False dichotomy
Can gun-rights defenders offer a reciprocal reassurance about their intentions? Is there a willingness to discuss trying to reduce gun-related injuries and deaths in this country? This question presupposes a prior question: Can we agree that 30,000 annual gun-related deaths (and many more injuries) is undesirable; that it is a problem? If we can agree on that, we can proceed to discuss how one might reduce these numbers without threatening the fundamental right to own a firearm.
I don’t care if every other gun owner on the planet killed someone last night. I didn’t and my rights are non-negotiable.
April 6th, 2014 at 9:42 pm
The answer to the question asked, as you say, is “no.”
And even if rights weren’t absolute, would they admit that the burden is on the *restrictor* to justify that any given restriction can and will work? That the uninfringed peaceable exercise of any right is the default position requiring no defense or justification?
If they’d just admit to that, and thus their burden to produce evidence instead of hypotheticals and baseless possibilities; we could have the “discussion” over in the 20 minutes it would take to counter the scant actual academic “evidence” they have which even remotely supports their positions.
April 6th, 2014 at 9:52 pm
To *own* *a* firearm.
Well, he sounds trustworthy!
April 6th, 2014 at 10:01 pm
Somewhere near 20k of those deaths are by folks’ own hands.
I am certainly not someone to tell another people that they should not have the right to free will, even when that will is used to end their own lives.
Furthermore, using inflated numbers is not doing Rand any good at all…
April 7th, 2014 at 12:39 am
30,000…. And when you take out suicides, accidents, justified homicides by police and citizen you have approx 6000-7000 actual murders…
Anyone usin the 30k number can be immediately dismissed. If you want to have a discussion, start by being honest.
April 7th, 2014 at 4:47 am
Lets see. So what he is saying is that the pro gun crowd needs to give special assurance to exercise their constitutional rights???
Its times like this I wish the 1st amendment was treated the same way. The beginning of his article had a man screaming profanity at him.
After all what has gotten more people killed? Guns or WORDS?
Nearly every murder starts off as an argument based on envy, jealousy or religion.
That is why we need 1st amendment licensing and certification. You need common sense laws on what to say, when to say it, and whom to say it too.
April 7th, 2014 at 7:30 am
“After all what has gotten more people killed? Guns or WORDS?”
When I’m asked this by anti’s in the form of this diatribe: “Well, the FIRST Amendment hasn’t killed anyone!”
I reply:
Let’s ask all those victims of those inspired by Mein Kampf and The Communist Manifesto.
As you say…thugs and bullies usually start out with words……
April 7th, 2014 at 8:11 am
I’m perfectly willing to discuss ways that society can help the mentally disturbed realize that harming themselves and others isn’t the right answer. I’m perfectly willing to discuss ways we gun owners can encourage safe gun handling practices by our fellow gun owners. I’m perfectly willing to discuss ways that the criminal justice system can prevent repeat violent criminals from committing more violent crimes.
Perhaps Mr. Cooper just needs to take a stroll outside his ideological bubble once in a while. From what I’ve seen in the conservative press in general and gun blogs and other industry related media in particular, there’s been a great deal of discussion about reforming the mental health system, promoting gun safety instruction and strictly enforcing laws against violent crime. Show a little interest in actually addressing the root of those “30,000 annual gun-related deaths” and maybe gun nuts will take you seriously when you claim to respect our rights and deny wanting to confiscate our guns.
April 7th, 2014 at 8:34 am
AndyN. The reason the progressive types do not wish to talk about it art these:
1. It takes away from their Utopian ideal.
2. It will not happen over night for instant gratification.
3. It will not make them feel warm and fuzzy insider because they are “rescuing” people from the bogeyman.
April 7th, 2014 at 8:38 am
That is exactly how it starts Cargosquid.
It is particularly funny when dealing with progressive academics. They know the truth of what you are saying, and hate your guts all the more for being able to out argue them despite the education difference.
April 7th, 2014 at 9:49 am
We should just pass a law that outlaws the use of guns in suicides. That will immediately cut the gun death by 2/3.
April 7th, 2014 at 11:54 am
The prohibitionists do not *care* how low that number gets; they are after Prohibition itself, not Prohibition as a means to an end.
Consider the FBI Uniform Crime Reports 2012, Table 20, Murder by State and Type of Weapon:
http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2012/crime-in-the-u.s.-2012/tables/20tabledatadecpdf
In light of the above—if the prohibitionists were really just interested in reducing violence, rather than screwing as many lawful gun owners as possible, then they would not be fighting to outlaw the most popular rifles, when rifles of any type are used in only ~300 homicides annually (less than knives, clubs, and feet/hands), are underrepresented in suicides, and are limited to the same rate of fire as any other civilian firearm.
April 7th, 2014 at 12:14 pm
I think all gun owners are interested in reducing violent crime, and I don’t thin anybody likes suicide.
The fact that the anti-gun people see every problem being solved by banning guns and restricting gun owners shows their inability to think logically.
We can’t SOLVE these problems, but we sure can reduce them. Step 1 is stop wasting your time trying to take our guns away, and look at the REAL problem.
Hell its not like many of the murders happen in this country with lawfully held guns. Hell most of them happen WITHOUT guns.
hey but maybe if we ban guns…..
April 7th, 2014 at 1:04 pm
These gun banners love to pretend that gun crime is spread evenly across all populations and demographics.
Strangely, I have never been robbed, raped, or murdered at a gun range or a book store. Neither has anyone where I work, or that I associate with.
It is, rather, mostly concentrated among a very specific demographic of a very particular age range, sex, ethnic group, set of locales, and involvement in specific other illegal activities. We all know exactly what I’m referring to.
Gun violence outside this unique set of circumstances is relatively uncommon, and has been decreasing for decades.
It’s not about the guns, it’s about control.
April 7th, 2014 at 5:01 pm
I just wanted to add that reading the comments to that Op-Ed (and to Unc’s post) was heart-warming in the extreme. Thoughtful, considered, rational speech is such a rarity on the Internet these days. (and no, I don’t consider Rand’s Op-Ed itself a part of anything rational – just the responses to it.)