Piling on

Following a link from Kevin’s post I have been commenting on scot goes pop! post regarding his reasons for advocating gun bans. The poor guy is getting buried with comments and Kevin hasn’t really contributed anything yet. Kevin plans to post a response tomorrow.


Here is my latest comment:


James, nukes and chemical weapons are only useful for geographical areas not subpopulations within an area which is almost always the case in genocide. And the use of nukes, and to a certain extent CW, tends to make the attacked area uninhabitable which is almost always undesirable for the attacking forces.
Except for Japan in 1945 it has always come down to “boots on the ground” to force the submission. And in genocidal environments the defenders typically outnumber the attackers 100:1 which are very good odds for the defenders even when inadequately trained and equipped. Check out the Warsaw Ghetto Uprising or even watch the movie Defiance for typical results when vastly under armed. Had they been better armed they would have done much better.
You are going to have to explain what you mean by “the relationship between state and citizenry is in reality built more on crossed fingers and assumptions of good faith in the US than it is in many European countries (with or without strict gun laws)”. I have no idea what you are talking about. Our entire system is built upon our public servants being given enumerated powers from the people. With all powers not specifically granted to the government being reserved by the people. And the Second Amendment guarantees it stays that way. See also the recent D.C. versus Heller decision by our Supreme Court which validates that viewpoint.
“I think as a rational man you must know that whether or not the number of deaths rose after the gun ban is irrelevant”. Not irrelevant. Had you said “not conclusive” I would agree. It’s a strong indicator. Since we can’t start the experiment over again with identical conditions it’s tough to arrive at conclusions with 100% certainty. The other way to test the hypothesis “do weapon restrictions make people safer” is to compare across political boundaries that share similar demographical and economic populations. Such an example would be in Washington D.C. with a complete ban on handguns and just across the river in Virginia where guns can be carried concealed by permit or openly by nearly any adult. The violence is much lower in Virginia. Similar comparisons can be made in Chicago and surrounding areas with the same result. Had you read my Just One Question blog post and followed up on the CDC review of “Reports Evaluating the Effectiveness of Strategies for Preventing Violence: Firearms Laws” you would have known that. The conclusion was “The Task Force found insufficient evidence to determine the effectiveness of any of the firearms laws or combinations of laws reviewed on violent outcomes.” Beyond that I have done correlation analysis between crime statistics and the “grades” the Brady Campaign (a US anti-gun group) gave the states. The results were that there was essentially no correlation. The same conclusion reached by the CDC.
I find it telling that you continue to refer “gun violence rates” rather than total violence or murder rates. If you honestly believe those numbers are useful then you are including justifiable defensive shootings by both police and private citizens in the “bad” category. I can only conclude that 1) you find it somehow preferable that someone be murdered with a club, knive, or feet than by a bullet; and/or 2) you wish to obfuscate the facts.
“Just chanting “numbers, numbers” at me will not remove your basic credibility problem.” I have provide numbers and pointers to numbers which validate my case. What do you have? Just opinions as far as I can tell. I find your credibility as lacking as those that would demand people with dark skin tones be deported or banned from public after dark. It appears to me you have an irrational fear of people with guns. You cannot defend your position with anything other than your expression of fear. And from my personal experience of carrying a gun every day (including right now) and being in the presence of people with guns every day I know to be quite unjustified.
If you wish to debate this on the very poor basis of anecdotal evidence then I can play that game too. Check out my blog category Places Without Guns.
In answer to your “Just One Question”, I am not keen to wish mass gun ownership on a country that simply doesn’t want it. I wish to remove restrictions on a fundamental human right that is being infringed. Whether those people wish to exercise that right would then be up to them. It is unlikely that would result in “mass gun ownership” any more than it has in the U.S. where only about 40% of homes have guns in them. I seek the middle ground.


Update: This post is being hit hard by comment spam. I have turned off comments. If you have something you want to say about it send me an email and I’ll post the comment exactly as you want it.


One thought on “Piling on

  1. ABC’s 20/20 just did a one hour hit piece against gun ownership Friday night, April 10th. Along with the usual clichés, it showed anecdote after anecdote, some of them very familiar to the gun bloggers, and many years old. They even went as far as interviewing little kids from the inner cities, telling us all the great things they wanted to do in their lives. But alas, the scourge of guns is preventing them. You’d have to see it to believe it. They’ve reached a new low.

    I interpret the timing of the hit piece as preparation for a legislation drive. Get ahead of it– write your congressweasels and warn them.

Comments are closed.