Morning Fisk

Found this article via Joan, and it was too good not to shred:

The NRA’s first reason: Increasing the number of gun owners will make us safer.

But the higher the number of people who have guns, the more likely it is gun violence will occur. To believe everyone who has a gun will never use it the wrong way is not reasonable. In addition, anyone in a home where one of these gun owners lives has access to that weapon, as happened in the Connecticut school massacre.

Ok first up A) ignoring entirely using guns to STOP crimes (we’lll get to that later) and B) Not looking at the man behind the curtain, which is areas with liberal gun ownership and little to no crime, and areas with heavy gun control laws which are some of the most dangerous places in the country.

Also this is kinda like the anti-rights abuse of the Ten Commandments. The antis frequently list Commandment #6 as “Thou Shall Not kill”, ignoring all the verses in the bible where God commands his followers to kill, or prescribes death as a punishment for a crime. No the sin is Murder, and the people who we want armed are LAW ABIDING CITIZENS. The problems in this country are not people owning guns, its criminals, who sometimes illegally own guns, and other times don’t and still MURDER.

Second: Banning military-type weapons or large ammo clips will not make any difference.

There are important reasons the military chose the weapons it uses. It wants guns that are better for killing people. It also likely wants guns that are light and easy to carry and able to hold a larger amount of ammunition. Spreading guns designed to kill people throughout our population does not make sense. Inevitably they will be used to kill. Making large ammo-magazine clips available assures those bent on murder can fire many more bullets at a time.

Is it too much to ask responsible gun owners to use smaller clips to give the rest of us a chance to intervene with a shooter?

Again, ignoring self defense. Also ignoring shootings like Virginia Tech which is currently the #1 mass shooting in the nation, where all but two magazines held more than 10. Also while Whitman’s M1 Carbine had a “High Capacity Magazine” he never used it, and caused the #2 mass shooting using just a bolt-action rifle, a revolver, and a shotgun.

Of course they need to ignore self-defense because spree killers choose the time and place of their attack, and come kitted up for mass murder, while defenders simple go armed every day in hopes they’ll never need it. I don’t go lugging a backpack full of magazines like these killers do, I generally just have what’s in the gun, and a few spares. This laws obviously doesn’t hurt them, but it sure hurts me, hence why I’m not put into his argument.

Third: Background checks do not work.

Certainly background checks cannot stop all gun violence. Existing laws must be strictly enforced. But without expanded and more-thorough background checks, legally purchased guns will continue to easily end up in the hands of those who murder others. We have seen that happen too often. In particular, background checks must do more to identify potentially dangerous or violent mental illness. It needs to be much more than only checking to see if a person has had treatment for mental illness. Most mentally ill people never receive treatment.

If wishes were horses… He paints a flowery picture, but notice there’s no specifics on what “Mental illness” is, nor how somebody never treated by professionals can be adjudicated “mentally ill”. Yeah if somebody goes on a spree killing, they’re likely crazy, but how do you stop that? Since you’re talking a lot of crap in this article, can I safely assume you are willing to call anybody who keeps and bears arms “Mentally ill”?

Fourth: If gun access is restricted, only criminals will have guns.

The opposite would seem truer. Making guns easier to purchase actually means more criminals have easier access to guns and access to more powerful guns. Anyone can find someone to buy whatever weapon they desire if their own record is not clean. Also, they can steal guns or buy stolen weapons. At least 60 handguns were stolen from Twin Cities gun sellers last year, according to news reports. So greater access to all types of weapons means criminals will be better armed as well.

Except not, and we’ve proven it. Just look at the best petri dish in America, Washington DC, which is one of the most dangerous cities in America, yet gun ownership has been effectively banned…even after Heller V DC. They note that criminals probably get their guns from more liberal Virginia…except Virginia isn’t very dangerous at all. You know what state IS dangerous, Maryland…and how’s the gun laws there? Funny how that works. Even if that was true (and it isn’t) one must wonder why the arms traffickers are so well behaved when they’re in the more liberal states, and further, why TRAVEL? Why not uproot and live in the state where they can buy guns so easily?

Oh yeah, there’s that ugly fact of citizens shooting criminals committing crimes.

Finally: Owning a gun is the best way to protect yourself and others from gun violence.

To think the good guy always will win in a shootout is quite unrealistic. At best the good guy has a 50:50 chance, and the odds go down if the assailant has a powerful, rapid-fire weapon, gets it out first, and has a large ammunition clip. Even with a weapon, most of us would certainly rather not end up in a shoot-out situation in the first place. Public policy on guns needs to view a shootout as a least-desirable outcome.

The ability of guns to actually make us safer is quite limited. Preventing incidents from happening is a much more sensible approach. We currently lack a strong emphasis on improving prevention.

