So the shooting at the Holocaust Museum continues to be fodder for the anti-gunners. (h/t SayUncle)
“Congress should think very hard about their responsibilities for public safety before weakening gun laws in our nation’s capital, and should rethink their decision to allow more guns in our national public areas,” said Paul Helmke, president of the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence.
“It is dangerous to force more guns into places that American families expect to be gun-free and safe,” he said.
Let’s see here. Our nation’s capital has about the strictest anti-gun laws in the nation. Yet those laws didn’t stop anything. That’s unpossible! So if the strongest laws didn’t stop it, how will more laws make any difference? No matter how many laws nor how strong they may be, they are not going to stop anyone but the law-abiding — criminals by definition don’t obey the law; if you are lawless that means you are without law, and if there are more laws these people will still be without them. Sorry folks, but towards the end of stopping violence, passing more laws that the people you’re targeting won’t obey anyways… the math doesn’t add up. Folks, even if you hate guns, can you not see the flaw in the logic?
As for being dangerous to force more guns into places…. there is no forcing going on. To force more guns somewhere would mean that you have no choice, you must have a gun. If you want to enter the museum, you must be at least this tall and have a Glock 19 on your hip. No shoes, no shirt, no Smith & Wesson, no service. No, sorry Mr. Helmke, that’s not how it works. Right now the laws restrict, the effort is to remove the restrictions. That way there’s choice so if you choose to carry a gun, you can. If you choose to not carry a gun, you can do that too. I thought people of this country liked having choice. That’s what this is all about: restoring freedom of choice.
Could the scene play out any differently if there were more gun-toting folks around there? I mean, in this situation guns actually did save the day. If there weren’t some people with guns at the museum, who knows how ugly things could have gotten. The “rampage” was stopped because Good Guys had guns. These Good Men had control over themselves, control over their guns, and their gun control saved the day.
Updated: Joe Huffman echos similar sentiments.
Stuff From Hsoi 
You seem to be making an argument against any law. Laws are drafted to provide a deterrent to criminal behavior. Your argument seems to ignore that grand gradation between the extreme of the law abiding citizen and the abject criminal. Gun control laws are like any other law, in so far that, when properly enacted and enforced, they can deter behavior that would have otherwise been completely undeterred.
Also, simply because Washington has, in your opinion, the strictest anti-gun laws in the nation, doesn’t mean that they are either properly enacted and/or enforced. I’d also argue that someone’s freedom of choice is not always a public good. When someone’s freedom of choice impinges on the welfare (or life!) of a community, whether it is worth it is called into serious inquiry.
I am not necessarily anti-gun, per se. However, as guns are a product that is designed solely to kill, its something that should be regulated so that the “bad guys” are obstructed from easy access. Having a heavily armed doesn’t make us any more safe, in fact it only increases the likelihood that confrontations are more likely to become lethal.
No, I’m not an anarchist; I believe laws are necessary. Thing is, it’s a specious belief that passing more laws will somehow stop the lawless from committing their terrible acts. It’s about finding where to draw the line. Does drawing the line here attempt to stop bad from happening, or does it stop good from happening? I have no problems keeping firearms out of the hands of felons, mentally-ill, etc., and these and other such things are already requirements to legally obtain a firearm in the US and they are considered reasonable. But for law abiding good people to be denied the ability to protect themselves and their families, that doesn’t jive with me. If say we go to the extreme of banning guns, whose hands are the guns going to stay out of? Only the law-abiding. The criminals will still have access to guns (this is true in countries such as England and Australia) and the citizenry remains at the mercy of the criminals. Such force disparity does not favor the good folks of this world.
It’s not my opinion that Washington D.C. has the strictest laws; it’s a fact. If you believe it’s my opinion, then please present me with the fact of just where in our nation the strictest gun restrictions are.
From your comments it actually does sound like you are anti-gun. If that’s not the case, then please state exactly what you are for. Guns aren’t designed solely to kill, although they can be used for that; just like a knife or a car or a swimming pool or a rock. Guns can also be used to defend life — maybe the bad guy might die, but the good guys can live. I guess that’s really the same thing, just depends how you want to look at it. I prefer to think of it in terms of keeping good people alive.
The things you put forth are not backed up by years of data and factual evidence to the contrary. I suggest you take a look at:
* https://hsoiblog.wordpress.com/2009/04/28/what-does-it-say-about-a-person/
What it takes to obtain a concealed handgun license, thus what sort of person a holder is. That page also contains links to data supporting how concealed carry has lead to reduced violent crime rates.
* https://hsoiblog.wordpress.com/2009/05/29/review-four-hundred-years-of-gun-control/
How 400 years of gun control isn’t working (a book by Howard Nemerov), and the facts, data, and statistical evidence to support it.
* https://hsoiblog.wordpress.com/2009/02/13/gun-facts/
Gun facts
—–
I highly recommend Mr. Nemerov’s book.
I agree with you that we need to do what we can to abridge the bad guys; I’m all for that. But I’m one of the Good Guys, and I don’t want to be abridged and left at the mercy of the bad guys in any circumstance: being attacked, how my money is handled, how businesses are run, or generally how people conduct themselves in anything in life.
Thank you for your comments.
(Edited: Hrm… seems this wordpress theme doesn’t like lists nor highlighting links in comments… edited to make it clearer).
I’m not anti-gun in the sense that I believe that law-abiding Americans should have access to guns. However, determining who are the “Good Guys” and the “Bad Guys” are, is not as simple as you make it out. The distinctions are not that clear cut. There needs to be some means of determining between the two and denying access to those individuals who cannot handle the VERY high responsibility of owning a deadly weapon.
