I never hesitate to point out that in the debate for gun control the other side is plain-and-simple wrong. I know this, and the antis at least on a subconscious level must know it too, because their talking points are CONSTANTLY changing.
As cliche as they are, our saying like “If we outlaw guns only outlaws will have guns”, and “If guns cause crime, forks make people fat”, and “Guns don’t kill people, people kill people”, (Any doubt on that last one, you need to read the “Gun Death?” Files) are just as valid as the days when people first started bringing them up in discussions, and distributing them in publications, T-shirts, and bumper stickers.
Still the antis seem to pick up a talking point and carrying it around until every pro-gun person who they encounter knows why their statement is untrue, then they abandon it and move on to the next lie. Stuff like “A gun in the home is more likely to kill a family member than a stranger”, or “If we allow conceal carry we’ll have wild west shootouts over parking spaces and traffic accidents”, “Semi-automatic isn’t one shot per trigger pull, its a finger twitch”, “Assault weapons are readily convertible to full-auto military arms”, and “‘Assault Weapons’ are weapons of war.” among others.
The latest one circulating is a response to the valid point that most current gun control laws are meaningless or are completely redundant. The recent example can be found here. It’s a Mayors against illegal guns ad calling for making private sales of firearms illegal. We covered this in depth here, and the big smoking gun of dishonesty is that they quoted Boston Mayor and MAIG co-chair Tom Menino in asking for this legislation. Odd given that his home state of Massachusetts doesn’t allow private sales, and all sales are registered with the state and require a permit. All this and we still have massive amounts of violent crime, and when guns are traced about 90% of them come back to Massachusetts. So what they claim this law will do has been proven false, and the results are the same everywhere its tried. When I mentioned this here in the video, a MAIG shill responded with the latest talking point:
@WeerdBeard While we are at it we ought to get rid of laws that make it a crime to rob a store too. Those laws haven’t stopped robberies in MA either. It’s just more infringement.Laws don’t stop crime. Am I right?So why bother? Get real. There is no right to deliberately arm a five year old child, there is no right to arm a criminal or a psychopath or schizophrenic. Just a desire for gun dealers to make more money and spread fear among gun users.
This comment is a little hyperbolic, but I’ve seen Joan Peterson and others make the similar statement. When we point out that the law is bullshit they ask us if we want to repeal the laws on other criminal acts.
Here’s the crux of that. Laws don’t PREVENT anything. They persuade and punish. Some people make it a point to stick on the right side of the law, others don’t. I disagree with Massachusetts Safe Storage laws, among many others, but I comply with them, and work to repeal them. But now others disobey the laws. Turn on your local news, you’ll see a story on a robbery. You think that criminal didn’t know robbery was illegal? You’ll hear about a rape. You think the rapist didn’t hear her screaming “NO!”? They knew it was bad, and did it anyway. In this case the law can now just punish them for their crime.
OK let’s look at the person’s examples. five-year-olds with guns. *yawn* still a youth with unsupervised possession of a firearm is illegal. Doesn’t matter if private sale is legal, or illegal, doesn’t matter if you’re in Massachusetts or Texas. The law ads nothing new to the table, except ad extra steps to people NOT doing something illegal. The law is pointless. People with mental illness owning guns? Well depends on that person’s history, but let’s say they’re a prohibited person for mental illness (substitute substance abuse, felony charges, domestic abuse, restraining orders, outstanding arrest warrants, they all work), it’s illegal for that person to have a gun. Background checks or not, Massachusetts, Texas, anywhere. The law adds nothing new for the cited problem, but it does infringe on the rights of those who are NOT a problem.
MAIG is currently making these videos.
Now fist up I have no idea what’s real and what’s staged in this. Still if we assume its ALL correct that the buyer is a prohibited person, and tells the seller that, and the seller makes the transaction, that’s a felony right there. Likely this is staged entrapment and the buyer is legal and lies about it. (FYI the laws are a bit convoluted on what is prohibited and what isn’t, so some people honestly believe they can’t legally own a gun, but they can…and there are people who have minor felonies in their past who never thought would make them prohibited) then this is an education moment.
Instead they seek to add yet another law that would make ignorant sellers like this unable to make a sale, but malicious criminal sellers wouldn’t notice a difference…and of course people doing nothing wrong would pay the price.
Amazingly MAIG put up this video too.
That’s how its supposed to be done, and again another law won’t change a thing. If this is really a problem (and honestly I have my doubts) the only solution is EDUCATION, not new laws.
Why doesn’t the anti-rights people push education? Easy A) That would show results, and they don’t want the problem stopped! B) Because they simply want to ban guns, and will tell any story they think will accomplish that.
So keep an eye out for this latest silly point, and keep them on the defensive.