Thirdpower has a great post up on some anti-gun propaganda from the 90s and a clip from Doogie Howser MD. Go watch it. Even if you weren’t a Doogie fan (I was never interested in it) you’ll remember lots of other shows pushing the same message in the early 90s. This was the high water mark for gun control in America and it would soon become the tipping point. Still what REALLY got me was this quote from the Entertainment Industries Council.
Try emphasizing the fact that introducing a gun into an argument lethalizes anger: What could have been resolved with just harsh words, or even cuts and bruises, may end up with a death. Guns don’t allow for cooling off or reconciling once the momentary or situational anger subsides.
This is a common theme even to gun control advocates today. Guns CAUSE crime, and without guns in people’s hands violent crime and death simply won’t happen because guns make it “Too Easy”. First up we know that’s bullshit, as lots of horrible violent crime is committed with non gun weapons. Some as simple as baseball bats or extension cords, others as ubiquitous as the two hands and feet we all have. Furthermore if guns make killing “Too Easy” why is it the military has such a bitch of a time to get our soldiers to do it? That’s right, first we have a volunteer army so we can assume that weeds out most of the pacifists and people who are appalled by even the most justified violent acts. You give them high quality lethal weapons, and then you take them to a foreign land and tell them not only is it GOOD to kill the enemy, but if one excels at killing the enemy they will be REWARDED.
Yet still the military needs to play mind games so that when a soldier has the enemy in his rifle sights he can overcome the resistance to pull the trigger.
OK so back to the quote above. First I’m just going to ignore “harsh words”. Frankly I’m disappointed that this nation has gone so soft on name-calling and harsh words. Call me any name in the book. It won’t make me feel good, and it won’t make you look like a nice person, but you’ll never physically harm me, and if you don’t physically harm me I’ll go about my day. Sticks and Stones May Break My Bones, but Names will Never Hurt Me! That’s another topic for another day, let’s move on to the next point: The “or even cuts and bruises” part.
I dunno about you but I’m a Registered Republican, gun owner, and generally opinionated guy. Those of you who have met me in person will know that I don’t shy away from controversy any more in person than I do here or on Vicious Circle. I get in heated discussions ALL the time. I won’t lie, I enjoy pushing people to look at issues in different ways and to defend their convictions.
I must say the last time I ever threw a punch in anger was around the time of that Doogie Howser Episode, and I was just barely in my teens. I certainly have never hit anybody in anger since I’ve been a legal adult, and I haven’t had any discussions come to blows in the same period of time. Frankly I chalk the few times I’ve tossed my fists around to Teenage hormonal bravado. I was “young dumb and full of cum” as the maxim goes, but I wasn’t a total idiot. Didn’t take me long to find out that slugging somebody in the nose because they called me an unflattering name or didn’t agree with me on whatever point, didn’t accomplish much at all. And really the ONLY people who that tactic worked for were the ones that did it often, and vicious enough to get others to fear them. Didn’t take me long to figure out that debate was the way to roll and I could save my hands for doing more constructive things.
How about you? Have you ever slugged somebody because of an argument as an adult? Have you ever refrained from voicing your opinion on an issue because of fear of physical harm?
The above statement is phrased so frankly that it sounds like any heated discussion has the strong potential to turn into a physical fight, and certainly adding a gun to one or both of the people discussing an issue will escalate to bloodshed on a very significant level.
But does it? Really, do you see people taking swings at each other over parking spaces, or who should be the next president, or if abortion is murder or not?
Most people are smart enough to know that difference of opinion, or simple rudeness can be resolved by walking away or discussion, rather than physical violence. I would argue that gun owners know that even better because the one thing is correct about that statement is that you can’t shoot somebody “Just a little bit”. Still one thing to add is a statement of support from an unlikely source; Joan Peterson:
That is because they are easy to use and more lethal. You can shoot from a distance and shoot more than once.
You see while most people DO know that violence isn’t the answer to common disputes, there is a minority of people who feel it is perfectly fine to use force to get their will. These are the people you read about in the papers. These are people who have lived by a code of violence since a young age. They shoot people, stab people, beat people, and choke people. They intimidate, they murder, they rape, they rob, and they sell prohibited goods and services. Listen to any Hip-Hop song, or any “Street Thug” talking about life and death. They’ll often claim “Disrespect” as a reason for killing another person.
They must be in a minority, because we still have a population.
But note that if you spend enough time with a person like this, it doesn’t matter if they have a gun, or are bare handed, on a long enough timeline a violent monster like this will kill you if given a chance.
