There was this article “5 Misconceptions Promoted by Democrats During Their ‘Gun Safety’ Forum”
- Gun Violence is an epidemic.
- In the light of risks students face, mass shooter drills in schools are sadly necessary.
- “Assault weapons” are uniquely deadly
- Background checks are an effective way to prevent mass shootings.
- The 2nd Amendment is about hunting.
Those aren’t “misconceptions.” They’re lies, pure and simple. There is no room for reasonable people to disagree. They are wrong, pure and simple. They are indefensible.
They are lies.
Violent crime, including gun crime, is down. It’s been coming down since the early to mid 90’s. There have been a couple of times where it rose slightly for a couple of years (although nothing compared to how it had been falling) before continuing its downward trend. There is no epidemic of gun crime no matter what the politicians, what the media, is telling you.
While events such as Parkland are horrific, the simple truth remains that there are something on the order of 98,000 schools where no such events have happened. Although they get media coverage far out of keeping with their frequency, events such as Parkland or Sandy Hook or the like are exceedingly rare. There are far more things to worry about, and deal with, than “mass shooters”. The simple, ordinary, everyday bullying that goes on all the time but doesn’t make headlines is far more a threat than mass shooters have ever been and are likely ever to be.
“Assault weapons”, whatever they mean by the term this week, generally describe rifles of moderate power–the AR pattern rifle in the most common caliber (.223 Remington or 5.56 NATO) is near the bottom end of centerfire rifles in terms of power–about 1300 foot-pounds. A common deer-hunting cartridge, the .30-30 Winchester has about 1800-1900 foot-pounds, with a larger bullet to cause a larger wound cavity. The venerable .30-06 has on the order of 3000 foot-pounds, similar to that of the shotgun recommended by former Vice President Joseph Biden. And they are semi-automatic, that means one bang per pull of the trigger. Playing games with words like “fully semi-automatic” doesn’t change that. Still one bang per pull of the trigger.
Background checks? While I don’t advocate abolishing the current system (largely because it would be wasted effort at this point) the simple truth is that it’s utterly worthless when it comes to keeping guns out of hands of criminals. When a sale is “denied” the felony committed by a prohibited person attempting to purchase a firearm is rarely prosecuted. So the criminal is able to go on and find alternative methods of obtaining a gun if he wants one. They can be stolen or purchased on the black market. Most gun used in crime are stolen. No background check in the world will prevent that. Background checks are a red herring, serving no useful purpose. They don’t stop criminals from getting guns. All they do is increase the cost (the checks aren’t free, where do you think the money for running the background check system comes from) and hassle for law-abiding gun owners.
And the 2nd being about hunting? Even their own arguments show that’s a lie. “It says well regulated militia” they say. You think militias were formed to hunt deer? Militias are formed to protect the people and the state. Deer aren’t generally a threat to either. Their argument about well-regulated militia is nonsense and is not the restriction on RKBA that they claim, but that they make the argument with regularity shows that the 2nd being about hunting is a lie.
So, no, there are no “misconceptions” here. They are lying, pure and simple.
The Writer in Black 
A few things….
Those aren’t “misconceptions.” They’re lies
They’re lies when they’re told by prog leaders. They’re misconceptions when believed by ignorant voters and tweeters. The difference is important when you’re discussing the issue with someone, as you don’t want to accuse a potential convert of lying. IMO.
There is no epidemic of gun crime
Well, that depends. If you live in parts of Baltimore or Chicago or LA, there certainly IS an epidemic. But nationalized news has certainly made the effort to make it seem like a pandemic, all across America. This is the same phenomenon as you mention about the frequency of school shootings.
Playing games with words like “fully semi-automatic”
Well, that is more likely idiocy than “playing games”. When you don’t understand the topic (be it firearms, quantum mechanics, genetics, or warp vs jump drives) you’re going to misuse terms and make up new ones (that ‘sound’ right).
Having said that, if prog politicians and “thought” leaders are directly involved, it’s got a real good chance of violating Hanlon’s Razor. (Though not a guarantee. Feinstein and Waters are 2 examples of Hanlon’s Razor.)
find alternative methods of obtaining a gun if he wants one
Ah, but it does force him to actually go find that alternative method. It therefore hinders your average Joe as he is unlikely to have adequate street smarts to go find an illicit arms dealer in order to shoot his ex-wife/neighbor’s dog. So it does a certain amount of marginal good.
