Undauntra pointed me this way. This is an issue I'm extremely passionate about.
I do not use the phrase 'gun control'. What is being discussed is not just the restriction of guns, but of the right to self-defense. I support the right of self-defense for moral reasons, factual reasons, and historical reasons.
First, the moral argument for private firearms ownership. Firearms are tools that protect life. Firearms enable the weak to defend themselves from the strong who would prefer to use force to gain their desire. They also provide a bulwark against government tyranny. An armed populace is not easily cowed. For anyone fully educated on the data, there's really little question as to the efficacy of firearms at reducing violent crime. The desire to deprive people of the basic liberty to defend themselves and their property is morally corrupt.
Which brings us to the factual. Compare the Brady Campaign's list of the 'best' (read strictest) locations for depriving people of the right to self-defense and the list of the states and locales with the highest violent crime rates. There's a strong correlation. To go further afield, the most comprehensive review of studies of gun ownership versus gun violence is a survey study published by Harvard Law: http://www.law.harvard.edu/students/orgs/jlpp/Vol30_No2_KatesMauseronline.pdf. Counter to the expectations of the researchers going into it, they concluded that higher densities of gun ownership correlate with lower incidence of gun violence. Chart out the decline in violent crime that has occurred since the 70s with the relaxing of restrictions on private firearm ownership and again we see a correlation. The fact is, more guns equals more safety.
The 2nd Amendment protects the individual right to keep and bare arms. Just as the 1st protects freedom of speech and of associaton and of religion. The Founding fathers believed in this right and up until the civil war, the restrictions (or rather, their lack) would horrify most. Most cannon were privately owned, up to and including naval cannon. Cannon were the weapons of mass destruction of their day and the destruction a cannon could wreak is only comparable to mortar and high explosives. The 2nd Amendment is not about hunting. It's about exercising the gun to defend life and property against criminals and against the government if it should come to that.
Further, the roots of most gun control laws go back to the Jim Crow era. They started out as a way to keep blacks powerless. Gun registration and confiscation of also historically been prelude to fascist gov't control. it's much easier to send around jack-booted thugs if the populace is unarmed.
Another reason for my opposition to restricting further the right to self-defense is philosophical. Most proponents of those restrictions are hoplophobes who know little about firearms. The assault weapons ban that has been discussed of late is a perfect example. The phrase 'assault weapon' is a misnomer. It basically means the gun looks scary and is the result of confusing the political phrase created for the legislation with actual assault rifles. Which is another point where most hoplophobes are often confused and that is the difference between automatic weapons (which are effectively illegal) and semi-automatic weapons.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2012-12-18 03:27 am (UTC)I do not use the phrase 'gun control'. What is being discussed is not just the restriction of guns, but of the right to self-defense. I support the right of self-defense for moral reasons, factual reasons, and historical reasons.
First, the moral argument for private firearms ownership. Firearms are tools that protect life. Firearms enable the weak to defend themselves from the strong who would prefer to use force to gain their desire. They also provide a bulwark against government tyranny. An armed populace is not easily cowed. For anyone fully educated on the data, there's really little question as to the efficacy of firearms at reducing violent crime. The desire to deprive people of the basic liberty to defend themselves and their property is morally corrupt.
Which brings us to the factual. Compare the Brady Campaign's list of the 'best' (read strictest) locations for depriving people of the right to self-defense and the list of the states and locales with the highest violent crime rates. There's a strong correlation. To go further afield, the most comprehensive review of studies of gun ownership versus gun violence is a survey study published by Harvard Law: http://www.law.harvard.edu/students/orgs/jlpp/Vol30_No2_KatesMauseronline.pdf. Counter to the expectations of the researchers going into it, they concluded that higher densities of gun ownership correlate with lower incidence of gun violence. Chart out the decline in violent crime that has occurred since the 70s with the relaxing of restrictions on private firearm ownership and again we see a correlation. The fact is, more guns equals more safety.
The 2nd Amendment protects the individual right to keep and bare arms. Just as the 1st protects freedom of speech and of associaton and of religion. The Founding fathers believed in this right and up until the civil war, the restrictions (or rather, their lack) would horrify most. Most cannon were privately owned, up to and including naval cannon. Cannon were the weapons of mass destruction of their day and the destruction a cannon could wreak is only comparable to mortar and high explosives. The 2nd Amendment is not about hunting. It's about exercising the gun to defend life and property against criminals and against the government if it should come to that.
Further, the roots of most gun control laws go back to the Jim Crow era. They started out as a way to keep blacks powerless. Gun registration and confiscation of also historically been prelude to fascist gov't control. it's much easier to send around jack-booted thugs if the populace is unarmed.
Another reason for my opposition to restricting further the right to self-defense is philosophical. Most proponents of those restrictions are hoplophobes who know little about firearms. The assault weapons ban that has been discussed of late is a perfect example. The phrase 'assault weapon' is a misnomer. It basically means the gun looks scary and is the result of confusing the political phrase created for the legislation with actual assault rifles. Which is another point where most hoplophobes are often confused and that is the difference between automatic weapons (which are effectively illegal) and semi-automatic weapons.