Posted on 05/07/2008 9:32:55 AM PDT by neverdem
A year has passed since the tragic events at Virginia Tech, and there are some assumptions upon which gun control is based that require investigation. Chief among them is the misplaced feeling that banning firearms somehow eradicates them.
When examining this notion, we can look for another example of a ban to give us a sense of the difference between banning and eradication. There are people in America known as illegal immigrants who are banned from being here. If the state cannot keep a person from coming into the country illegally, what possible hope does it have in banning a gun? What is to stop the illegal immigrant from bringing guns with him?
Contrary to gun control wishes, government bans do not equal eradication.
This leads to the next premise upon which gun control is based: Criminals obey the law. Compliance with laws is based on the honor system. Governments expect citizens to follow the law because they honor the society in which they live. The problem is, criminals do not honor the law.
Gun control advocates seem to believe that a criminal who is going to cause harm will not do so, not because murder is illegal, but because the gun he is going to use for murder is illegal. Gun control advocates expect, indeed require, criminals to respect and obey the law for their policy to work.
The third premise of gun control is based on faith in the police. The gun control position is that only the police should have guns. A central tenet of this position is that ordinary citizens do not need a gun because the police are there to protect you.
It was clear on April 16, 2007, that the police were nowhere to be found for more than nine minutes. When split seconds count, the police are long minutes away.
Even though police often arrive after a crime has been committed, the gun control slant is that police are highly trained professionals and thus know how to stop a violent criminal better than a law-abiding citizen with a gun.
A citizen does not need to be concerned about infringing on a criminal's rights and detaining the perpetrator, as required of the police. A citizen only needs to be able to defend him or herself. Often, just the knowledge that a victim is armed is enough to dissuade a criminal from continuing an assault.
Any number of highly trained professionals could be useful, but when they are not at the scene of the crime for minutes, an average citizen with a gun can be an effective counter to a violent attack.
Even more duplicitous is that the faith-in-the-police premise takes an utterly contrary turn when making the argument that they will not know whom to shoot when responding.
First, this position is spurious, as it has continually been shown that the police arrive after a crime has been committed, including here at Tech. Second, if they really were highly trained, wouldn't they know that the ones who are not pointing their guns at the police are not the criminals? Third, if given the choice between the possibility of being shot by the highly trained professional while shooting in self-defense and the certainty of being shot by an armed assailant while unarmed, I will choose the former every time.
Some have argued that even the First Amendment is not an absolute right, noting that one cannot shout "fire!" in a crowded theater. If we applied the same logic as the gun control argument, our mouths would be taped shut when we enter a theater because someone might yell "fire."
Those who would exercise their Second Amendment rights are subjected to prior restraint, and thus prevented from carrying their gun, because they might do something illegal with it.
Even with their flawed assumptions exposed, what is especially insidious is that gun control does not work. The results of their policies are abject failures. Whether in Washington, D.C., Los Angeles, New York or Chicago, gun control does not work.
At Virginia Tech, gun control did not work.
Gun bans do not mean guns disappear. Criminals do not abide by the honor code. The police are not readily available to protect you. The Second Amendment declares an individual right to keep and bear arms.
These are truths that the gun control advocate disregards. Please consider the assumptions for their argument when deciding your own position.
I hope Mr. Wiles keeps his job.
Finally in print, this is the first time that I have seen good retorts to the possible confusion when the Keystone Kops finally arrive on the scene to find someone using armed self defense. The good guys won't take aim at the cops. The bad guy will.
He needs to be careful about his job,his scholarly reputation after writing so clearly.
Might get fired for that, ya know. You won’t get fired for faking scholarly research favorable to gun control ....
But writing against gun control?
Gun control is based on the false assumption that criminals obey laws.
I'll give you another one. Laws were passed to severely restrict and/or ban the sale of pseudoephedrine, because of its use in making meth. Those who have legitimate use of pseudoephedrine are VERY inconvenienced and practically have to give a DNA sample and 4 forms of ID to get it, even with a prescription. Meanwhile, meth makers just import theirs from Mexico, and meth use is booming. But, hey, we have a ban.
And just for the record, that phenolephedrine stuff they started putting in the OTC drugs instead, just does not handle congestion like pseudoephedrine does.
And if there really was a fire, nobody would be able to yell and warn the others.
In very important ways, a citizen who uses his weapon to defend himself may find that he is under more scrutiny than the police are. At the very least, the police will be protected by the city's liability insurance, government or union-paid attorneys and an accommodating court system. The citizen will not only be on his own to defend himself against civil liability, but may face a prosecutor who views such cases as an opportunity to dissuade uppity citizens who commit self defense by finding it easy to charge them with murder.
A friend told me: every bullet you shoot in a self defense situation comes with at least one lawyer attached.
If there is any doubt, we have only to look at the very recent acquittal of NYPD detectives when they shot the unarmed Sean Bell 50 times. I cannot imagine any similar verdict had it been an armed citizen instead of the police.
The shooting at New Life Church showed what one person with a concealed permit can do. There were many more potential victims at the church than at Tech, but they were never reached because of one brave woman civilian with a concealed carry permit.
Bump and ping
Question for you: Why do you think it a GOOD thing (as it appears from context that you do) to get government PERMISSION to exercise a God-given RIGHT? Why would one need a government PERMIT to carry a weapon for self/other protection?
I am just talking about the realities that exist today. No some philosophical point.
Bingo, bingo, and bingo. My brother at the air force academy goes to bible studies there, but luckily he didn’t make it to church that day. The incident inspired him to immediately go out and purchase a gun for future self defense (he hadn’t quite turned 21 yet).
Gun control laws discriminate against law abiding citizens based on the actions of criminals. That is inherently unfair and irrational and completely ineffective.
They are faithful about bringing the body bags after the fight is over.
Case law states that the police don’t have an obligation to protect any individual.
He had best be polishing his resume for his next job. He won't have this one for long.
Bump a well written pro 2A letter from an ‘academic’...
Bang
When they dump the entire constitution I will give em my ammo and guns...........my way.
Chuckie Bloomer! My hero! :-)
I am getting tired of this mess............tired of socialists, tired of the sedition that has infected our country at all levels...........and I don’t know of a polite solution yet. Just keeping on promoting constitutional freedoms and trying too educate those near me, friends, coworkers, family and acquaintances etc ......
Good stuff!!
Many cops only want guns in the hands of other cops. They do not trust non cops.
bump
I thought it was based on the assumption that disarmed sheep can be herded more easily than armed sheepdogs.
Actually you can shout "Fire!" in a crowded theater, specifically when it's on fire.
We saw Penn and Teller in Vegas a few months ago and they worked this into their act.
Health Care Conscience Cases Loom
Laurie Mylroie: Writing Blind - A response to Andy McCarthy.
A Fiery Theology Under Fire (U.S. falsely accused of biological warfare!)
Children of the Corn (Let's carefully examine the benefits — and beneficiaries — of ethanol.)
From time to time, I’ll ping on noteworthy articles about politics, foreign and military affairs. FReepmail me if you want on or off my list.
Thanks for the ping!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.