"

Call it the eye opening coffin slamming extravaganza of finality for all i care.

I surmise all the gun related deaths will be regulated to less than 15 minutes.

Silverfiddle said...

the easier it is to kill someone the more likely someone might try to do it.

A specious comment unmoored from any logic or reality.

There are over 200 million gun owners in this country, and there is no data that even suggests what you say is true, Jersey.

Military bases in war zones are armed camps, so by your reasoning, soc-called, they should be rife with murders.

Gregg Tharp said...

I just do not think people really grasp the notion that it will make no difference if Guns are Banned due to the fact that it will only effect those who own guns legally. Millions of criminals that have guns now will still have them. They are not going to run down and give them up, no more than they are now. Lets take a look at doing something about all the illegal guns out there and see how that works.
No, no one wants to tackle that one because it would be to hard. Why tackle the one that might get a few people hurt making a difference when you can focus on something that will not stop any kind of crime at all other than depriving Good Citizens of Their Constitutional Rights.

Jack Camwell said...

Thank you for stopping by Mr. Tharp!

And no I'm not just thanking you because you agree with me.

=)