The marginal good it does is vastly overborne by the added costs, however, when you start talking adding that requirement to individual sales, gifts to relatives, and probating estates.
As to the career criminals and gangbangers and such? Yes, the problem there is not background checks (stolen guns have a definite market advantage of being cheaper than the ones bought in a store) but failing to actually go after them and prosecute and put them away for significant stretches. This is a societal problem rooted in a lot of “misconceptions” not related to guns.
You think militias were formed to hunt deer?
That depends on just how much of your corn they’ve eaten. If it’s a communal plot, then hell yes you form a militia. Or a posse. (As an aside, planting some outside your 8+ foot high fence in order to keep them from jumping said fence will NOT work. They’ll ignore the easy stuff and go eat what you’ve protected. Hence, shooting them is the best option. As many as you and the neighbors can eat.)
LikeLike
When the “ignorant voter and tweeter” has had the matter explained multiple times and still repeats it, it’s a lie.
That came from an army officer (true Blue Falcon and oathbreaker there) in a segment about how horrible “assault weapons” are. He knew good and well the difference between semi-automatic and full-automatic or burst fire. It was a deliberate attempt to make the one-trigger-pull-one-bang of semi-auto seem more akin to the fully automatic of actual military rifles.
The “average Joe”, without a criminal felony conviction, can also pass a background check. Well, if ex-wife has a restraining order against him, that will then fail the background check, but really, how many times will said Joe, on being denied a firearm, decide to leave said ex alone vs. using an alternate murder weapon? And what if it’s the abusive one in a former relationship that takes out the restraining order on their victim (I. Have. Personally. Seen. This. Happen.) Now it’s the putative victim who is forbidden from owning guns and left defenseless against their abuser.
So, while there may be a small handful of specific instances where background checks stopped a violent crime, they are countered by instances where the requirement for background checks facilitated crime.
How many “communal plots” of food crops were there in 18th century America? That route was tried–to near disaster–in the Massachusetts Bay Colony. This sounds to me like a just-so story (want some entertainment? Read Kipling’s “Just-so Stories”) but I’d kind of like to see actual evidence of folk actually forming militias to hunt down crop-eating deer.
LikeLike
“what if it’s the abusive one in a former relationship that takes out the restraining order on their victim ”
See also “red-flag” laws. With the additional benefit that most of them allow anonymous filing, and bar prosecution for false reporting.
The guy up in New Jersey who was killed by cops enforcing their red-flag? Family fight at Sunday dinner that the other attendees agree wasn’t a threat prompted his sister to report it as red-flag.
LikeLike
When the “ignorant voter and tweeter” has had the matter explained multiple times
That came from an army officer
Yes, true. And the second was one of those “politicians and ‘thought’ leaders”, so already covered.
how many times will said Joe
As I said, it’s a marginal value. The non-marginal value lies in finding the criminals and incarcerating them.
Interestingly, a marginal value on the other side is to arm the citizenry. When the good guys achieve room temperature at some frequency above 0, things get safer. When they decide to go elsewhere (like Baltimore) because they encounter a few people who do NOT shoot them but could have, things get safer (there).
Marginal benefits help to hem in the problem.
I’d kind of like to see actual evidence
Dude, you’ve got your sarcasm meter set on too high of a range. Evidently the needle didn’t move when you read that last paragraph.
But, it’s all good. 🙂
LikeLike
Set the sarcasm meter lower and I get too many false positives.
LikeLike
Heh. Understood.
LikeLike
2A and hunting.
well, according to the dicta in Shelly Parker v DC (case no 04-7041), which became Heller v DC at SCOTUS (case no 07-290) when Parker dropped out, at both the DC Circuit Court of Appeals and at SCOTUS:
The second amendment’s wording that the RKBA would not be infringed was an acknowledgement that the RKBA the colonists had as Englishmen (well, protestant Englishmen) would continue under the new government. The dicta go into great detail on what that right was understood to be by the founders.
It was to enable opposition to tyranny by the crown, for self-defense, and for hunting.
So, although not the major reason for the second amendment— i.e. a well-regulated militia is impossible without the public being armed— yes, the 2A is also about hunting. Which may lead to some interesting cases in the future if government places draconian restrictions on hunting.
LikeLike
That the 2nd applies to all the used firearms can be used for is perfectly valid. However, when the anti-gun folk claim that it only applies to “militia service” they are excluding (wrongly as it may be) everything else. Then when they turn around and talk about hunting or “sport use” they are contradicting themselves.
Thus, they lie.
LikeLike