Herein Lies One of the Problems in the Gun Control Debate

May 8, 2013 by
Filed under: Opinion Piece, Political 

Look, I’m extremely pro Second Amendment…Extremely… pro Second Amendment. I am, however, pro Second Amendment based upon logical fact and critical thinking and not because I just “want” to be able to own firearms under any circumstances. The problem is, many people don’t care about facts, and in arguing the pro Second Amendment case will just say any damn thing they want and consistently try to argue points that have absolutely no bearing on the actual argument being made. Those people hurt the credibility of every single gun owner in this country. It is my own fault for responding to something on Facebook, however I try the best I can to bring to light any fallacious information I can in the debate…from both sides. What transpired really made me see one of the major problems in the debate, in that some people who are most vocal about their gun rights really probably are mentally deficient, and shouldn’t be speaking for the rest of us.  Here is the post and the comments that followed:

 

                     

Gun Control Kills

Between 1993 and 2011, nonfatal gun crimes plummeted 69%; from 1.5 million to 467,300. Gun-related murders dropped 40%; from 18,253 to 11,101. Gun-related murders for black Americans plummeted by 51%.

The report also shows that the media-created hysteria over school shootings is wildly misleading. Between ’93 and ’11, the murder rate in schools dropped by almost a third; from 29 to 20.

Background checks have also been exposed as another bogus narrative the media’s crafted out of thin air. This report proves beyond any doubt that closing the so-called gun show loophole will accomplish next to nothing. Less than one-percent of state prisoners caught with a gun purchased it at a gun show. Moreover, who knows how many of those criminals might have passed or did pass a background check.

So-called assault weapons are also not a problem, Only “2% of state inmates and 3% of federal inmates were armed with a military-style semiautomatic or fully automatic firearm.”

What this study clearly shows is that Obama, Democrats, and the media don’t give a damn about stopping gun violence. If they did, they would be focused on everything but the one and two-percent problems.

 What we have here is a yet-another culture war; nothing more nothing less — and one aimed at the type of law-abiding citizens who attend gun shows and enjoy these so-called assault weapons. In other words, Red State conservatives.

_____________________________________________________________________________

Doug Hawk   Unfortunately, this isn’t entirely accurate in regards to the background check comment. Though it is true the prison poll showed that less than one percent of state prisoners purchased firearms at a gun show, gun shows are not where most private party transactions take place AND FFLs already have to do background checks at gun shows. Gun shows do not directly correlate to background checks and those background checks at gun shows by FFLS may be Why felons aren’t getting many guns from gun shows. However, since its inception, background checks have caught something like 1.2 million prohibited people and kept them from purchasing a firearm. Granted a few were probably able to acquire one later anyway through other means, but certainly not all. Therefore, background checks actually have proven to work as intended, keeping firearms out of criminal hands while not restricting law abiding citizens. There is, however, no evidence that registration or waiting periods have any effect whatsoever. If they try to tie registration and waiting periods To the background check, then the whole thing goes out the window again.

The only legitimate argument to be made against background checks on private party transactions (sans any registration or waiting period, and assuming they make the database available to everyone 24 hours a day for checks) is that they will create targets for theft of those attempting to sell firearms in private transactions. Some of the criminals who could have otherwise bought them illegally without the sellers knowledge will just show up to steal the weapon at that point. Not all, but it will happen. Then, of course, they will transition all private party sales through FFLs like in California. Then FFLs will make a killing buying firearms for 40 cents on the dollar because the average person won’t want to go through the trouble of advertising to sell a firearm, having to drive X number of miles to an FFL just to have a buyer try to haggle or decline the purchase having been just a looky-loo to begin with, and figure they have no easy method but to sell the firearm directly to the FFL or get hit with a huge consignment percentage. At the core, the evidence does show that background checks do work as intended…but once you set that chain of events in motion will the repercussions still be worth the benefits or just shift those already illegal purchases (the seller just doesn’t know buyer is prohibited) into becoming a more violent crime?

______________________________________________________________________________

Xxxx Xxxxx Sr   “since it’s inception, background checks have caught something like 1.2 million prohibited people and kept them from purchasing a firearm.” This is blue label bullshit. If it were true then where are all of the arrests, prosecutions and incarcerations for lying on form 4473?

______________________________________________________________________________

Xxxx Xxxxx Sr   “Therefore, background checks actually have proven to work as intended, keeping firearms out of criminal hands while not restricting law abiding citizens…” More unadulterated HORSESHIT. Here is empirical Proof that Background Checks do not stop crime. The following mass murderers PASSED “background checks” and legally purchased firearms they used in their crimes. Seung-Hui Cho (Virginia Tech; 32 killed, 17 wounded) Nidal Malik Hasan (Ft. Hood; 13 killed, 29 wounded), Jared Lee Loughner (Tucson / Gabby Giffords; 6 killed, 12 wounded) James Eagan Holmes (Aurora; 12 killed, 58 wounded). Even Adam Lanza’s (Sandy Hook; 27 killed) mother, the source of his firearms, passed a back ground check.

______________________________________________________________________________

Doug Hawk   Actually, you’re logic is extremely flawed. First, an arrest is not necessary in order for the FFL to have NOT SOLD THE WEAPON TO THE PROHIBITED PERSON. The prohibited person did not get to make the purchase, a following arrest or conviction has no bearing on whether that sale did or did not take place. The sale did not take place, therefore the system worked in STOPPING THE SALE. Not only is a following prosecution irrelevant, the system doesn’t even have to catch 100% of offenders to be effective. Second, just because these people you list who ultimately committed later crimes were not flagged as prohibited at the time of purchase has no bearing on whether background checks have prevented prohibited criminals from acquiring guns. What you are arguing is that background checks don’t stop non criminals from acquiring guns AND THEN committing crimes with them. That is true, but irrelevant to the effectiveness of background checks in keeping them out of the hands of prohibited people…which is the argument being made. But again, background checks don’t have to stop 100% of all crime to be effective. It’s like trying to argue that speed limits don’t work because 100% of speeders aren’t arrested. The probability that you’ll actually get caught for speeding is really rather low. Yet all across the nation, the general flow of traffic is usually right about at the posted speed limit.

