Thursday, September 09th, 2010
Stupid Is as Stupid Does...
Posted:Tuesday, March 18, 2008
Today the Supreme Court will hear the case concerning Washington D.C.'s ban on handgun ownership. Once again the "Achilles Heel" of the progressives is thrown into the spotlight.
CNN has a pretty good article on the subject and they have selected the opinions of two women to represent the opposing viewpoints.
The first woman (supporting the right to own handguns), says that in her crime-ridden neighborhood she is victimized on a regular basis. And since she has become a public advocate of gun ownership (in order to deter crime), she has been singled out by the local criminal element for additional abuse (damage to her home and car, threats of physical violence, etc.). She says that she already has bars on her windows, an alarm system, a dog... and still the crimes keep occurring. She asked the police what she should do, and an officer told her "to buy a gun".
On the other side of the fence is a young woman who had the misfortune to be one of the victims of the recent Virginia Tech incident, which left her with a bullet lodged near her brain stem and a very lucky escape from death. She claims we need more gun legislation to prevent these types of incidents, because right now it is "just to easy" for criminals to get guns. She also claims that she doesn't want to prevent law-abiding citizens from owning them, she just wants to keep them out of the hands of criminals.
Where do we begin? How do you politely describe a total lack of intellect (or at least a total lack of intellectual integrity)?
As any regular reader of this blog already knows, I don't agree with the idea of gun control. I have explained on several occasions why I do not, and have supported this stance with a variety of reasons. Today, however, we will stick to the arguments at hand.
The argument in favor of gun ownership (self-protection) is rather straight-forward, in fact, the V Tech victim even states she doesn't want to prevent law-abiding citizens from owning guns, so I am not going to explain the reasons for supporting gun ownership.
Let's concentrate instead on the arguments for gun control. The victim's argument is that she wants to keep the guns out of the hands of criminals. And she proposes to do this by enacting new laws. Already we have a problem. The victim either has no understanding of the word "criminal" or she is being disingenuous in the extreme. Criminals are criminals because the break (or entirely disregard) laws. How then will making a new law dissuade someone who regularly breaks laws? If a criminal needs a gun, they don't go down to Wal-Mart and buy one. They either break into a home or gun store and steal one, or buy one from another criminal who has acquired guns illegally. Where does a new gun law fit into this picture? How is this law going to affect this operating procedure?
Next, let's look at who is mounting the most vigorous opposition to the woman who is advocating gun ownership in D.C. Is it the law-abiding townsfolk? Is it the police department? No. It is the local criminal element. Why do you suppose that is?
Let's examine. Suppose you were criminally inclined. Would you want to set up shop (be it to sell illicit goods or mug the locals for cash to buy said illicit goods) in a community where the populace could possibly be packing heat, or would you want to set up shop where there was a law against gun ownership--a community where you had a pretty good idea that your illegal handgun was the only one on the block? Ummmm... That is what I call a "no brainer".
So, what we are left with is the V Tech victim's final argument that she wants to prevent mentally-unstable people from obtaining handguns. Well, there are a lot of things we want to prevent mentally-unstable people from doing, but, unfortunately, they are people too. And if someone has a mental condition, but is properly medicated, and takes their medication their whole life, and never has a "whacko" episode, why should they be disallowed from protecting their home? And conversely, what's to prevent a perfectly rational person, who may own guns, from having some sort of chemical imbalance that sets him off?
You can't legislate this kind of stuff. It is asinine. It is no different than saying people suffering from depression shouldn't be allowed to drive a car. You can't split hairs like that.
Baseline here folks: If you make guns (or gun ownership) illegal, only criminals will have guns.
That doesn't help anyone.
There are currently 200 million (estimate) privately-held firearms in the United States. Do you really think that if you prevent people from buying them legally, the criminals won't be able to get one?
If you believe this then you are stupid. I am sorry, but there is no other way to put it. We could parse it out as "sorta naive" or " kinda clueless", but the point is we are dealing with the protection of one's home and the preservation of life. We have to call it for what it is: just plain stupid.
If you don't want a gun in your house, fine. But don't try and foist that line on those who have a completely different set of circumstances than you.
Read More Here >>>Article