Understand what you're talking about in relation to firearms in America.
There are few things that are more annoying than people talking about topics they clearly do not understand. When I read about people commenting on gun control and throwing around statistical numbers such as "90% of people want background checks" with no source, followed quickly by "because of automatic weapons", I quite literally stop listening to another word they utter. They have no idea what they are talking about. Apparently these types of people have circled themselves with like minds and have never once had an actual debate, in which they listened, to the opposing argument.
Now as a life Member of the NRA, I completely support background check as they are currently done in several States; in which the individual is scanned against prior warrants or filings of arrest. Frankly, I don't want a murderer buying a gun, but society by law has disagreed. Consider this, a Felon (say someone who murdered a person), maintains the right to vote, they also now have the ability to avoid disclosing this fact to a possible employer. Our society decided this was personal and didn't matter, yet, when it comes to the 2nd Amendment, all the sudden this does matter. My question to this hypocritical path is 'why'? Why is one more important to the other? Similar lines of logic can be found in firearms.
Consider that the 2nd Amendment is quite literally the only right under absurd scrutiny from apparent 'experts'. Due process is rarely ever questioned in the matter by the means by which one attains it, Freedom of Speech has little if any requirement -- and it can be easily argued that free speech caused most if not all Wars in recorded human history. The 10th Amendment, the one that truly sets the United States apart from any other Country in the world is all but ignored entirely. You see, the 10th Amendment proclaims that any element of power not explicitly called out in the Constitution, is not the Governments, but the Peoples. That was the genius behind the US Constitution, the fact that the People were entitled to the lion's share of the power and the Government worked in their request.
Very few people understand or even bother to read the US Constitution or the Bill of Rights which follows it, but after some level of tragedy everyone is immediately an expert. The most infuriating part for educated people in regard to 2nd Amendment discussions is the lack of actual information those debating it have. First and foremost, there are no automatic-weapons allowed for US Citizens without exceptional waivers. There are no, and haven't been since prohibition, automatic-weapons on the streets of America. None, zero, nothing. A semi-automatic weapons in any form is a one-shot weapon. One movement on the trigger fires one round, this is not a movie nor is it a battlefield. The theory as well that somehow limiting the rounds a semi-automatic fires limits death and destruction is asinine at best. It would possibly have some importance if people were inclined to defend themselves. I could see the point in a limited magazine capacity to stop mass shootings if citizens routinely defended themselves - however as history has shown this is never the case. People hide and wait to die, making magazine capacity null and void.
An interesting aspect of gun debates is this, "what is the goal?". Is the goal reduction in homicides? If it is, mathematics proves that is not true, lack of guns do not limit homicides. Compare the United States and its more open gun policies to that of Germany which since World War II has some of the most stringent anti-gun positions in the World. Do you know the homicide rate in Germany? It is roughly 0.04%, nearly identical to that of the United States - a less than 1% chance of being killed with malicious intent. If you take actual science and remove emotion you'll see that the homicides in most developed countries are staggeringly low, and guns have no sway either way in the overall numbers, just the means by which they occur. Also, via science, you'll know that the vast majority of killings in the United States perpetrated with a firearm are done by a handgun, very few are ever performed with any level of rifle -- even fewer if you remove shotguns. Yet because of the media, and the media alone, we have some belief in this country that firearms like a AR15 are the problem -- they are not.
With this the next time you find yourself in a discussion, one in which you use the top part of the phone, consider facts over emotion and you just may begin to understand what you're talking about.
Now as a life Member of the NRA, I completely support background check as they are currently done in several States; in which the individual is scanned against prior warrants or filings of arrest. Frankly, I don't want a murderer buying a gun, but society by law has disagreed. Consider this, a Felon (say someone who murdered a person), maintains the right to vote, they also now have the ability to avoid disclosing this fact to a possible employer. Our society decided this was personal and didn't matter, yet, when it comes to the 2nd Amendment, all the sudden this does matter. My question to this hypocritical path is 'why'? Why is one more important to the other? Similar lines of logic can be found in firearms.
Consider that the 2nd Amendment is quite literally the only right under absurd scrutiny from apparent 'experts'. Due process is rarely ever questioned in the matter by the means by which one attains it, Freedom of Speech has little if any requirement -- and it can be easily argued that free speech caused most if not all Wars in recorded human history. The 10th Amendment, the one that truly sets the United States apart from any other Country in the world is all but ignored entirely. You see, the 10th Amendment proclaims that any element of power not explicitly called out in the Constitution, is not the Governments, but the Peoples. That was the genius behind the US Constitution, the fact that the People were entitled to the lion's share of the power and the Government worked in their request.
Very few people understand or even bother to read the US Constitution or the Bill of Rights which follows it, but after some level of tragedy everyone is immediately an expert. The most infuriating part for educated people in regard to 2nd Amendment discussions is the lack of actual information those debating it have. First and foremost, there are no automatic-weapons allowed for US Citizens without exceptional waivers. There are no, and haven't been since prohibition, automatic-weapons on the streets of America. None, zero, nothing. A semi-automatic weapons in any form is a one-shot weapon. One movement on the trigger fires one round, this is not a movie nor is it a battlefield. The theory as well that somehow limiting the rounds a semi-automatic fires limits death and destruction is asinine at best. It would possibly have some importance if people were inclined to defend themselves. I could see the point in a limited magazine capacity to stop mass shootings if citizens routinely defended themselves - however as history has shown this is never the case. People hide and wait to die, making magazine capacity null and void.
An interesting aspect of gun debates is this, "what is the goal?". Is the goal reduction in homicides? If it is, mathematics proves that is not true, lack of guns do not limit homicides. Compare the United States and its more open gun policies to that of Germany which since World War II has some of the most stringent anti-gun positions in the World. Do you know the homicide rate in Germany? It is roughly 0.04%, nearly identical to that of the United States - a less than 1% chance of being killed with malicious intent. If you take actual science and remove emotion you'll see that the homicides in most developed countries are staggeringly low, and guns have no sway either way in the overall numbers, just the means by which they occur. Also, via science, you'll know that the vast majority of killings in the United States perpetrated with a firearm are done by a handgun, very few are ever performed with any level of rifle -- even fewer if you remove shotguns. Yet because of the media, and the media alone, we have some belief in this country that firearms like a AR15 are the problem -- they are not.
With this the next time you find yourself in a discussion, one in which you use the top part of the phone, consider facts over emotion and you just may begin to understand what you're talking about.
Comments
Post a Comment