False is the idea of utility that ... would take fire from men because it burns, and water because one may drown in it; that has no remedy for evils except destruction. The laws that forbid the carrying of arms are laws of such a nature. They disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes... Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man.
- Cesare Beccaria, as quoted by Thomas Jefferson
"Gun control" is a job-safety program for criminals.
- John R. Lott
An armed society is a polite society. Manners are good when one may have to back up his acts with his life.
- Robert A. Heinlein
To disarm the people... was the best and most effectual way to enslave them.
- George Mason
The world is filled with violence. Because criminals carry guns, we decent law-abiding citizens should also have guns. Otherwise they will win and the decent people will lose.
- James Earl Jones
The biggest hypocrites on gun control are those who live in upscale developments with armed security guards -- and who want to keep other people from having guns to defend themselves. But what about lower-income people living in high-crime, inner city neighborhoods? Should such people be kept unarmed and helpless, so that limousine liberals can 'make a statement' by adding to the thousands of gun laws already on the books?
- Thomas Sowell
Gun Control: The theory that a woman found dead in an alley, raped and strangled with her panty hose, is somehow morally superior to a woman explaining to police how her attacker got that fatal bullet wound.
- L. Neil Smith
A man with a gun is a citizen. A man without a gun is a subject.
- John R. Lott
15 comments:
There is an inabilty on the Right (and you're pro-life remember), to link large-scale shootings to the widespread availability of handguns. The logic being that guns are good and more guns are better. Hell, if everyone had guns, there would be no crime!
Ever heard of a drive-by strangling - thought not.
I don't know what world you live in - but reality would be better.
How many people were stabbed to death in the United States last year, Tavernknuckle Choir? Seriously injured? Raped or assaulted at knife pint?
Oddly enough, I'm yet so see a serious argument put up for banning edged blades.
I don't know what planet you're living on, but I hope it works out for you.
All multiple public shootings without exeption i think occurr in gun free zones where it is forbiodden for citzens to carry guns.
In some cases such as tasmania New Zealand or Britian and Germany the entire country is a gun free zone.
The same same is the case in the US and Switzerland and given that gun free zones are a selective geogrphic area this cannot be by chance,the mass killers must be selecting tasrgets by the lowest liklyhood of encountering armed cilvilians
Very idealistic, PC, but completely at odds with reality.
While advocating against gun controls makes for pithy quotes, it doesn't do anything for the society that has to stomach the consequences.
Hamish and tavernknuckle choir: the reality is that mass murders in schools and campuses tend to occur where people are not allowed to carry guns and use them in self defence. The reality is that at Virginia Tech it was forbidden to carry firearms for use in self-defence. And the now-deceased South Korean whack job knew that before he started firing. The reality is that in Kennesaw, Georgia, where it was made mandatory for every household to contain a gun, crime rates plummeted. And John Lott showed that where gun laws are liberalised, there is a drop in the rates of violent crimes. That is the reality, my friends. Don't people have a right to defend themselves against violent aggressors? What's your problem with that?
"While advocating against gun controls makes for pithy quotes, it doesn't do anything for the society that has to stomach the consequences."
Such as the consequences of a gunman running amok in a proudly-proclaimed "gun-free zone", perhaps?
Tav C and Hamish are the ones who need to face reality.
Fact: there are guns in society...many of them and that ain't gonna change.
Fact:There are nutters and loony s in society....that ain't going to change either.
Fact: Sooner or later the latter are going to get together with the former and cause problems for the rest of us.
While you can wring your hands and pray to Gaia all you like for something different that's where we are at.So its only logical and right that the rest of us take steps to protect ourselves from the loonies and to minimise their actions.It ain't a perfect world and unfortunately some of us are going to die tragically along the way....but that's life.It could be in a bus crash, a earthquake or a 3 inch deep pool of water...thats how it is.
Rendering people helpless in the face of a homocidal manic sure doesn't help any...
"Hell, if everyone had guns, there would be no crime!"
