NRA-ILA asks “Just One Question”

Linoge pulls a couple paragraphs out of the same NRA-ILA post for his QOTD. That is good stuff but I liked this part:

…with no correlation between LCAV’s ranking and the states’ widely divergent
firearm-related death rates, no recognition of the fact that most
firearm-related deaths are suicides, the frequency of which cannot be restrained
by any gun control law, and no recognition of the fact that the world is still
waiting for any evidence that any gun control law on the planet has ever
prevented individuals or regimes from committing crime
.

Emphasis mine.

That is the essence of my Just One Question.

Nice!

9 thoughts on “NRA-ILA asks “Just One Question”

  1. Yes, Joe, your question creates a great atmosphere of doubt and succinctly addresses all the major issues of gun control. It was bound to go “mainstream” eventually. Congratulations.

  2. I sort-of hate the Just One Question, because it basically says “We have rights because statistics say it’s best!”. Ever since I read John Snyder’s essays in “Nation of Cowards”, I’ve tended to cringe when someone defends gun rights (or any right) with statistics.

    Having said that, it’s a very good question to beat over the heads of those superstitious “utilitarian” types who justify Gun Control using, and even generating, flawed studies, to justify their attacks on natural rights.

    Come to think of it, it’s a bit like “The Bell Curve”, that used statistics to try to insist that we shouldn’t invest as much in education for black folks…because, well, they’re just behind the curve, ya know! Never mind that, when left to their own devices, the masses are just as educable as anyone else–or would be, without compulsory education!

  3. I’ve tended to cringe when someone defends gun rights (or any right) with statistics.

    Unfortunately, most of the redeemable antis refuse to listen to “natural rights” arguments when it comes to gun rights. These are the ones we actually want to have a real discussion with, so the statistics make a good start at showing them how the anti-gunners have been lying to and misleading them. First we have to show them that gun ownership is not inherently dangerous, that gun control does not work to control crime, and that most people who own guns legally are inherently law-abiding.

    Essentially, we have to break that “it’s too dangerous to allow” mental barrier before they will even be willing to consider Rights arguments, because they believe that perceived danger is justification for restricting a right.

  4. Alpheus, I agree with you that gun rights should be protected simply because we have an inherent right to self-protection, and not for any statistical or practical purpose. I think that Just One Question attempts to meet gun controllers on their own turf. It shows that even if you don’t believe that people have an inherent right to self-preservation, and that gun control is an acceptable practice, it STILL isn’t justifiable based on the supporting data.

  5. Yeah, I know the value of that Just One Question, and wouldn’t hesitate to use it when someone would try to say “But if we could just save one life!”…but that doesn’t mean I have to like it! 🙂

  6. For some reason, this post reminded me of an old joke of my dad’s, which has suddenly taken on new meaning.

    A man is walking down a sidewalk at night when he sees another man standing under a streetlight searching for something. He asks the man what he’s looking for.

    “My keys,” responds the second man. “I dropped them.”

    “where did you drop them?” asks the first man.

    “Over there,” replies the second man, pointing into the dark about 20 feet away.

    “If you dropped them over there, why are you searching here?” asks the first man.

    “Because it’s too dark over there.”

    I realized today that the gun control activists are like the guy looking for his keys under the street light. They have recognized a valid problem (violence), but rather than attempting to fix the actual problem, they have chosen an easier route that makes it look like they are solving the problem while in reality only wasting time and effort (and trampling the rights of others in the process). The sad thing is that most of them are convinced that they are actually solving the problem, rather than merely diverting time and resources away from the actual problem.

  7. JMD; It’s worse than that. The anti rights movement is motivated by a desire for control, founded primarily in envy and the hatred than comes from envy. That’s where it starts. The safety assertions are used as tools of convenience– as the selling point. They care about the issue of safety, or saving lives, only insofar as it can be used to advance the agenda of stealing our wealth and trampling our freedoms. Think of it as a crime gang, and you’ll have it down pat (the apparent adoration of gangster figures among the Left is no ramdom coincidence). Al Capone built soup kitchens and the like, not because he was a compassionate philanthropist who cared about the well-being of his fellow Man, but because he wanted the public the believe he was a good guy. Big difference. I believe President Clinton, as a modern example, is of a similar mentality, and maybe John McCain. That there were people who fell for Capone’s ruse, or who played along with it out of self interest, is another subject– perhaps one for the criminal psychologists and sociologists.

  8. Ack, I missed that… probably due to me not reading the entire press release ;). Good to see your question getting the exposure it should!

Comments are closed.