Posted: 10/11/2013 3:26:03 AM EDT
|
All,
This is in reference to this thread: http://www.ar15.com/forums/t_1_5/1543176_EMILY_MILLER_EDUCATES_MSNBC_AUDIENCE_ON_GUNS.html&page=1 Ms. Miller did well. But not particularly well. Especially the bazooka comment. The reducto ad absurdem argument is the most common gun controller tactic. Anytime a gun rights activist goes up against a gun banner, there will be this argument forwarded. Variants include: Machine Guns Tanks Bazookas (no one says RPGs, which we will get to) Nuclear Weapons. The most common counter, I feel, suffers from tautology (circular logic through self-definition). IE, defining a bazooka as a "munition" instead of an "arm". If you define something as a "munition" you can ban it. So, reasonably, all you have to do is define scary weapons as "munitions" and then its legal (and supported by gun rights activists) Or, 1934 act says they are banned already (which is factually untrue, just particularly hard to get, which works to your advantage) If you are going to support a ban on ANY weapon, you will, logically, support a ban on ALL weapons simply by definition. This is a very weak defense in line with Winston Churchill's famous (but maybe not true) joke. Sitting next to an obnoxious woman at a dinner party, Winston interrupted with a non sequitur question, "Would you sleep with me for 1 million pounds?" "Why, yes, I suppose I would." "Would you sleep with me for 10 pounds?" "Of course not, what kind of woman do you think I am?" "That has been established, now we are just setting the price." I believe that without directly answering "Yes", you can not have to admit to any gun bans. So, for Machine Guns, the obvious answer (in my view) is that Machine Guns are legal, have been legal to own by private citizens since their invention, and a legally owned truly automatic machine gun was only used in a crime 1 or 2 times, and by a police officer no less. Law abiding citizens gather in various places several times a year for machine gun shoots. Steven Spielburg has reportadely one of the largest machine gun collections in the nation. I see no reason why millionaires like Spielberg, who can afford the worlds best private security, can have Machineguns but normal citizens can't. I likewise have no fear that spielburg, or any other lawful gun owner, would use such a weapon improperly. Either people obey laws or they don't. And if they don't, then all the laws in the world won't protect the innocent from the deranged or criminal. Bazookas. First bazookas are legal to own. It would be foolish for them not to be as they are simply a length of pipe with a simplistic firing mechanism. Any High School Freshman in metal shop could make one in a few hours with a couple hundred dollars and a ride from his parents down to lowes hardware. They are archaic weapons really of value only to the historical collector. The ammunition, which I assume you are actually worried about, I don't think is made anymore and isn't available. Should people be allowed to own inert pieces of pipe from 70 years ago? Sure. There is a reason drive by Bazooka crime isn't something we talk about. But lets assume you are talking about more modern equivalents, like RPGs. Also legal under current law. Even the ammunition is legally available, albeit at high cost and very rare availability. For those who wished to use one illegally, the illegal arms market from Mexico would be the easiest and cheapest mechanism to acquire one and the ammunition it requires. The US can't stop millions of people crossing the border illegally, nor thousands of tons of drugs, if criminals wanted RPGs to use, they would have them. For crimes, however, they aren't a very useful weapon. Even against armored vehicles for some reason popular with some police departments, the most effective weapon a criminal could use, as our troops overseas have discovered, would be one hundred pounds of household chemicals you could buy from a drug store or hardware store. IEDs are a greater threat. But we can buy dynamite, we can buy fertilizer, we can buy household chemicals legally. That should be your greater concern. I find the idea of privately owned jet aircraft a much greater risk. These weapons were used to kill thousands of Americans in only hours on 9-11. What is the background check process for John Travolta to buy a private aircraft bigger than the ones used on 9-11? What permit was required for him? Nuclear Bombs. (This one should be laughed at.) Sure. Go ahead. Go down to your local nuke store and get yourself an ICBM. Tell you what, go make yourself one. Let me know how it goes for you. What a ridiculous question. But then again, yours is a ridiculous argument. I believe that saying that any type weapon should be banned is a suckers bet. then you are a gun banner, just an argument over which ones. Rather highlight the legality of many weapons people believe are illegal and show how they aren't used in crimes and that is why legal ownership isn't an issue. Highlight legal ownership, by definition, means peaceful ownership. And if you want to make crimes illegal, well, I think we already do that. Those with neither the ability to obey the law (the insane) or the desire to obey the law (the criminal) are the ones to worry about regardless the weapons they choose. For the argument, "whats to stop someone from just going on a rampage?" you can always smile at the questioner and respond with, "psychiatrists call that projection." This is not a definitive guide, and would like to hear more arguments to counter some points I made or other common red herrings and strawman arguments from the gun control crowd. |
|
To counter the "do you think people should own nukes" silliness, I always reply if laws could prevent ownership, then North Korea wouldn't have them and Iran wouldn't be so close to having them.
Then I tell them to google the nuclear Boyscout. Like everything else, laws can't prevent possession, but only outlaw the legal commerce of or possession after the fact. Man is a tool maker, and with knowledge plus desire, men can make anything. Does anyone think that the US government provided anything other than resources that Oppenheimer et al needed to do what they did? I think the greatest barrier is the cost benefit to building something like that. Only the government can spend boatloads of money on something that doesn't produce a profit when it's completed. Nuke reactors weren't invented by the government, the government only stuck their noses in, maybe for a good reason and maybe not, but that's a different discussion. 3d printing isn't the only way yo make a firearm...it just makes it easier if not more expensive. Oh ya, I always add if laws and rules could prevent possession of weapons, then the one place in the world where no weapons should ever be found is in a prison. They watch those guys as close to 100% as is humanly possibly and they control their access to tools and raw materials! and yet there are wagons all over in prison. If you can't stop that, how can you reasonably expect to prevent it outside a 24/7/365 monitored environment. |