Building A Strawman

I must say I’m very glad to have found Joan Peterson of the Brady Campaign and the Million Mom March. She’s an Admitted Member of the Brady Campaign, and they include her as one of their own, and most of her reference meterial is Brady Camp pressers and “Studies”, or funded by their sister organization the Joyce Foundation. But unlike Paul Helmke she’s not as guarded about what she says. And Unlike Peter Hamm she doesn’t just spew her stupidity on Other People’s blogs where such comments are easily faked.

I thought I might take some time and break down several angles of the anti Gun Straw Man argument.

First I’ll reference a VERY successful Straw Man: Arizona SB 1070. Essentially the people of Arizona kept calling for ICE to clean up the illegal immigration problem, and ICE didn’t show…so they essentially copy/pasted Immigration law into the state law books, essentially making Arizona Peace Officers mini-ICE officers.

Not wanting illegal immigration to actually STOP, President Obama and his followers began a Straw Man claiming it was a profiling, law allowing police to arrest people for “Looking Mexican”, when actually it was little different than our current Police not having to call the DEA when they find some white powder in Paris Hilton’s purse.

Well because most people didn’t read the law, it WORKED, the bill was never passed into law, and most people are HAPPY about this.

I am here to EXPOSE these lies so it won’t happen to us.

First let’s start with a goal. The Brady Campaign wants to ban ALL GUNS. They may claim they don’t, but then again, show us some gun control measures that the Brady Bunch doesn’t think is “Reasonable” from the handgun and defensive long-arm ban in DC and Chicago, to Massachusetts licensing, to Conceal carry, to “Assault Weapons”, and “Microstamping” and “Encoded Ammo”, all has been supported by Joan Peterson’s organization, despite them saying they are no “Gun Banners”.

In my youth I was agreeable to this idea. I was under the assumption guns did more harm than good, so banning something that does little good is a net good right? Well WRONG, but we can save that for another day.

Let’s look at the common strawman arguments.

First up the “30,000 killed by guns”, well of course left untouched that can allow people to think Murder, accidents, and other bad things. They won’t note that about 17,000 of those are suicides (and while the US has a high suicide-by-gun rate, we’re nothing special for overall suicide rate. Hint: Its not the guns!) This number also includes justifiable homicides, and police shootings.

But lets look further at those numbers. Let’s look “Children” killed by Guns Well there we have again the huge number of suicides, but a big number of homicides. But 0-19? Somebody 18 and 19 are “Children”? not under the law. I wonder why?

Well I’m having a hard time nailing down the EXACT numbers, but I’ve found This and This that show the HUGE number of “Gang-Related homicide”. If you compare the Gang Numbers and the “Youth” numbers, you’ll see that the vast majority of youth gun homicide is gang-related. If you live in an Urban area I think we’ll all find our personal experiences to mirror this data.

So the Anti-Gun people need to Milk the Gangs The Kellerman study that was cooked to exclude defensive violence as best as possible, and talk about people “Known” to the shooter very easily slips gang members having turf and drug wars into what might sound very close to a familial relationship. Then have 3rd parties misrepresent the misleading data to complete the circle.

And since most homicides are committed among people who know each other, it affects the family and friends on both sides.

Just to seal-the-deal why not make us all criminals?

Oops. Who thought this could happen? A man’s pants fall down and, Voila, a gun is found inside them. This article in the Star Tribune shows us that you really have to be careful pulling up your pants, or someone else’s, for that matter. What you might find could surprise you.

Of course the linked story Joan is talking about is here

White Castle, weed and baggy pants. It has all the elements of a comedy, but throw in a concealed handgun, a suspected drug deal and a wardrobe malfunction, and it’s a Minnesota Court of Appeals case that even compelled a judge to quote an “American Idol” audition.

So Joan is talking about people with concealed weapons permits, and maligns them by citing incidents that happen when police arrest and armed drug dealer!

And of course never be afraid of contradiction so long as the emotional message is clear!

My blog often examines the hypocrisy of decisions that affect your daily lives concerning guns. Here’s a great group: Gun Free Dining. Who knew you would have to think about whether the restaurant to which you take your family for a meal is gun free or not? Or what about having a romantic dinner with your spouse or partner? Candlelight, cloth napkins, mood music, and someone sitting next to you with a gun in a holster. One wonders what that person is afraid of in a restaurant? Maybe a server who drops a hot cup of coffee in your lap? Or a patron who raises his or her voice in a disagreement? How about a child who is misbehaving?

Talk about hypocrisy indeed! Ms. Peterson is asking “what am I afraid of” when I carry a my gun in a restaurant, but somehow implies that I’ll shoot a child for disturbing my dinner? And of course if I’m paranoid for carrying a gun, because nothing bad happens…why are we concerned about restricting guns, huh?

Another great straw-man is to talk in terms of “Gun Death” that way you can skew violent crime by the tool…and meanwhile ignore people who die by other means that are not politically useful.

And this Strawman only stands on his own if the Elephant in the Room is Ignored.

That’s your gig, not mine. My focus is what you described above. Simply because you don’t or won’t agree that it has any validity doesn’t mean I should change my focus. It’s my blog. I won’t be blogging about defensive use of guns so don’t wait for it.

Because that’s where the argument falls apart! If you carry a gun you are more likely to use it to defend your life (and likely that will be without firing a shot) than having the gun used for something negative, given that of course you lawfully own that gun.

This was the crux of me switching sides from the antis. Of course before I discovered this data, I didn’t KNOW the numbers. Its nothing to be ashamed of, as we can’t be experts in everything.

But what about professional activists? If this is Joan Peterson, or Paul Helmke’s pet project, do you think they aren’t aware of these widely circulated studies?

They know what they attack is a man of straw, but they do it anyway for selfish reasons.

This is why we must fight them, and this is why we’re winning.