Search Box

Sunday, May 28, 2017

Gun control contradictions

One of the lines of reasoning about immigration that you hear a lot from liberals is: well, the illegals are already here, so there's nothing you can do about it. What are you going to do, deport them all?

There's some truth to that -- it would be difficult to round every last one up and send them back to their home countries. (Even though plenty of countries -- like Mexico -- do exactly that.)

But somehow the liberals employ a completely different line of reasoning when it comes to guns. What they would really like -- ideally -- is to confiscate all handguns not belonging to the government.

But there are roughly 300 million guns circulating in this country, as opposed to 10 million illegal immigrants. And it's far easier to hide a gun than it is an illegal immigrant.

What are the odds that a gun ban would cause anybody with murder in mind to turn in his gun? (Anybody willing to risk the death penalty or life in prison for murder is not going to worry about the penalty for merely owning an unlicensed gun.)

Another contradiction: liberals disapprove of stop and frisk in the high crime areas where most murders take place. They prefer to concentrate on confiscation from law-abiding gun owners in suburban and rural areas. (The only people who would turn in their guns, by definition, would be law-abiding.)

Do liberals think a gun ban would result in all gang members dutifully showing up at the nearest police station to peacefully surrender weapons which are already illegal anyway?

According to liberal logic, the way to cut down the number of gun deaths is to take guns from the people who have permits, not from criminals with illegal guns.

4 comments:

Rona said...

Reasoning doesn't figure much into liberal position regarding guns and who should be allowed to own them.

I think that liberal stance is entirely based on several strong emotions. Fear, resentment and hatred.

Steve Sailer made the connection between great fear of Blacks liberals in large cities have and their demands for gun control. In this way liberals are not entirely illogical. Their ideology won't permit them to take sensible positions of stop-and-frisk, or even to acknowledge that Black men are statistically more dangerous. And yet they are afraid of them.

So, they demand that all citizens be disarmed. If the government stomps down hard on everyone than it's not racist. This way blacks are disarmed without sacred principle of equality being broken. And liberal can relax walking down the street at night.

However, even if black crime magically disappeared I believe liberals would fight for disarmament with the same passion, fueled by hatred.
Resentment and hatred for American white men and what guns represent. Freedom, independence, rebellion, defense of constitutional rights, masculinity.
Imagine the delight liberals would feel at images of police confiscating arms from white Southerners. The demasculinization of it.

I've often seen this in arguments about second amendment. There'll be an argument between a conservacuck and a liberal, and after a few ineffective conservative points about self-defense, invariably some leftist will bitch how "you don't need assault weapons to hunt a deer" and scare of a mugger.

To this a libertarian will mention that the entire point of the right to arms is to offer resistance to government should it turn against people, and not about deer hunting.

Against this argument liberal has no logical response. He will, instead, reflexively take the side of the government in any potential confrontation with armed citizenry and squeal with delight at how gov will crush and destroy any such upraising.

Now, someone who takes liberals on their stated principles would find this situation very odd. Liberals taking the side of powerful, authoritarian, militarized government against spontaneous rebellion of individuals?

Who, whom.

John Craig said...

Rona --
You're absolutely right, on every count.

Another big contradiction I didn't mention: a lot of the gun control debates center on "assault weapons," as if all weapons aren't meant for assault. But if you look at the percentage of murders that are committed by rifles it's roughly 1 to 1.5%. The difference is that AR-15's and the like are owned by rural whites, whereas inner city gang members use handguns.

Who, whom, as you say.

Rona said...

Oh yes, "assault weapons", imaginary classification that means nothing. They'd pronounce children's water guns assault weapons if they looked menacing enough.

Your hate percentages are entirely correct and the best evidence of how useless countering liberal gun rhetoric with actual facts is.

One thing I find interesting is how much their animosity towards opponents takes precedence over their general value of harm-reduction.

The fixation on "assault weapons" despite such small number of deaths associated with them, refusal to discuss severe mental problems and medications many mass shooters were on, despite otherwise always talking about mental health, therapy and big pharma. In mass shootings it is only the guns and NRA to blame.

The USA black/white differences in gun ownership and rates of violence are not to be ever mentioned, of course, but I used to take the race out of the question by bringing up countries like Switzerland with high gun ownership/very low violence thinking the surely this will make liberal permit himself to objectively consider the issue. Mostly, I was mistaken. Guns must be banned and people who wish to own them are evil. That is all there is to it.

John Craig said...

Rona --
Once again, you're absolutely right: the Left is immune to facts. And any facts they don't like they label as "hate speech" or "junk science" or "discredited theories."

And yes, they are filled with hatred and resentment, which makes their characterization of their opposition highly ironic.

I've noticed that a lot of the mass shooters seem to have Aspergers Syndrome, or a more severe form of autism, and a few -- like Jared Loughner -- are obviously schizophrenic. But despite all the talk of how guns have to be kept out of the hands of the mentally ill, the Left refuses to really delve into the specifics of what they mean by "mentally ill" and which syndromes the various shooters had. As always, cant and rhetoric take precedence over a hard, honest look.

And yes, the racial angle is key. I've brought up Switzerland too, but nobody is ever willing to concede that country is a good controlled study. When I point out the in Switzerland it's actually required by law for males over the age of 21 to own a rifle, they just change the subject.