Quote of the day—Jacob Schuman

The fact is, the widespread availability of guns is a significant, but often overlooked, cause of persistent inequality in the United States. Focusing on the relationship between guns and inequality will allow gun control advocates to argue that restricting firearm access is an essential step towards achieving social justice and economic empowerment.

The first way that guns drive inequality is by making life more violent and less stable for people living in economically disadvantaged communities.

Jacob Schuman
November 4, 2015
The Equality Argument For Gun Control
[He has it exactly backwards. Guns enable a civil society.—Joe]

15 thoughts on “Quote of the day—Jacob Schuman

  1. Funny, given Gun Control advocates endorse May Issue permiting which directly deny permits to the less well off and connected.

    They also endorse punative fees and insurance policies.
    Take the NFA which was enacted with a transfer tax that was explicitly set ($200 in 1930’s money) to keep certian weapons out of the hands of the poor. Or the later Hughes Amdnedment which by limitingly supply inflated price and made machine guns into toys of the well-heeled.

    Even their Univesal Background Check ideas would have a disproprotionate effect on the less well off (if one were to take the /equality/ objections to Voter ID).

    This is literally the argument of “We’ll deny X to the poor but let the rich have X and say we’re doing it to help the poor!”

    Which is why I use gun control as a litmus test if someone going on about equality /really/ cares about the poor.

  2. //The first way that guns drive inequality is by making life more violent and less stable for people living in economically disadvantaged communities.//

    Also take note of the implicit classism here.
    The above statement strongly implies that the poor can’t handle guns, unlike the rich and middle class. Otherwise guns wouldn’t make disadvantage communities /more/ unstable than economically advantaged communities no?

  3. Sounds like the old argument for restricting firearms from the free black folk. Which is the real basis for gun control laws in the first place.

  4. I presume that Mssr. Schuman may have Jewish ancestry. I hate to invoke Godwin’s Law so early in the thread, but I believe isn’t that what the Nazis said about the Jews and lower class Polish, Ukrainian, and other “working class” folks? They needed to disarm them to protect them from themselves?

    How’d that work out? Whatever happened to, “Never again”?

  5. Chutzpah was once defined as begging for mercy because you are an orphan, during sentencing for murdering your parents.

    The author of the linked article performs something similar: firearms are not used in urban black neighborhoods for self protection by law-abiding citizens, but rather are more often used for criminal purposes. Well, yes, because in DC and Chicago and other gun-control paradises, it is impossible or nearly so to own a firearm and not be a criminal, thanks to draconian gun control laws.

    In other news, most auto accidents happen when people are in cars, drownings happen frequently in swimming pools, and very old people have the shortest projected remaining lifespans.

    Where gun control flourishes, violent crime flourishes. Ignoring that correlation makes his article useless as anything other than birdcage liner.

    • There’s also the inherent argument of “/These/ people need more gun control than other people.”

      That’s right, deliberatly descriminatory laws passed in the name of equality.

      I mean it’s not like NYC doesn’t issue CCW permits. Just good luck getting one if you’re a commoner.

    • “Where gun control flourishes, violent crime flourishes.”
      The correlation is not perfect, but it’s a whole lot stronger than the theories (no, Hypotheses*) put forth by the Anti-liberty Leftist scum.

      *A theory is an explanation supported by falsifiable experiments, a hypotheses is an explanation put forth in a college dorm bull session fueled by Boone’s Farm wine and Mary Jane.

  6. friends:

    just how are guns a cause of persistent inequality? this is not explained.

    he begins his argument by stating a conclusion that is not supported, and is unsupportable. and, then, argues a further stupidity, by asserting no guns would erase inequality.

    idiots.

    john jay

    • It is not explained. I would say his “argument” displays the fallacy of “excluded middle”, but he wouldn’t understand what I was talking about any more than he and many people know what the term of art, “begging the question” refers to.
      So, guns are the cause of inequality and oppression and all the ills of the world. That’s right, Jake. For tens of thousands of years before the invention of single-person portable firearms there was absolutely no inequality, no oppression of women, the weak, the elderly, or the poor, people died of old age, not murder, there was no crime, no war, no famine, no pestilence; women could walk alone at night anywhere and not fear rape or murder, and no one was robbed of what little he or she owned.
      What a load of — of — (let’s keep it G-rated) five day old fish guts.

  7. Colonel Colt’s invention advertised; ‘“Be not afraid of any man, no matter what his size. When danger threatens call on Me and I will Equalize!”

    Actually, I want more than to ‘equalize’. I want overmatch. Mr. Schuman can osculate my Gluteus Maximus.

  8. He is smarter than all of us. We simply do not posses the capacity to understand, and so of course we are going to disagree with him.

    Given the fact the he is smart and we are not, and the fact that we none the less have influence in the political sphere, it follows that we should be ignored or silenced for the sake of the common good including our own good. Q.E.D. It’s time to evolve.

  9. Pingback: SayUncle » The equality argument for gun control

  10. So, Jake, what are you doing to take the millions of guns out of the hands of thugs who terrorize the poor and perpetuate their poverty and inequality?

    Yeah, that’s what I thought, you feckless coward.

  11. Am I reading this right? Is he really basically saying:

    “If poor people didn’t have guns to rob people with, they would like totally have to get a job or something”

Comments are closed.