Have you noticed how Public Health use the same soundbites and same arguments, over and over again? How they repeat the same things until people just believe them, even if they are completely and totally wrong? How once these oft repeated soundbites and arguments become so widely accepted by the general populous, they are used to bring in new legislation?
The Government has just said they are going to review the stakes on fixed odds betting terminals. The MP shouting for this in our local paper, Graham Jones, said they are the 'Crack Cocaine of Gambling'.
I forget who first came up with this term, but it's simple, catchy and now everyone is using it, even to call for new regulations that are not needed, for an issue that is very much misunderstood
'Smokefree' is another good one. It has nothing to do with freedom. Tobacco and Obesity epidemics are often spoken of, yet neither can be classed as such, as they are not communicable diseases
The argument for gun control is packed with such arguments, references and soundbites. I've just come across another gun control article last Thursday morning. It's on some website I've never previously heard of, but it follows the usual narrative completely
Let's take a look
Out of all the amendments to the Constitution, one in particular causes a huge divide in not only politics, but also within society as a whole. The second amendment states “A well-regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”
The wording of the 2A is certainly open to interpretation. Those who favour the right to bear arms will interpret it in a different way to those who want guns banned. When something is ambiguous, there can be no right and wrong way to look at it, when two sides disagree.
The right of the people to keep and bear arms is quite plain. It's the reasons for that, that come up for debate; the idea of a well regulated militia and what that means in the modern era.
When the original Bill of Rights was ratified, there was no standing military at the time, so Americans formed armed militia groups to keep the peace. Now it is the 21st century where the US holds a strong military, and when people talk about politics, the subject of gun control is usually brought up.
Those for gun regulation will say the 2A is no longer needed, because it was written for a time when guns were simple muskets and now there is an army and police force to defend the people
Those against gun control will say that the 2A was written to defend the people against that very army and police force, should it become necessary and the people have a right to be armed with the very same weapons
What is also not open to interpretation in the 2A is 'The Security of a Free State'. If the Government were to become a dictatorship, that would not be a free state. The people would therefor need a means of defence against the state and that would not be muskets
The above quote is also incorrect, in that the Unites States Army was formed more than fifteen years before the 2A was adopted. It wouldn't have been huge at that point, but it was there
The next four typical gun control arguments in this article come in one sentence alone:
Gun control does not mean getting rid of guns, but rather more comprehensive background checks and maybe not selling military grade weapons to civilians. When has anyone needed an AR-15 to hunt animals?
I'll break it down
Background checks: If the right to bear arms is mainly for defence against a dictatorship, it's no good for that Government to have a comprehensive list of all the people who own guns. And what happens if you fail a background check? If you are deemed to unstable to own a gun, should you not be in prison anyway?
Military grade weapons: The military do not own semi automatic rifles, they own fully automatic rifles, which for all intents and purposes, are banned anyway. The people do not own military grade weapons
An AR15: This is the weapon of choice for gun control activists. They always mention the AR15. It's simply a semi auto rifle like any other, yet it's joined popular culture as something to be seen as particularly scary
For hunting: The 2A is not about hunting, it's about the 'Security of a Free State', as the author mentioned in the opening paragraph
The Center for Disease Control (CDC) and Prevention for 2016 recorded 33,594 firearm related deaths -- that is about 92 deaths by firearms per day.
The gun control advocate speaks only of gun deaths. All other deaths are ignored. If you open the debate and include the figures for all types of violent crime, things change a lot. The UK has a higher rate of violent crime than American states with open or concealed carry laws. In those states, people are not victims and criminals do not know if they are going to get shot in the commission of a crime, which makes them think long and hard before doing so.
Armed citizens prevent rapes, assaults, muggings, home invasions, etc. These types of crime are never discussed by gun controllers and the number of lives saved due to the 2A is never mentioned
“There is a lot our nation can do to improve gun control,” said Marisa Martin, a Biochemistry major at Santa Monica College. “There have been a lot of study’s and in other nations over and over its been proven that stricter gun control has decreased gun related violence incidents.” Martin does believe that people should arm themselves, just not with automatic weapons. “Civilians should not have access to military grade weapons,” Martin said.
Two for one here. Reducing guns in other countries reduced gun deaths, but no mention of the resultant increase in other forms of violent crime. Also another reference to automatic and military grade weapons, which we covered above. Gun controllers do not understand guns very well
The article follows with another quote from another person who also talks about military grade weapons. Thats' three experts for the price of one article, who don't have a clue about guns and current laws
One popular solution to this issue is the idea of the US following Australia's example from 1996.
Australia always gets an honourable mention in any gun control article. They banned guns and successfully reduced gun deaths. Anyone who has looked at the situation in Australia and the aftermath of the ban, understands that it had it's own unintended consequences, just like the band in the UK, resulting in an increase in violent crime and no visible reduction in shootings unless you massage the figures
And who better to massage figures? We all know him from his tobacco control endeavours, but it appears he's becoming a little bored and moving on to another area he understands just about as much. Ladies and gentlemen, Simon Chapman
On top of that, professor Simon Chapman and his colleagues at the University of Sydney found that from 1979 to 1996, Australia had only 13 mass shootings. Five or more victims in a shooting incident warrants national headlines. For more than twenty years, there have been no mass shootings in Australia that meet this criteria.
Are we talking about gun deaths or are we talking about mass gun deaths now? Gun deaths have not gone away, on the contrary, there are plenty of shootings in Australia, along with all the other violent crime that citizens are now unable to defend themselves against, but as long as there have been no 'mass shootings', all's well in Oz
The possibility that the US government will implement the same kind of laws Australia did is not likely. Especially since one of the main Republican party contributors is the National Rifle Association (NRA).
Blame the NRA. The NRA is simply an advocacy group who uses it's influence to lobby Government. Pretty much like any gun control group does. We see it with Public Health everyday. Big Tobacco, Big Sugar, Forest and even grass roots campaign groups. Anyone who stands against the message is painted as big and evil and in control of the powers that be. The Goliath against the David of gun / tobacco / salt / fat control
“I understand the Second Amendment, but I also have issues and problems when individuals have as many weapons that they have that can hurt people,” said Chief of Police Johnnie Adams, of the Santa Monica Community College District.
I have many kitchen knives and an array of other household items that could easily be used to kill. I also own three guns. It's not the weapon, it's the nut job that holds it. Ban one and there are plenty of other options, as we have recently seen with calls to ban household bleach because some psychos are using it to cause harm
This article is simply a rehash of the same old arguments, just like any similar calls for gun control or regulation of anything else you can think of.
The problem is, these people never stop. And the last thing on the mind of our political class who spend a few years at best grasping on to power, is maintaining the freedom of the people. All they want is to make a name for themselves and it's the people who write this kind of inaccurate and mis-informed article that afford them their opportunity
And every time we lose a little freedom, it's gone forever
4 Comments:
Post a Comment