More False Intellectualism From the Anti-Gun Side

So this video is making the rounds in the anti-sphere. I’ll note that while I’ve seen it on SEVERAL anti-gun websites, and it’s of this whole popular Ted-Talk series format, and it’s 4 days old, it only has about 700 views at the time of my typing. (I’ll get back to that)

Also before we dive in, this gentleman does NOT appear to be an anti-gunner, at least not in the truest of sense. I will note that many of his errors are from taking anti-gun propaganda at face-value, and not doing ANY research on why the opposition opposes such measures.

So while he doesn’t seem to be the illogical hand-wringing anti appealing to emotions and demanding “SOMETHING” with no interest in actually making their point….he does seem to lack any concept of “Red Team” work. I will let you all re-read the first paragraph to show you that “Red Team” work is EXACTLY what I do.

OK let’s go:

1:20: Us is average in violet crime, but WELL ABOVE average (in high-income countries of course…more on that) in homicide. First the caveat of “High Income”, this always seems to be a subjective list cut like a Gerrymandered Congressional district, also it got me thinking, How would the income level be if you cut out all the residents of Beacon Hill, and Back Bay Boston (Which are very nice an safe parts of the city), and ONLY looked at the people who live in Jamaica Plain, Dorchester, and Roxbury, which are gang-infested areas that even the Boston Police don’t patrol without good reason. Same state, same damn city, but one section is where all the doctors, lawyers, an Yuppies live, the other is where all the poor people live…and also you can often tell what section a poor person comes from by the color of their skin…Boston is racist like that.

Still one issue he doesn’t seem to mention, or be aware of, is that many countries don’t compare crime the same as the United States. And frankly there are many factors that comprise violent crime figures that don’t make countries directly comparable.

2:00: “Our Gun laws are too weak”. I will be mentioning the many propositions he makes that are already law, or already can be accomplished by current law. This IS a common tactics of the antis. Demanding MORE LAWS without any contemplation of what laws are already on the books. Also, while this really isn’t the case of this talk, antis NEVER will suggest that an ineffective, or out-dated law be repealed. Like the background check waiting period. It was written so that the authorities could properly run a background check via Post Mail, but when an instant check system was created the antis DEMANDED the waiting period stay, and it did stay in some anti-gun places for zero benefit.

2:50: OK he starts out with the “Hunting Rifle” “I’m a Gun-Owner But..” Trope…but also mentions with little fanfare that his own grandmother had used a gun in self defense. This right here shows he’s not a true anti. All true antis don’t believe in personal defense…at least with a firearm.

3:35: 50% reduction in Murder Rates??? Sounds awesome, but this is something that has never happened ANYWHERE. I think he’s conflating facts with places that have outright banned guns have sometimes seen reduction in “gun Death” (tho many cases they see an INCREASE) but the murder rates stay the same or INCREASE. It’s the people, not the tools, and he’s focusing on the tools.

He also talks about the reduction in auto deaths, but he fails to fully compare the gun industry to the car industry. Let’s be blunt, a firearm is the best personal tool of violence. Now this can be violent crime, or righteous violence of self defense. Antis ALWAYS ignore the firearms carried by law enforcement, and often claim that cops carry semi-auto large-capacity guns because of some mythical “arms race”, but instead it’s simply the desire to have the best tool for the job. You’ll also note that police vehicles have gotten better in performance since the days of the local officer carrying a simple revolver. And just like police cars, personal cars are the best tool for conveyance. But what he misses, as you will see, is many of his proposals are designed to remove guns from society. What he’s aiming at (I would propose it won’t work) would rather than the push for safer cars, a push for LESS cars…which one might assume would be more people riding bicycles, motorcycles, and mopeds for conveyance, maybe those souped-up golf carts we see from time-to-time. Does this sound like SAFER roads, or less-safe roads? The next step in this hypothetical world is to then ban motorcycles et al.

See the UK. They ban guns, crime with knives goes up, so they BAN KNIVES! As you can quickly see, by removing the IMPLEMENTS of violence, while leaving the VIOLENT alone, you don’t get much results, and find yourself chasing your tail.

OK on to his proposals!

5:20: Not-so-Law-Abiding people owning guns LEGALLY! NOPE! All he talks about is ALREADY FEDERAL LAW! Of course through his ignorance he doesn’t take the draconian nature of GCA 68 as a given. He doesn’t realize that not only GCA 68 is a law, but a law that prohibits the very people he talks about FOR LIFE, not a probationary period. That IS interesting, and honestly something I’ve supported for years. I personally don’t see the point in PROBATION, per say, more people convicted should have a minimum period between a conviction to being heard by a judge, and said conviction(s) can be sealed away so they won’t be seen in a background check, but CAN be viewed by a judge if future violent crimes come to trial.

6:20: So he’s talking about the black market…but he obviously never researched how it manifests itself in the criminal world. In fact they don’t get them from gun shops, or gun shows, or internet listings…or even from people who might not be aware that they’re criminals. In fact they get them from OTHER CRIMINALS (PDF) So I will go forward to point out WHY his further ideas are faulty….but this study completely debunks the rest of his talk.

Such a shame, as it’s obvious he’s put a LOT of original thought into this, as opposed to most of the antis who simply repeat what their betters have TOLD them to think, but since he started in a false position that the anti-gun arguments were 100% true, and I assume he’s at least AWARE that the opposition has some arguments, but they aren’t even worth mention.

