Fisking an Anti

So my Friend Pigbomb (Great autocorrect nickname) says she’s seen this post circulating around facebook. Thought I’d give it a good fisk!

It’s been just over eight years since the assault weapons ban expired, and in that time new gun control bills have been scarce. There are a variety of reasons for the legislative silence, including a cowardly lack of political will, but two of the primary causes are as follows.

First, it’s difficult for the government to regulate firearms while it’s been actively engaged in, until recently, two wars and countless other military actions around the world.

Interesting point, but I’d note that while Bush wasn’t in quite as many wars as President Obama is now, he still managed to pass massive government expansions. Also we got Obamacare in the first term. Occam’s Razor points to a lack of leadership from Obama…which is why I prefer him over Romney.

I’d like to see Iraq and Afghanistan, not to mention previous American wars, listed as suspects in this debate before we start targeting media and video games. See also Michael Moore’s Bowling for Columbine.

Is that supposed to make sense? War is to blame for the acts of lunatics? I really can’t rebut that any more than simply pointing out it doesn’t make a lick of sense. Still onto the body!

PROPAGANDA: Guns don’t kill people, people kill people.
REALITY: This is probably the most prevalent, yet silliest line. No, an inanimate object can’t spring to life and kill anyone.

Silly? Why? You got the whole point! Let’s see where you go from here, since you obviously get it.

But a gun’s intrinsic purpose is to kill, wound and threaten living beings. It’s why they exist. Period. The firearms used at Aurora, Tucson, Sandy Hook and so many other mass shootings are specifically categorized as “assault rifles.” The intention is, by definition, to assault.

Sorry, but it wasn’t an “Assault Rifle”, it was just a rifle. Some may say I’m being pedantic, but let’s face it, you want to use a specific definition wrong, then there’s nothing stopping you from calling any rifle an “Assault Rifle”, hell let’s just call shotguns and pistols “Assault Rifles”….oh and my car is an “Assault Rifle” Too! Now this rifle may or may not be (most likely because of Connecticut’s laws) an “Assault Weapon”…bit that’s an Anti-Gun propaganda term, and I think we’ll want to be unilaterally against propaganda, right?

Still let’s concede the flawed point of “intrinsic purpose is to kill”, they’re designed to STOP attackers…this may be lethal or not, but it certainly CAN be lethal, so let’s just go there. Why have a gun “Designed to Kill”? Simple, because killing, under certain circumstances is 100% legal. I’ve yet to see ANYBODY address Justifiable homicide….good reason too. If you’re for justifiable homicide laws, and people defending their own lives from life-threatening violence, then you should agree that weapons like this are GOOD things, so long as they are in the hands of good people. And good people are the only people disarmed by these laws. If you’re against justifiable homicide, you’re against a core tenant of every modern society on Earth, and you’re a monster. You’ll have to square with that. But of course they won’t touch that third rail will they?

They’re aggressive weapons intended to physically attack and do harm. Otherwise they’d be called “defense weapons” or “protection weapons.”

“Aggressive Weapons”? I thought you said guns were inanimate? Which is it? Also we do call them “Defensive Weapons”, if you’d listen….

PROPAGANDA: But cars kill a lot of people and no one wants to ban them!
REALITY: How do we deal with cars in America, compared with how we deal with guns in America? Cars and drivers are heavily regulated by the government, from emissions standards to annual inspections to safety features, and so forth. You can’t legally drive a car that doesn’t feature seatbelts, or a car that spews too much exhaust into the air. You have to take both a written and a behind-the-wheel test to get a license to operate a car. You often have to renew that license at regular intervals and, if you’re older, you have to prove that you’re physically capable of driving a car. You can’t drive a car while drinking alcohol or impaired by other chemicals. There are thousands of police officers patrolling our roads and, as most of us have experienced at one time or another, they will penalize or arrest you for improper handling of a car – with literally hundreds of laws to abide, and considerable penalties, ranging from fines to imprisonment to the government stripping you of your right to drive a car at all. So if gun fetishists are going to keep using this car analogy, then let’s talk about regulating guns and gun owners the same way we regulate cars and drivers

First up, so much of that is false. You can’t drive a car without seatbelts? My classic car collecting friends will be surprised to find out that, as well as the emission nonsense. The rest of the rebuttal can be found here, Lawdog said it better than I could, I suspect you really don’t want to go there.

Honestly I’d be 100% fine with registering my carry guns (they’re already insured against theft or loss, and there is no need to do liability insurance, as unlike cars every negligent use of a firearm is a criminal act…I’ll buy insurance too if it means I can shoot somebody by accident and just pay an insurance hike…you really want to go there?) and then carry EVERYWHERE in the United States, just like I drive. I drive on School property, I drive on Federal Property, hell I drive in other countries…yeah you didn’t think this through, did you?

PROPAGANDA: You can kill someone just as easily with a knife as you can with a gun!
REALITY: Outrageously wrong. Ask any average soldier whether they’d prefer to attack an enemy with knife or with their rifle.

Again, that’s why I have guns. Killing is legal and justified in this country under justifiable homicide laws, so yeah, if my life is in immediate danger I don’t want a knife, I want a gun, and a big gun with lots of ammo! Of course when it comes to murders or assaults…well you’ve read the files.

PROPAGANDA: It’s safer to have a gun in the house, or concealed on your person.

His rebuttal is all Joyce-Funded propaganda. You seem to have an issue with the NRA, but not with the Joyce Foundation? The studies shown are horrible and extensively debunked. First the Branas Study (Big note, is that Branas made no effort to separate criminals engaging in illegal behavior from lawful gun owners engaging in lawful behavior) The Hemenway study is a re-tread of the shameful Kellerman Study, where again criminals engaging in criminal are equated with lawful citizens who own guns, with the added effect of claiming guns in the home CAUSE suicide. You might want to look at national suicide rates, yeah 50% of American suicides are by gun…but if the guns CAUSE the suicide, then why is there zero correlation with gun ownership and national suicide rates? America should have the highest suicide rate in the world, and England, Russia, Japan, and China the lowest. Sorry, it just isn’t true!

PROPAGANDA: Banning guns won’t stop mass shootings because of the outlaws, blah blah blah.

He cites Australia and their massive gun control after Port Arthur. Odd, given Australia has had an INCREASE in violent crime since then
, and US has had crime DROP (BTW love the news story, we’ve had our first INCREASE in violent crime in 20 years over the same time period, which has also seen massive repeals in gun control, such as the “Assault Weapons” Ban, and liberalization of carry laws, as well as record firearms sales) We win, you lose…unless you WANT more violent crime. I don’t.

I think that’s enough for now.

I agree, good game, dude!