The anti gun troops are out in force today. And, as always, they lie.
When they say they only want “Reasonable compromise” and “common sense gun control” they lie.
After all, they’ve said that before. They’ve said “we just want this reasonable restriction, just that” time and time again. And every time, they’ve lied. The ink wasn’t even dry on the agreement when they started talking about it being a “good first step.”
When the “Brady Bill” was passed it provided for a 7 day waiting period on buying handguns so that the police could perform a background check on the purchasing individual. I bought my first handgun (a little .22 semi) under that law. Later, in 1998, the waiting period sunsetted, NICS “instant check” went into effect, and the background check provisions were extended to rifles and shotguns as well. Immediately howls went up to put the waiting period back into place (and some States did so at the state level). They had the background checks that they insisted were what they wanted, really, but that wasn’t good enough.
Nothing ever is.
When they say “just reasonable, common-sense gun laws” they lie.
When they say that gun control is to combat crime, they lie.
When the Federal “Assault Weapons Ban” was passed, it had no detectable effect on crime. To be expected since rifles of all types, let alone those with the cosmetic features that ran afoul of this ban, were only used in a tiny number of crimes in the first place. When the AWB sunsetted, we saw no corresponding rise in crime.
Indeed, none of the more than 20,000 gun laws currently in existence (counting Federal, and various State and local crimes) have had any positive impact on crime. Indeed, we see that starting in the mid-80’s where Florida’s “Shall Issue” carry permit law (the permit must be issued unless there is a clear legal reason not to) restrictions on people carrying guns have lessened. And yet violent crime is down. If gun control were about reducing crime, then lessening that control would have to lead to an increase. It doesn’t.
The best they can come up with is a shaky study where the States that have fewer gun laws have fewer “gun death”. What they don’t tell you is that the largest number of people killed by gunshot are suicides. And when a person is suicidal the availability of guns may affect choice of method; it doesn’t affect whether they’re suicidal. Where gun are more restricted the suicides are just as dead. They just choose other methods.
And, really, gun deaths? You want to go to the funeral of someone who was stabbed or bludgeoned or choked to death and tell them “at least they weren’t shot”? Please don’t. One, I don’t want you to inflict yet more pain on the bereaved with that ridiculous “comfort” and two, I don’t want to be responsible for the beating you might receive in response.
When they say it’s about crime, they lie.
When they say other countries have “solved” their violence problem with gun control, they lie.
Anti-gun folk love to point out that X nation has strict gun control and gun bans and has a low violent crime rate. What they don’t want to tell you is what things were like before the strict gun control was implemented. Ask them for a case where a country starts out with high violent crime rate, passed gun control/bans, and ended up with a low violent crime rate. At best they’ll point to Australia, where, after its semi-automatic weapons ban, the general declining trend continued. Oh, they’ll pick a high point in the random year to year variation before and a low point in the variation after, and that can hoodwink the unwary (and is an intellectually dishonest argument). Generally speaking, however, the whole “other countries solved their problem with gun control” evaporates when you look at what effect gun control actually affected the violence in that country.
Also, they’ll always limit their argument to “developed countries” or “western nations” or another cherry-picked list. What they don’t want you to realize is that by doing so they tacitly admit that other factors than “gun control” are far, far more important than gun control. They wouldn’t have to limit it if that weren’t the case. What they also don’t want you to realize is that the difference is only in degree between the nations they include and those they exclude.
So when they say that “other countries have solved violence with gun control” they lie.
That’s the sum of the gun control movement, lies upon lies for their own ends. Whenever they open their mouths on the subject, lies emerge. Oh, the person speaking may sincerely believe what they are saying, they may be an honest person who simply has been misled by the movers and shakers of the gun control movement. But those movers and shakers? They lie. They lie deliberately and with a straight face. They play to your emotions to get past your logic filters to get you to accept the lie, but they lie. The truth is not in them. And, unfortunately, because of their play to emotion, the ever-present willingness to wave a bloody shirt to get what they want, even admitting that the laws they push won’t affect the crime that bloodied the shirt they want it passed anyway because….look! Bloody shirt! They are the vilest form of political opportunist.
And they lie.