Well thought out, well written compare and contrast of both edges of the debate

[The Polack MSgt]

Snip -
The most fervent and polarized sides in the renewed debate on gun control share one piece of solid common ground: they both invest rather magical qualities in the cold, lifeless hardware of guns themselves.

For liberals, the very term “gun violence” has been reified into some sort of natural force, completely detached from any identifiable root causes other than guns themselves—as if .45 semi-automatics, Bushmaster black rifles, and high-capacity magazines exert some hypnotic gravitational pull that beckons latent maniacs to pick them up and spray innocent crowds with military-like barrages.

On the other side, hardcore NRA supporters and certain other Second Amendment support groups define guns and weaponry as not just the symbolic but also the highest material expression of liberty, freedom, and moral rectitude. Anybody who can buy and possess a gun, especially if he or she conceals it—or even open carries—in public, automatically passes into the ranks of being a “good guy.” No matter what this new hero’s background, inclinations, or emotional make-up might be.

Snip-

A bit long but a very good read

http://www.theamericanconservative.com/articles/gun-control-is-a-misfire/

[pablo_marmol]

1. *Outstanding* article. Sadly, many will employ the genetic fallacy to dismiss it.

Here are just a few of the high points for me:

"Liberals also now recur to the scourge of “gun violence” as a convenient way to betray their own historic commitment to greater social justice. No longer do they need to tackle such daunting issues as urban decay, low wages, and poor education because they prefer to reverse cause and effect: if we could only get rid of guns… It’s become a catchall mantra for the disorder of too many urban centers and the marginalization of their inhabitants, who are the ones doing most of the dying—and most of the killing."

"I am not interested in any discussion of what the Second Amendment really means, nor am I much interested in any moral discourse either way on guns. I am not, simply, because the horse left the barn a very long time ago and those guns are here to stay. No buyback program, no further restriction laws, no weapons bans are going to make any visible difference. Any control measure that does not start from this reality is about as realistic as signing a petition against earthquakes."

"Gun-control activists need not take my word for it that their strategy has been a rank failure. In 2015, the FBI processed a record number of firearms background checks: more than 23 million requests were handled by the National Instant Background Check System. Again, there is no certainty, but it is estimated that only 1 percent or maybe 2 percent of those checks come back negative, meaning that at least 20 million new guns were put into circulation just last year."


"Consider the case of Dick Metcalf, for decades one of the most respected and followed “gun writers” in America. In 2013 he briefly surfaced as one of those honest interlocutors when he wrote a back-page editorial for Guns and Ammotitled “Let’s Talk Limits.” Arguing the rational position that all rights have limits and that regulation does not mean infringement, he applauded a new provision in Illinois that anybody receiving a concealed-carry permit must undergo 16 hours of certified training. (Some states require no training, and a few not even a permit. Those that do require training usually impose eight hours.)

A tsunami of protest ensued. The magazine was inundated with howls of heresy and threats of cancellation, and gun manufacturers unholstered a possible advertising boycott that would have defunded the magazine—which nowadays is little more than an advertising vehicle.

Within a week, Metcalf was thrown out on his rear and the magazine issued a groveling mea culpa that satisfied the gun-makers and its own subscriber base. That was all to be expected.

Also to be expected was that not a single gun-control group reached out to Metcalf to see if he might find some other like-minded gun owners and experts that could broaden a new coalition. Until the political leadership on gun regulation prominently includes gun owners respected and trusted by other owners, and until the movement sheds its partisan and liberal identification, it is destined to go nowhere."

[Eleanors38]

3. Similar thing happened to Outdoor Life hunting editor Jim Zumbo 10 years ago...

I believe that the controllers don't want to broaden their base by reaching out to 2A defenders who might have a reasonable idea about regulation, and many 2A defenders are not interested in reasonable regs regardless bcause of the withering animosity between the two sides, and because one side leads 49-O with three minutes left.

As someone said years ago the gun control issue is "culture war by proxy."

[pablo_marmol]

6. Thanks for the reminder.

I vaguely recall the Zumbo case.

[Eleanors38]

7. He texted from the hunting woods negative remarks about "assault weapons," to wit

they ddn't belong in the field becase of the association they had with crime and terrorism. Within 3 days he lost his long-time hunting editorship with Outdoor Life, various sponsorships, and his T.V. hunting show. Completely carpet bombed.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

2. I don't know about "liberty, freedom, and moral rectitude"

but if you wear a size 3 dress a gun is the most effective means of self defense.

[Eleanors38]

4. Thanks so much for this reference. Should be required reading in GD.

[sarisataka]

5. An excellent read

Unfortunately that word "reality" is a show-stopper amongst gun control activists. It has been deemed an NRA talking point (c) and therefore irrelevant