7:00: “Bad Apple Gun Dealers”, it’s CRAP! Also the idea that gun dealers can prevent criminals from getting guns when criminals aren’t buying from dealers in the first place is ludicrous.
He tells a story of Badger Guns that I’m completly unfamiliar with, but you can read a bit on it here, I’m not buying it, since THIS an many others who didn’t get as much notoriety (Uncle has the posts, but the original news article is in the morgue here and here)…note while THIS is happening, I find it hard to believe that a shop was acting so negligently and was not only shuttered by FFL revocation, but management and staff taken up on criminal charges.

Also, note in the Brady presser I linked to earlier, they don’t mention any “Bad Apple” shops by name….wouldn’t this shop be the rally cry for Bad Apple Gun Dealers by the professional gun-ban lobby?

He talks about accountability, but when you start a gun shop that shop relies on that FFL to survive, much like a bar relies on a liquor licence to survive. That little piece of paper gets stamped “VOID” the business is GONE! DONE! They can’t even legally sell off their inventory. I can’t imagine an FFL revocation NOT being followed by a filing of bankruptcy.

So cool story, but you “Solution” is already in place….he seems like a smart guy, why didn’t he know ANY of this?

Further his “Success Story” that I can find no corroboration, seems impossible. Before the passage of the Protection of Lawful Commerce Act, and The Tiahrt Amendment any citation of the number of traces to THAT dealer from crime scenes becomes information protected in the same way HIPAA law protects mental health records. But it doesn’t keep the ATF, FBI, and Law Enforcement from seeing the data, and since they HAVE shut down shops for simple paperwork errors, the idea that this shop was suddenly, and negligently allowing criminals to get guns because they simply didn’t care strikes me as totally impossible. Given that I’ve never heard of this, and I’ve been working on the “Bad Apple” trope for years now, I suspect it isn’t true.

Same with his depiction of the Tiahrt Amendment. This is just regurgitation of propaganda.

10:30: Release ATF data about gun dealers publicly. WHAT???? This is just disgusting. What he’s saying is that if a gun dealer cannot be convicted of a crime by due process and a court of law, it should be tired in the court of public opinion.

That is even scarier when you realize that this man is broadcasting a talk to an auditorium and the internet, and he doesn’t even know how current gun laws work. Never takes long before an anti-gunner wants to revoke due process of law so they can attack people they have decided they simply don’t like with impunity.

10:50: Dealers have been asking for computerized records for DECADES, thankfully now (and for years before this talk was done) these computer records work. As for the Cameras, I don’t necessarily see the relevance, nor am I aware of any law outside of some local regulations where cameras are indeed REQUIRED.

10:55: Flag people who had purchased a gun linked to a crime. Again, dissolution of due process. Sorry, if this person bought a gun and committed a crime, they are now a criminal and prohibited person. If they were convicted of being a straw buyer, again, prohibited person, and if they furnished a gun to a person who committed a crime, but weren’t a prohibited person, then there is no crime.

And all of those cases are rare, what this REALLY will target victims of theft. Nice Job!

11:40: “New York City Sued Gun Dealers who were caught making illegal sales”: NOPE! They sued gun dealers who had been investigated and found not guilty of criminal wrongdoing. This was NOT law or justice, this was political harassment by people who don’t like the 2nd Amendment. This abuse is WHY we have the Tiahrt Amendment. I’d also like to see his sources for the “Success” of these New York gun shops harassed. Think maybe Michael Bloomberg cooked up those numbers?

12:20: “Gunshow Loophole”, again see above about where criminals get their guns from. So first up “No”, second we already have places where this law is in effect, and it does NOTHING. Of course it DOES make registration of guns easier, which will NOT stop crime, but might be handy if confiscation comes into play…

13:00 Licencing gun owners: See also Poll tax, see also Registration, which has never been used to solve a crime, but has been used quite effectively to confiscate guns from people who had done no wrong. He says he doesn’t want to ban guns, but he sure is friendly to the ideas of those who do.

13:15: The talk of Missouri’s purchase permit system. First up, it’s a Jim Crow law from a slave state, second he’s picking the ONE study that shows ONE instance of this happening, and showing the results he wants.

14:00 Microstamping: Sorry, but it doesn’t work! Period, full Stop!

Notice how much faith he puts on this….he did ZERO research!

16:00: He’s calling the “War on Drugs” a success story! OK I won’t tear this apart, but I’ll let it stand as he says it.

16:23: “80% Support these laws”. No evidence to support this. There are no “Silent Majority” of gun owners who think Michael Bloomberg’s idea for guns is a good idea. Also if there are so many people who support gun control, why has nobody watched this video???

He then talks of Joe Manchin, and somehow thinks that he can convince gun owners to go along with his ideas.

His ideas he obviously came by without speaking to ONE knowledgeable gun owner, or political lobbyist. Kinda like that “National Discussion” the antis are always talking about wanting to have…

Really sad, as it IS an eloquent talk, but REALLY flawed in the most important ways.

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

3 Responses to More False Intellectualism From the Anti-Gun Side

  1. Jack/OH says:

    I only watched a portion of the vid. Was he introduced? Is it the same Daniel Webster who’s at the Johns Hopkins Center for Gun Policy and Research?

    • Weerd Beard says:

      Didn’t introduce him, as such, but yep, same dude.

      Man, he had me fooled, I would never have taken him for a Joyce shill!

      • Jack/OH says:

        He lost me at “high-income countries”. Inject that phrase into gun debate and you get a whole mess of mischief. Is it code for race or ethnicity? Does it let you ignore each country’s unique history and laws? Is it a correlation/causation trap? Does that mean high murder rates in lower-income countries are somehow justified?

Leave a Reply to Weerd Beard Cancel reply

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