Previous

Contents

Next

The Victim Disarmament Crowd is at it Again
by Sean Gangol
[email protected]

Special to L. Neil Smith's The Libertarian Enterprise

Thanks to what happened last July, the gun grabbers are back in full force. Not that they ever went away. Whenever there is mass shooting you can rest assure the anti-gun side will be there to dance in the blood of the victims so they can further their own agenda. It's always during the time of tragedy when the attacks on our Second Amendment rights are the most intense.

Not surprisingly some of the attacks have come from left-wing shrills of the likes of Piers Morgan. He said that America needs to get a grip on its "gun problem." Never mind that Morgan hasn't lived in this country long enough to be a self appointed expert in America's "gun problem" or that his home country of Merry Old England has been experiencing a drastic rise in crime since they pretty much banned all guns from private ownership.

Sadly, it's not just the left who has jumped on the ban wagon. Bill O'Reilly has called for tighter restrictions on ammunition sales. On his show he had a congressman that opposed these measures and he attempted to shout the congressman down in the usual O'Reilly fashion. He also went on a rant about how easy it is for people to go to a gun show and buy machine guns. The congressman managed to hold his own by pointing out that machine guns have been heavily regulated since the 1930's and that all licensed dealers are required to perform background checks. I find it annoying that big government conservatives like O'Reilly get to stay on the air, while freedom lovers like Judge Andrew Napolitano are barely given a chance. Then I am reminded of the people who run Fox.

What never seem to change are the arguments that are used by those who keep advocating for victim disarmament policies. They are the same arguments that I have heard several years ago, and since I wasn't impressed by them then, I am definitely not impressed now that I have done years of research on the subject. The people who make these arguments assume that we are all idiots who have never heard these arguments before, while they think that they are clever and witty. Here are some of my favorite arguments:

I am all for the Second Amendment, but I think we need some "common sense" gun laws.
Really? What would you consider common sense? Common sense tells me that your side will never be satisfied. You don't want us having those evil "assault weapons" (which in your vocabulary means all semi-automatic rifles), nor do you want us having guns with plastic frames (if you actually believe the myth that they don't show up on metal detectors, then I will give you a hundred bucks to try to get one through an airport or a court house). We can't have guns that are too inexpensive. No, those guns are "Saturday Night Specials" at least that is what the old Southern establishment used to call guns that were cheap enough for black people to own. We can't have hunting rifles with telescopic lens because according to your side those are "Sniper Weapons." For that matter we wouldn't be allowed to own any high powered rifles because they use "Cop Killing" bullets. If your form of common sense prevailed then we would be left with nothing more then expensive single shot muzzle loading rifles. That is if we were lucky.

You don't need an Uzi or an AK-47 to hunt.
Well thanks for the tip. Who said anything about hunting? This is not only a straw man argument, but it is down right condescending. It shows me that you perceive all gun owners as dumb hicks who only care about deer season. Whenever I see politicians waving deer hunting rifles or geese hunting shotguns over their heads as a way of showing that they support gun rights, while advocating every other form of victim disarmament, I always wish I was there to laugh in their faces and tell them how stupid they look.

Well, Europe has strict gun control and they practically live in a crime free utopia.
Wow, the apples to oranges arguments. I have never heard those before. You guys are always cherry picking the countries that you want to compare to ours while ignoring countries such as Mexico, Jamaica, Russia, Brazil and Taiwan, which have higher crime rates then the United States and stricter gun laws. Of course you will try to weasel your way out this argument by saying that the comparisons should only apply to industrialized first world countries, which means that you would have to admit that there are other factors that are responsible for creating high crime rates. Your argument fails either way.

Why do you need assault weapons or extended clips?
I hate this argument almost as much as I hate the one about not needing an AK to hunt. First of all, I don't feel like I need to justify my needs to anybody. I suggest you ask the same of the Korean shop owners in South Central LA who used those evil tools to keep their stores from being looted during the riots. As for the extended magazines, it should be self-explanatory. If you are exchanging fire with a guy who is trying to kill you, do you want: A) a gun that can hold the least amount of bullets, B) a gun that holds as many bullets as possible, C) a gun that doesn't hold any bullets? If you had any trouble answering this question, then common sense hasn't been your best friend.

How else are we going to stop mass shootings?
One way to go about it is to stop creating gun free zones that turn people into sitting ducks who might as well have targets painted on their backs.

By having more guns, you will only make the situation worse. First of all, do you really think it was just a coincidence that the shootings at Columbine, Virginia Tech, Fort Hood or the Cinemark in Colorado were at places where firearms were prohibited? As for the part about making the situation worse, I always wonder if you guys realize how condescending that sounds. You just assume that we are all a bunch of incompetent half-wits who will shoot wildly into a crowd. Could you be anymore insulting?

I could go on and on about how the victim disarmament crowd keeps using the same tired arguments, but then I would have to write an entire book. There is one upside to all this. Recent polls have shown that fewer people support the same victim disarmament laws that they did in the past. I suppose you have to find a silver lining somewhere.

Was that worth reading?
Then why not: