Pages Menu

PragmaticLiberalism.com

Categories Menu

Posted on Dec 11, 2013 in Social Issues: Gun control, Uncategorized | 3 comments

Gun Regulation-Buying into the wrong argument

The pro-Gun Lobby has framed the issue as: “We don’t need gun restrictions at all because “guns don’t kill people, people kill people.” It is not only unnecessary to buy into the question as they have framed it, but it is strategically foolish. If proponents of sensible restrictions get caught up in any part of an issue of whether it is a human finger that pulls the trigger or a self-shooting gun they are bound to find themselves in a corner protected by a fence of losing arguments. This lets the pro gun lobby focus not on the easy availability of guns that are capable of killing quite a number of people in a matter of seconds, but rather on the vague, and unfunded, mental health aspects of the issue: Their argument is that ‘Since only a mentally unbalanced person would spay groups of innocent people with deadly bullets,’ don’t take or even restrict the right of the sane majority to have the weapons, and protect themselves, instead focus on providing mental help to prevent such shootings.

Now, improving mental health is an issue most can support, but focusing on that aspect of the issue is like a street hustler’s sleight of hand ploy while urging the suckers to: “keep your eye on the ball,” instead, of course, on his hands. It is never necessary to buy into false and dichotomous arguments that others make in an attempt to determine the parameters of the discussion.

If sociopaths are unable to control their frustrations and consequent anger, it seems to me that they can do much less damage to innocent persons with a knife or even a single shot gun than with a readily available Assault Rifle capable of shooting off hundreds of high velocity bullets in a matter of seconds. Even if the attacker is quickly subdued, the damage he caused can be considerable as we have learned in the Columbine and Sandy Hook horrors. This then is the point,prevent such massacres by controlling the availability of weapons built to kill as many people as possible in the shortest amount of time, not some esoteric philosophical discussion about whether it is the gun or the person pulling the trigger that bears responsibility for the killings. Did you know that AK-47s can be mounted to fire off rounds of hand grenades? Imagine the damage that could produce, and still the gun lobby would argue against controlling such weapons-after all it’s the person shooting the gun not the gun doing the damage. Where do you draw the limit? I haven’t heard the gun lobby accepting any forms of control. The mind boggles when one considers how far their line of reasoning could go given the technology of the arms industry. sacres by controlling the availability of these weapons built to kill as many people as possible in the shortest amount of time, not some esoteric philosophical discussion about whether it is the gun or the person pulling the trigger that bears responsibility for the killings. Did you know that AK-47s can be mounted to fire off rounds of hand grenades? Imagine the damage that could produce, and still the gun lobby would argue against controlling such weapons-after all it’s the person shooting the gun not the gun doing the damage. Where do you draw the limit? I haven’t heard the gun lobby accepting any forms of control. The mind boggles when one considers how far their line of reasoning could go given the technology of the arms industry. Sandy Hook was one step too far for me.

3 Comments

  1. From my research, a lot of these crimes are not done by sociopaths. For example, Columbine had one sociopath involved, but the second student was not one. And of course, most deaths from gunfire are accidental. I agree wholeheartedly that the argument about the gun versus the person is nonsensical.

  2. nice blog keep up the good work

  3. In general, I think that the concept of your argument is good. However, there are a few technical issues. A single shotgun, at close range is every bit as deadly as a so-called assault rifle. In the hands of a trained individual, a shotgun is the only weapon that can compete with a machine gun. At least that is my experience in previous military positions. Also, hand grenades are very restricted so the AK-47/hand grenade scenario is probably a bad example. Hundreds of high velocity rounds in a matter of seconds is an intense exaggeration. Tens of rounds maybe. Nevertheless, a semi-automatic, center fire, high capacity weapon (assault rifle?) is a lot of fire power to have in the hands of an individual intent on doing harm. And yet, they are needed by the general public to prevent the U.S. Government from deploying military forces against U.S. citizens as happened in Nevada last year. The answer is not as simple as the liberal anti-gun lobby would present it to be. Pascal-Emanuel Gobry gave perhaps the best synopsis of the issues involved. http://theweek.com/articles/446178/both-sides-are-wrong-gun-debate-heres-why

Post a Reply

Your email address will not be published.

css.php