Quote of the day—Chris and Jeff Knox

Reasonable people should recognize and admit that no gun control law has ever met the stated goal of reducing crime, and there is no evidence to suggest that any of the various proposals to further restrict an enumerated right, which “shall not be infringed,” would be any more effective.

Chris and Jeff Knox
On Being Reasonable.
Front Sight magazine, May/June 2014 Vol. 31, No. 3
[Another way of expressing Just One Question.

When someone says something about “reasonable gun laws” push back on them with this. Get them to admit that it’s not about reducing crime. It’s about creating new criminals out of you and me.—Joe]


11 thoughts on “Quote of the day—Chris and Jeff Knox

  1. The Knox quote doesn’t go near far enough. To say that gun restrictions fail to reduce crime is a bit like saying that rape and robbery “fail to advance love and charity”.

    Legal violations of the basic human right of defense do not merely “fail to reduce crime”. Gun restrictions encourage and enable crime, and those in office who actively advance them should be treated accordingly.

    Why is it so terribly difficult to say it? Over and over we keep saying “gun control doesn’t work”. In so doing we’re missing the point entirely. We’re embracing the lie while ignoring the crime. Gun control in fact works quite well, and it has been used successfully over and over throughout history and around the world to enslave and murder whole populations. One might say that it works extremely well.

  2. Another way to put that: gun laws don’t reduce crime because that never was the purpose; it is only the false flag.

  3. Pingback: Quote of the Day - Lyle (5/12/2014) The Minuteman

  4. While I won’t disagree with Lyle and Paul, the objective is to change people’s minds. A large number of our fellow citizens – including many gun owners – have a strong, gut belief that “reasonable” gun laws can be of some social benefit. It is a stretch for them to even entertain the idea that these laws don’t do what their supporters claim. To try and take the argument to the next level and convince them that, not only do gun laws not help society, they actually harm society, is – in our opinion – a bridge too far. Not only will they not buy the “harm” argument, but by making it prematurely, we lose them for the “no good” argument as well.
    We believe it is necessary to dismantle – or at least blow some pretty big holes in – the existing belief system before trying to build a new paradigm. To use a religion analogy, pointing out the flaws and inconsistencies in Muhammad and the Koran (while demonstrating the love of Christ) are more likely to bring a Muslim to Christianity than declaring to him that Allah is Satan. The former technique shakes his faith and opens him up to new ideas, while the latter technique is likely to strengthen his resolve and push him in the opposite direction.

  5. I’m not so sure.
    If your argument is merely “it doesn’t help” then you have no good answer to “well, maybe the benefit is not entirely proven but it obviously can’t hurt, so why not do it?”
    But in fact these laws aren’t chicken soup, and we shouldn’t be making chicken soup arguments about them.
    John Lott proved the argument “it hurts” many years ago. His detailed research still stands strong. Given that foundation, why argue a weaker, less compelling, argument? Especially because Lott’s evidence makes intuitive sense. Criminals do have some brains, and they try to stay away from danger if they can. They fear armed civilians. (They say so in interviews.) And people by and large understand that. They understand that self defense is a deterrent to crime. So you can very easily argue “it hurts” — I don’t see that that’s a bridge too far at all.
    Yes, they may well believe right now that “it helps”. So yes, you want to show why that belief is mistaken. But the way to do that is by showing what the reality is, in a way that is easy to understand. “It hurts” is that reality, not “it doesn’t help”.

    What probably would be a bridge too far, and one I would not go out of my way to argue widely right now, is the strict constitutional argument that these utilitarian analyses are irrelevant. Just as with the 1st amendment, it is actually not relevant whether infringing the right in question is useful, neutral, or unhelpful. It’s a human right explicitly protected by the Constitution, and that’s all there is to say about it. Even if gun restrictions were helpful — which of course they are not — they would still be unconstitutional.

  6. We have made similar points in various other articles. Simply put, every article can’t be an absolute solution to every issue. Millions of words are written in defense of the Second Amendment every year – I personally have written at least 1000 words per week for publication, every week for the past 10 years – and no one has yet come up with the perfect argument to convince everyone. When we write, we write to a specific audience with a specific objective.
    If you have the magic formula for the “silver bullet” article to settle the issue once and for all, the interwebs are eagerly awaiting your concise and compelling pros – in 1000 words or less.

    • That’s an entirely fair point. And you’re a much more productive writer than I am, clearly. I was only reacting to what I thought you were saying — that making a “no benefit” argument was helpful but making an “it hurts” argument isn’t going to work. If instead the point is that you can’t make all these points in one article, or want to make a variety of points in a range of articles, I completely agree.

  7. To me, “reasonable” and “common sense” are always code for “Ban them all!”

  8. Jeff,
    The left knows exactly how a human right is supposed to work (hands off, regardless) because they’ve loudly and strenuously made the point themselves for many decades. See my post from 2008. It’s needlessly strident, I see that now, but it makes the point, clear and complete. I ask that you please over-look the attitude and see the underlying meaning;

    Any indignation over the issue of “absoluteness” in rights protection is therefore entirely feigned. Make the point gently in the bast way you can, sure, but make the point– Gun restrictions are not about reducing crime or increasing public safety. Never have been, never will be.

    • In my example, the left has even gone beyond total “rights” protection, into government subsidy and promotion.

  9. It should also be said that backing away from the truth because it may be unpopular is how we got to this sorry state of affairs in the first place.

Comments are closed.