That’s why I carry a gun. I’m a scientist! I’ve spent my life reading books and learning skills, not fighting. I try to keep in good shape, but I’m 30 and definitely have passed my prime. Why do I carry a gun? Well because when I encounter that guy who wants to do me physical harm because I don’t share his opinion, or because I have something he wants that I’m unwilling to give, or in the case of some of the spree shooters, he’s just plain crazy. A gun indeed allows me to pack deadly force, attack at a distance, and shoot multiple times. Joan of course says it like its a bad thing, but there are millions of people out there who were glad to have those odds in their favor when things got ugly.
To further show the mentality of the opposition I thought I’d add these two quotes from Ubu52. She’s a useful idiot, and a crazed loner, but I think her words dovetail nicely with this post:
Don’t say I didn’t warn you.
And
I think its pretty obvious those who wish to ban and restrict personal firearms are punishing the best of society for the behavior of the worst, and furthermore they claim a false hope that somehow “Gun Death” is the only relevant crime, and that without guns these violent predators won’t turn to other tools.
This is why we can’t give an inch!
Hmmm, yeah. Boy, she is a useful idiot. You’re right, it’s the old adage, the trigger pulls the finger. I can say I’ve never thrown a punch as an adult, or ever. And, no I’m not physically intimated into not voicing my opinion. Being 6’3″ and a little hefty gives you the luxury of people generally leaving you alone. Knowing me, though, that wouldn’t matter. I’m opinionated without thought of if will incite someone to violence. In my head, reacting with violence to words is so illogical as to not even be part of my thinking process.
Well even small people are opinionated in our society. Seems they don’t have a ton of fear some big dude is gonna pop, stab, or shoot them.
Also just look at the recent flap with CSGV getting their twitter account suspended, and many other anti-gun cyber stalkers.
They do all they can to threaten and intimidate people who they KNOW are armed and in part carry arms to enact deadly force. They they harass and threaten…why?
Because they know outside of lawful deadly force our guns won’t be used against them.
“Some of the safest neighborhoods to live in are the ones where the organized criminals live. They don’t commit crimes where they live (to keep the police away) and the street gangs are afraid of them because they are not nice people if you push them.”
So basicaly what she is saying is an armed society concerned with crime in their area and willing to do something about it is an effective control of criminals… Sounds pretty good to me! She could almost be describing any rural community with those remarks.
Useful idiot indeed!
An armed society IS a polite society… Other than training, I’ve never thrown a punch in anger as an adult.
And you’ve been an adult for a lot longer than I, and listening to your Navy stories, I think you’ve dealt with a lot more idiots than I.
That’s a lot of data points!
I welcome the day that a large portion of liberals get firearms per Ubu52. Not for the reasons she suggests. There will be no blood in the streets, no OK Corral shoot outs, no bloodbaths over a coveted parking space, no dead bar-keeps because the martini was not dry enough.
Rather, they will play by the same rules all gun owners go by. If you use a firearm inappropriately, you will pay a hefty price in the legal sense, and you might just get shot by CCW holders or LEOs.
Upon further reflection, I realized grime additional truths from Ubu52 (the broken clock is right twice a day thing). Specifically, when liberals get guns then there is often a world of violence and hurt. My examples…Nazi Germany (i.e. the National Socialists Party, which are NOT on the right of the political spectrum) and practically all of the blood-soaked communist regimes (e.g. USSR, N. Korea, Vietnam, Cuba) who are the logical progression of liberal thought.
Conservatives want to preserve our institutions, not replace them at the end of gun. We are also very law-abiding. We do not try to force political change through violence. If we are the preponderance of gun owners in America (we are) and we are rarely at fault for gun violence (we are not), then why does Ubu52 threaten complete mayhem if liberals “gun up”? Sounds like a threat based on projection or from the dark history that belongs to the Left.
One correction is when ONLY liberals get guns, and I’ll note that’s EXACTLY what gun control is. Note that Ted Kennedy, Chuck Schumer, have their USSS Security detail, Barbara Boxer has her Cali CCW. And no matter what guns the guys at Ruby Ridge and Waco had, Clinton had a few more.
Also note this is an individual liberty thing. While GW Bush was really solid on guns, I wouldn’t trust him to do the right thing on a long enough time line.
Its not weather there Liberals have guns (look at all the Obama signs and stickers in the inner city where people keep getting shot) its if the individual liberty types have guns.
“Progresives” like to tell others what to do with our lives…the armed Patriots tell then to MYOB.
You are quite correct.
Individual liberty is what limits the rise of bad governments and so everyone needs to be armed to prevent their abuses.
I have no problem with everybody being armed (or locked up because of demonstrated dangerous behavior)
Per my point in the post, there are only a handful of people who are so blood thirsty to commit wanton murder. If the good people are armed, how long do you think these bad apples will last?
Per the DGC, they are losing membership at the rate of at least a couple a week. Unfortunately, they keep getting new members.
Pingback: More 90s Gun Propiganda | Weer'd World