You, Mr. Xxxxx, are why the pro gun control people think gun owners are idiots due to your HORSESHIT logic expressed above and you’re the reason I may lose my 2nd Amendment rights because people like you are tarnishing valid pro 2nd Amendment arguments with fallacious logic. You’re doing more harm than good…and it is a shame for all of us that you don’t have the slightest clue why and probably don’t comprehend a single f***ing thing I just said.

____________________________________________________________________________________

Xxxx Xxxxx Sr   More Bullshit. Right out of the box… to whit; “… First, an arrest is not necessary in order for the FFL to have NOT SOLD THE WEAPON TO THE PROHIBITED PERSON…” How would the FFL know the buyer was prohibited? This determination is made by conducting the NICS check, which occurs AFTER FORM 4473 IS COMPLETED. It is a felony to lie on a 4473. If a prohibited person attempts a buy under false pretenses he s subject to prosecution. PERIOD. So where are your 1.2 million arrests? Clearly, you have no idea what you are talking about and have never worked in the Firearms Retail Trade. STFU and go home.

____________________________________________________________________________________

Doug Hawk So I was correct in knowing you wouldn’t have the mental capacity to comprehend a single f***ing thing I just said… And you’re picking a fight with someone who is extremely pro second amendment, and all you’ve done is make me wish you weren’t allowed to have a firearm. You’re ignorance, and arrogance in thinking you’re not, is hurting your own cause.

____________________________________________________________________________________

The problem is, many people make the same mistakes as Mr Xxxxx in his response.  What is worse, you’ll never be able to show these people how the arguments they are making are not sound.  You can’t even debate with someone who doesn’t have the cognitive ability for critical thinking…and he and I are on the Same Side of the debate.  This man will most likely go to his grave without ever understanding the validity of background checks in keeping guns out of prohibited people’s hands has absolutely no bearing on what happens AFTER that sale is prevented.  The sale was prevented and the prohibited person did not get the firearm…period.  You can argue that these people don’t get prosecuted for the felony they committed lying on the form, but that is an entirely different argument to be made about the lack of effort of enforcement.  You can argue that the prohibited person will go somewhere else where there is not a background check and still acquire the weapon.  Again, a totally separate argument…and possibly a good argument For extending the background checks.  The sale did not take place and the person was prohibited from purchasing a firearm at that time.   There need not be any arrests to prove those sales didn’t take place, the record of the person being flagged and the sale not taking place is all the proof required.

It is the same issue with the mass murders he mentions.  Nobody suggests that background checks will prevent all crime, but that is the argument he is trying to dispute.  He thinks that by disputing that argument, he has disputed mine.  I can’t even suggest that is an entire straw man, maybe more like just a straw colon or straw rectum.  What a non prohibited person ultimately does with a firearm has no bearing on the validity of background checks keeping guns from prohibited people.  Nobody suggests that background checks are psychic as to who will ‘become’ prohibited.  If he therefore is suggesting that background checks can’t stop Any crime, he’s making an argument for the opposition that even more needs to be done, premeditatedly, to stop gun crimes….his opposition’s argument.  He continues to follow up asking where all the arrests are to prove the weapons weren’t sold to prohibited people.

If this man can’t understand basic Logic, what the hell is he going to do when he needs to make a decision with his firearm in his hand?  Though it terrifies me to think of this man having a gun, I have to support his Second Amendment right to possess one if he is not a prohibited person (though I think he is clearly mentally deficient) and I have to stand by my fact based evaluation in favor of the Second Amendment hoping that most gun owners are more educated than what I see in that thread.  This man does not speak for me in the Second Amendment debate!

And this is the problem I see; 1)  the pro gun control people are correct when suggesting that some gun owners are fanatics who should probably not own weapons, however they are not correct in assuming this man is representative of gun owners overall, 2) the pro gun people who are “fanatics” will even aggressively attack people who are on their side in the overall debate, 3) these types of people destroy the foundation on which the rest of the pro Second Amendment advocates stand, and are therefore also an enemy to our cause.
SUBSEQUENT ADDENDUM TO THAT POST:

I think what you’re not understanding is that I’m not necessarily for background checks overall, but I have to concede they do stop the actual sale of the weapon to prohibited people.  Is that benefit to society worth the residual costs to society…I’m just not convinced.  I also don’t suggest we pass some new laws in addition to the old.  What I suggest is that we focus on things that do tend to work for the intended purpose, and actually GET RID of all the rest of the laws on the books that don’t, such as bans on specific weapons and magazine capacities, get rid of any registration requirements, get rid of any cooling off periods, get rid of Diane Feinstein and Michael Bloomberg…wouldn’t hurt to get rid of Obama too (I guess I should clarify I mean by Vote on those last three.)  We’re only going to remove these useless laws IF we make rock solid arguments people can’t tear apart and stop clinging to things we “wish” were true because they support our opinion.  I’m trying to strengthen your argument, and people like Xxxx Xxxxx Sr respond in an attacking way as though I’m trying to take his guns away.  You can’t see the forest for the trees.

Comments

Tell me what you're thinking...
and oh, if you want a pic to show with your comment, go get a gravatar!