Knocking down straw men

The Brady Campaign set up a straw man to knock down again yesterday:

While trying really hard to pose as a “victim of bigotry” with his best Rosa Parks impression (someone who faced genuine discrimination), Mr. Pierce forgot to blur the distinction between gun owners and gun carriers.  Whoops.

They are still pushing on the “immutable characteristics” defense against their bigotry. What I find interesting is that they consider religious affiliation “immutable”. And of course they don’t even mention interracial couples.

They make a big deal about “guns are things” and claim people with those things cannot be discriminated against.

They are just so incredible smart to have thought of that. They sure got me on that one. I never would have thought of a defense like that.[/sarcasm]

Let see how well that assertion plays out in general:

  • “You can come in, but you have to leave your burqa and ḥijāb, outside.”
  • “You can come in, but you have to leave your turban outside.”
  • “You can come in, but you have to leave your sari outside.”
  • “You can come in, but you have to leave your Star of David outside.”
  • “You can come in, but you have to leave your cross necklace outside.”
  • “You can come in, but you have to leave your NRA/SAF/CCRKBA/JPFO/Brady-Campaign shirt outside.”
  • “You can come in, but you have to leave your Bible/Torah/Koran outside.”

Is that still not discrimination?

I can only think of two possible explanations for the Brady Campaign to make the claims they do:

  1. They think the general population is so stupid as to believe that gun owners magically materialized a holstered gun on their belt or in their purse just before they walked into the store. And therefore they could just as easily not materialized it just prior to entering the store. That’s not the way it works. Many of us put on a gun just like we put on our shoes, pants, and shirt.
  2. They are so stupid or blinded by their own bigotry that they were unable to think it through.

[Mostly off topic–Does the Brady Campaign even have apparel for sale? I didn’t find anything on their website and none of the Brady Campaign items I found on Cafepress would be endorsed by them. I suppose that makes sense. After all, who would willingly put a “I’m defenseless” sign on themselves while in public? And if I did that I would likely get charged with “hunting over bait” or some such thing.]

Update: Sebastian put up a very well written post on the topic an hour before I started mine.

7 thoughts on “Knocking down straw men

  1. After all, who would willingly put a “I’m defenseless” sign on themselves while in public?

    Every anti-gunner I’ve asked has refused to do so.

  2. I shouldn’t read your posts while I’m eating or drinking anything. “Hunting over bait” made me blow milk through my nose and it really hurts.

  3. You can come in, you just have to leave your boyfriend/girlfriend or Spouse outside if they don’t match your race, or DO match your sex.

    Also I’d imagine many of the anti-gun bigots DON’T think very often at all. Certainly my own days in their rank and files I spent little time actually thinking about how the laws and proposals would work, and I knew next to nothing about the various guns they had declared bad or evil. (actually most of what I knew I knew from action movies from the 80s….does that count as a negative number?)

    But the ones that do, will realize what most of us DO do when confronted by a gun free zone.

    -Lock the Gun in our cars where it can be more easily stolen by thieves, or where our upholstering can be easily observed by police. This goes double for my state which the Bradys are as pleased with as most others, where for me to be fully lawful I’d need to unholster my gun, remove the ammunition, then fit it with a trigger lock, or lock it in a locking hard-sided container. That amount of stupidity I’m much more likely to be observed by Police or a Thief, police might hassle me or revoke my permit, the thief will commit crimes with it. Or have a negligent discharge.

    -Go without a gun, and be defenseless in the face of an attacker.

    All of these negative side effects can and have been used to make political hay by them.

    Or:

    – Avoid the gun-free zone. Certainly makes the gun-free zone less safe, but also inconveniences us.

    Win Win Win for the anti-freedom pro-ignorance crowd.

  4. OK. So, I’m not going to bore you with my usual, “I think that the RKBA trumps even private property rights,” and go beyond that a bit.

    Can you magically put on and take off the potential need for defense against violence when you enter and leave a structure — even a private home?

    Show me an airtight proof that there is no need for defense agains violence. Not that (you believe) (you in a general sense, not you specifically, Joe) one shouldn’t raise a hand in your own defense — that’s a whole other kettle of moral fish — but that there is ever a case when anyone is not potentially at-risk of being attacked by a predator of superior strength and deadly intent. If that’s not a straw man (and I don’t think it is), then there is no case — ever — in which it is morally defensible to require that individuals render themselves defenseless in order to satisfy your own qualms about your safety.

    Show me a proof otherwise. C’mon. I dare ya.

    M

  5. Joe, try not to exclude others. Instead, what if you offered then something.
    “You can come into this store, but you have to wear a gun.”
    “You can come into this restaurant, but must wear a concealed weapon. We have loaners available.”

    That way they understand that inclusion is better than exclusion. Even the fanciest coat and tie restaurants have loaners available.

  6. Well, there are places where simple safety requirements would prohibit carriage of firearms; mainly refineries, but some pharma manufacturing facilities etc. I can’t think of how you would make a firearm “intrinsically safe”.

Comments are closed.