There would certainly be a hell of a lot less for sure.Clicking the heels of your bleeding heart red slippers together and saying "I wish I lived in a gun free world!" may feel nice but doesn't do dick when it comes to making things better...
the reality is that mass murders in schools and campuses tend to occur where people are not allowed to carry guns
Do you know of any schools where you are allowed to carry guns? Given that most schools are gun-free, probability would have it that that is where most of the shootings will occur. Nothing to do with gun control.
If from now on all schools allowed their student to cay guns, all shootings would occur in schools where guns would be allowed.
Another fact: "In 2001 3,000 Americans died and we changed our way of life. Nearly ten times that amount died from gun violence that same year, and we didn't do a damned thing.
We won't put serious controls on handguns - but you can't carry more than three ounces of liquid or gel on an airplane.
Why?"
Also worth noting is PC's criticism of media coverage...
Criticising coverage is an attempt to preemptively dismiss any questioning -- that it is wrong to look for reasons instead of an emotional response-- in short, it is wrong to allow our brains to function as well as, or instead of, our tear ducts.
The answers would have to be dealt with, and that’s much more work than lowering a flag and crying.
...that it is wrong to look for reasons instead of an emotional response...
I understand the sentiment - and there is a misconception that pro-gun individuals think that anti-gun individuals think that guns cause these kinds of incidents.
Clearly I don't think that's the case, but I do think that every now and then someone does go postal. If guns are an acceptable part of you culture then the results are that much worse. In cultures where guns are not the norm, the tendency is for the consequences to be less.
It's pragmatism. Richard McGraths idea that these things only happen because people don't have guns on them is blatantly in the face of common sense and recent history.
Richard: I'm not talking about a situation where everyone around a school has guns and those in the school don't. I'm talking about the situation where no-one has guns (or, more specifically, live in a culture that does not condone the use of and possession of guns).
PS. James, as an atheist, praying to Gaia might seem a little absurd, however a could chose the more useful path of advocating for a society where gun violence does occur, as I am doing right now.
Sorry, last bit should read as:
however, I could choose the more useful path of advocating for a society where gun violence does not occur...
Hamish;
Society doesn't condone mass-murder, that hardly makes a lick of difference to someone determined to go out killing people.
A situation where "no-one has guns" simply can't and won't happen because of the simple fact that criminals don't obey laws. So passing laws to ban guns might feel good, but that just stops legit owners.
Wonder why there are news stories every few weeks about gang houses being raided and stashes of pistols being found? I suppose since NZ has very restrictive laws on pistol ownership and very few handguns, the gang members must all hold B cat endorsements and have imported them legally?
What society "condones" doesn't mean a rats arse to people who don't follow the rules. All you are doing by refusing to condone firearm ownership and use is making self defence illegitimate and make people into defenceless victims.
As someone mentioned - it is a fantasy to think of a gun free world, and by legislating toward that fantasy you simply move the balance of power in favour of the criminals, rapists and murderers.
Late entry into this thread!
One of the quotes PC put up describes perfectly why I think a gun-filled society would be a fairly unpleasant dystopia:
"An armed society is a polite society. Manners are good when one may have to back up his acts with his life."
Implication - stay on the edge, because if you put a foot wrong, someone might smoke you.
Not representative of course, but here is an example of trigger-happiness gone wrong (by avowed libertarians, what's more!). In a world where many are packing guns, are gun deaths going to increase or decrease?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lynda_Lyon_Block
DenMT
Another inconvenient truth - violent crime is up in the Midwest (from Chicago Tribune)
Since 2004, aggravated assaults are up a whopping 86 percent in Milwaukee and 42 percent in Minneapolis. Homicides are up 41 percent in Cincinnati, 26 percent in Kansas City, Mo., and 38 percent in Cleveland. Detroit’s robberies have leapt by 40 percent since 2004. And the incidence of aggravated assault with a firearm in St. Louis jumped 45 percent, according to a recent study by the Police Executive Research Forum, a Washington law-enforcement think tank.
Meanwhile violent crime is down in NY City - the city with the strictest gun controls laws in the US. Nobody is being terrorised by cowboys in NYC.
You don't fix gun violence with more guns. It's not rocket science.
Post a Comment