Today’s Idiot
Nathan Theising, from this link sent by reader Kevin:
I am responding to Delman Nelson’s Nov. 23 letter to the editor about gun control letting criminals rule. Outlawing guns will not allow criminals to rule as long as we have law enforcement. An armed private citizen who is targeted in a crime is not guaranteed his or her safety because he or she is armed. Being armed only increases the chance that there will be a shootout between two or more untrained individuals, leading to tragedy.
The smart thing to do is comply with the criminal and let law enforcement deal with the perpetrator afterward. It is what they are trained and paid to do.
Really? Research seems to indicate otherwise.
Also, the argument that criminals do not respect the law and so laws will have no effect on them is not true. If guns are outlawed, most of the facilities that manufacture them would stop doing so, making it much harder for the criminal to find a gun to purchase illegally in the first place.
That may be the dumbest thing I’ve read. Gun legality does not equal gun availability. And it definitely does not equal gun crime.
December 1st, 2005 at 9:51 am
“If guns are outlawed, most of the facilities that manufacture them would stop doing so, making it much harder for the criminal to find a gun to purchase illegally in the first place.”
Yeah, like making narcotics illegal has prevented people from getting them, right?
“Idiot” is far too kind, Unc…
December 1st, 2005 at 12:45 pm
What the . . .?
I heard that Murder was now illegal. Problem solved, right?
December 1st, 2005 at 1:04 pm
“Gun legality does not equal gun availability.”
I found an intresting study via a liberal blog i read. The study was on underground gun markets, it had some intresting things to say.
here is a link
http://www.pubpol.duke.edu/people/faculty/cook/SAN05-08.pdf
December 1st, 2005 at 1:54 pm
I’m wondering if this person who thinks ordinary citizens should not be allowed to exercise armed self-defense is otherwise “pro-choice”. Oh, I forgot, being “pro-choice” only applies to being able to use deadly force to defend one’s self against an unborn child–for any and all reasons.
But hey, I’m “pro-choice” on guns. If this person wants to exercise unarmed pacifism, I don’t think the government should force him to keep or bear arms.
December 1st, 2005 at 11:37 pm
“If guns are outlawed, most of the facilities that manufacture them would stop doing so, making it much harder for the criminal to find a gun to purchase illegally in the first place.”
I guess he’s never heard of speakeasies.
December 2nd, 2005 at 12:17 pm
The ‘guns go away if we stop making them’ argument is astonishingly specious.
The logic MIGHT hold if we were trying to outlaw tomatos (… only the mafia will have spagetti sauce), but firearms are extraordinarily durable goods. Well maintained, a firearm will outlast generations of owners. Tolerably maintained it will last for decades. Badly maintained they can often be revived with a little care and a few simple replacement parts (often easy to make at home).
They are a simple technology (the main reason for that robustness). If no guns were available, simple ones could be easily manufactured. This will of course lead to restrictions on who can buy plumbing supplies to stop the ‘proliferation of evil ‘zip labs’ in the heartland of america’. But won’t stop the availability of guns.
But, ok. Let’s say I find a genie bottle and ‘poof’ every firearm out of the hands of everyone who doesn’t have a suitable government job. What then? Will crime cease? Will we suddenly dwell in a Eutopia where everyone lives to the age of 300 and dies of coronary orgasmosis?
Set your wayback machine (or, if you’re not a liberal, look in your history books) back 500 years. You will notice that crime existed, the weak preyed freely upon the strong and that goverments were generally opressive personality cults.
Crime is a human problem not a gun problem.
(oh, and don’t forget, when you ban guns, pointy knives WILL be next… the medical authorities in England are already calling for that- because their gun control fantasy has worked so well)
Jake
(who thinks people who are afraid of tools should not be allowed to make policy decisions)