Did you read:
https://hsoiblog.wordpress.com/2009/04/28/what-does-it-say-about-a-person/
In a large society, that’s about the best we can do. Sure, it may mean some generally good people may be denied. Sure it may mean that some morons get through. Life isn’t perfect. But our society desires to be “innocent until proven guilty” and “trustworthy until proven otherwise”. People that obtain concealed handgun licenses have to prove themselves worthy, in the eyes of the law’s society has made.
A lot of police view a concealed handgun license as a “I’m a Good Guy” card. They can see the license and know the person has been vetted.
If that’s not clear cut enough for you, at least in some respect, can you propose something better? If not, can you accept this is at least something towards that end until a better system can be put in place?
“When someone’s freedom of choice impinges on the welfare (or life!) of a community, whether it is worth it is called into serious inquiry.”
It’s not a choice. Hrm … that sounds familiar, anyway …
Don’t forget to take away other “freedom(s) of choice” such as:
Cars, knives, pointed sticks, scissors, baseball bats, matches, needles, single malt scotch, cheeseburgers, tobaco, etc …
You can make a list a mile long of things that “impinge on the welfare of a community”, do you really want to live in a place like that?
I’ll take my unsafe freedom over a safe cage any day, thankyouverymuch.
You miss the point. Your list all includes items that are not specifically relegated to the status of deadly weapon. Pointed sticks can be used hold signs and tents, baseball bats are designed to be used to hit baseballs; guns have no function other than killing people, whether in self-defense or not. As such, it deserves far greater scrutiny than anything you mentioned.
Granted, particularly considering the cultural history, and widespread ownership, banning guns is a fool’s dream, and not necessarily a good idea. However, this isn’t to say that guns should be completely unregulated either. You do not need an RPG to defend your home and family, and guns certainly should not be available to the mentally ill or those with criminal tendencies. Personal freedom must always be weighed against public welfare, since your freedom should not impinge upon my wellbeing, just as my personal freedom must not impinge upon yours. I would hope that Americans of this day and age haven’t forgotten the old adage, “Your arms reach ends at my nose.”
“guns have no function other than killing people, whether in self-defense or not.”
That’s odd. I’ve used my guns tens of thousands of times and never hurt anybody, certainly never killed anyone.
Personally, I prefer the ills of “too much” freedom to too little.
I do agree that your nose has rights, and challenge you to prove any case of my arms reaching it.
Actually, guns do have other functions than killing people. Here’s one example:
https://hsoiblog.wordpress.com/2009/05/26/tsra-highpower-rifle-championship/
But can guns be used to kill? Certainly; that is part of the power of the tool (if it just tickled you, I don’t think it would elicit the same response) 🙂 . For me, a primary reason for gun ownership is to protect the lives of myself and my family. A gun is a good tool towards helping to preserve our lives, especially if some gremlin wishes to do us harm.
https://hsoiblog.wordpress.com/2009/05/18/the-gun-is-civilization/
I hope to never have to use my guns in a self-defense situation. But the world can be an ugly place. All it takes is one incident of ugliness, and the Boy Scout in me knows it’s better to Be Prepared.
As for regulation well… tell me how me owning an RPG would impinge upon your well-being? So long as my ownership of the RPG doesn’t impinge upon you and your life, what does it matter to you if I own an RPG? I’m all for “don’t tread on me” and to live and let live and all that. But I do fail to see how ownership of an RPG or things of that ilk infringe upon the lives of others. Of course, USE of that RPG is a different matter, but that’s different. For instance, drinking is fine, driving is fine… neither infringe upon others, but drunk driving is not fine because it infringes upon others. So, to own an RPG, to maybe go shoot it out on your own 10000 acre ranch that does no harm to no one else, and so on… what’s the problem? But firing it at your neighbor’s dog because it pooped on your lawn for the last time, that’s a no-no.
How serendipitous that this article was posted at the same time as our discussion.
https://hsoiblog.wordpress.com/2009/06/11/concealed-carry-supports-law-enforcement/
So I guess the data shows that the citizenry being armed actually does make us safer.
You are sick.
Would you look Stephen Johns’ widow in the eye and tell HER that guns “saved the day”?
Guns are inanimate objects. It’s the motivation of the person that matters. Any inanimate object can be used for good or for evil purposes.
The person that killed Stephen Johns is a derranged individual. Guns or no guns, he would have done the evil that he did. Eliminating inanimate objects from the world will not stop bad men from doing bad things.
Think how many more widows there might be if those other guards didn’t have guns and shot back. It’s terrible there were any widows made that day, but I’m thankful there weren’t any more made.
I find it interesting.
You talk on your own blog about “stopping the hate, or at least dialing it back a notch”
http://pofv.wordpress.com/2009/06/11/when-will-it-all-end/
Then you come to my blog and call me sick. Sounds like you need to take your own advice.
I would, if she started advocating something stupid like taking our second amendment rights away.
Being armed and willing to fight back has saved a lot of days. Guns have saved lives, stopped rapes, etc.
I refer back to my prior comment, especially looking at the actual data and statistics on the matter.
The interesting thing about Howard Nemerov’s book is all of his data comes from anti-gun sources. “I made one predetermined decision: I would not accept numbers, or even sources, from gun-rights proponents; everything they claimed I would rebut or corroborate using government sources or sources that were cited by––and therefore validated by––gun control organizations.” The facts speak for themselves.
If these folks are as open-minded as they claim to be, they’d give the Nemerov book a read and serious consideration. That is, they’ll listen to facts and allow themselves the possibility they might be swayed if that brings them closer to reality and reason. But if they wish to keep their fingers stuck in their ears, I guess that’s their choice too.
Oooooh, trolls. Fun!