There he finally touches on self defense…and he does it by making up facts to fit his opinion. No research needed, no facts cited. You people who carry for self defense are just deluded and you should give up your guns right now because he said so!

This is what passes for intelligence in the anti-rights camp!

This entry was posted in Freedom, Guns, Politics, Safety, Self Defense. Bookmark the permalink.

8 Responses to Morning Fisk

  1. Stuart the Viking says:

    “At best the good guy has a 50:50 chance, and the odds go down if the assailant has a powerful, rapid-fire weapon, gets it out first, and has a large ammunition clip.”

    So he would like to reduce that chance to as near zero as they possibly can? See, the odds also decrease for the good guy if he’s disarmed and defenseless. I’m not sure how anyone could miss that. Also note that he admits that having a “powerful, rapid-fire weapon” and a “large ammunition clip” gives an edge to the one who has them. I guess since he is all about reducing the good guy’s chance of survival, might as well take those away also. Note, the “gets it out first” part is a given. The criminal will always have this advantage because the criminal is the one who instigates the violent encounter. Nothing can be done about that.

    “Even with a weapon, most of us would certainly rather not end up in a shoot-out situation in the first place.”

    Ah, the tangy smell of magical thinking. Yes, on the face of it, there is nothing incorrect about this statement. Most of us WOULD rather never end up in a shoot-out. Hell, I could go the rest of my life and never fire a single round other than on a shooting range or while hunting and be completely happy with that (in fact, it’s what I would prefer). Certainly, it’s even true that banning all firearms would mean that no law abiding citizen would ever be in a shoot-out again. Except… the dark side of that is that instead of being in a shoot out, instead of having the means to defend themselves, the law abiding citizens who are faced with a violent, murderous, criminal would be dead. No shootout, zero chance at survival, just murdered. The record shows that those places in America that have the most restrictions on the ownership of firearms by law abiding citizens are also the places where more of those law abiding citizens are killed each year by those who ignore the laws anyway. Even those magical special ones that are supposed to make the icky guns go away.


  2. Divemedic says:

    The claim that more guns equals more gun crime relies on a fundamental flaw: It assumes that the ratio of ownership of guns by honest citizens and by criminals increases at a uniform rate as guns become more legal. That is incorrect, because by definition there are no honest citizens buying guns while they are illegal.

  3. Bubblehead Les says:

    Uh, since I seem to have to do the Math for Joan (who can’t add 1+1), under HER “Logic”, the 1,2,3 million? new Gun purchases over the last year should have resulted in an INCREASE of “Gun Violence” by the same percentage as that sold.

    But it hasn’t.

    And even the Vice-President says Women should purchase a Firearm for Self-Defense!

    Too bad he doesn’t know what he’s Talking about in terms of WHICH Firearm should be bought, nor how to properly use it, but he did say it.

    Which, under Joan’s “Logic”, makes Biden one of those EVIL GUN OWNERS.

    Just like Gabby Gifford and Mark Kelly.

  4. TS says:

    Stuart, you beat me to it, but it’s worth pointing out again. 50/50 is a lot better than zero.

    Also, this guy uses a lot of “always” and “never” when it is convenient for him.

  5. Reputo says:

    Newtown, Columbine, and Virginia Tech were not shootouts. Only one side had guns. And that side is the one that did all of the killing. None of those are praised as great acts of civilian resistance.

    What idiotic statements. NOBODY wants to be in a shootout (at least no one with their head screwed on correctly).

  6. TS says:

    As pointed out, he does slip up and admit that “high capacity” magazines are useful to the killer who is trying to kill you. His solution of course, is to take it away from the killer. I ask myself which do I have more control of: whether or not I have one of these magazines, or whether or not millions of unidentified criminals have them?

  7. TS says:

    I’m in my own “morning Fisk” mode. I keep finding too many gems.

    is it too much to ask responsible gun owners to use smaller clips to give the rest of us a chance to intervene with a shooter?

    First off, “responsible gun owner” and “shooter” are not the same people. How does me not having it take it away from him?

    Second, he is saying we should have the chance to fight back in the two seconds it takes for the shooter to replace a magazine (providing they didn’t bring more than one gun, or does a tactical reload). Hmmm… What can I use to defend myself if I only have two seconds? That’s a toughy…

  8. Eck! says:

    They use the fallacy of common sense, save for if common sense were common, everyone would have it. The posed position is mostly “common man” which is untrue
    as well as blindingly inaccurate.

    Shootouts are also an uncommon event, and when it occurs it presumes multiple parties shooting at each other. All of the horrific cases were mass murder suicides and those there didn’t have a choice nor any self defense short of a frontal attack without weapons. So obviously as you nailed it, there be a whole lotta wishful nonthinking.
    Because if there were thinking involved they head would have exploded from the overload of illogical magic thinking.

    Its not even fun to laugh at them as they sincerely believe in their idiocy. Its sad.


Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *