Thank you. You are spot on. Not just minorities but anyone living paycheck to paycheck would be the first to see the effects of further gun regulations. I was not aware of the roll of the NRA in advocating for minority rights for gun ownership. Out of curiosity, how many mass shooters have been NRA members? I know of none.
Absolutely. Given the number of legally owned guns in the US, you would expect a higher proportion of violence. But, the preponderance of legal gun owners are highly rational about use of deadly force. Over half of all gun crimes are performed with illegally obtained firearms.
In addition, isn't it interesting that the wealthy always find themselves above whatever laws they pass, which disproportionately fall on the poor and disadvantaged? Money isn't just a form of privilege, it is able to buy additional privilege, compounding the benefit.
If you seriously unpacked legislation over time and studied how it has impacted the populace (someone may have already done this), I am positive that you would find that Dems have supported a huge advantage for the rich over time. So much for the canard that they are for the little guy/gal. They have become so wealthy themselves that they can't help but lobby for their own interests.
I know this is anecdotal and somewhat stereotypical, but it's true. I have 2 rich neighbors who despise me because my husband and I come from working class but have risen into the UMC statistically. They don't care that we have reached their class because we don't signal fealty to their rules of decorum. That's all the rich truly care about. You either get down with their game of manners, or you won't be allowed in their tribe. They don't really consider the welfare of "lesser mortals" in their sociopolitical equation. They just want to be superior and safe. Obviously, there are outliers, but I have experienced this pattern over and over again as we move up the ladder.
No. Civility, graciousness, and treating people with respect and giving them the benefit of the doubt are all fine and to be desired. Those aren't the manners I speak of.
I find the practice of choosing protocol and propriety over people's humanity problematic. It's one of the ways that the rich exclude minorities and the poor from their spaces. Dress codes, hair style codes, zip codes, name-dropping, college references, label checking, etc. And even if they don't exclude you, they "code" you as lower class and bar access to select opportunities, information, schools, and other affluent perks, etc. They will deny someone's humanity with little compunction to retain their exclusivity, their sense of superiority, their dominance, their privilege.
A good example is too much bling or loud colors. These aren't considered "correct" and will keep gates to opportunity shut - even if you are very smart and/or bring other types of game.
They also use language fluency and articulation to "code" people. Poor grammar, direct speech, lack of euphemism or subtlety, too much vulgarity, certain dialects or accents - all code people as "lower class" and likewise keep doors to opportunity closed.
Excessive emotional expression, being overly sentimental, speaking too loudly are also coded as lower class - which is a great way to exclude lots of brown people and/or lower class whites who tend toward more colorful and dynamic modes of expression.
All of these "coded" behaviors also trigger out-group dynamics such as not granting favors, insisting on seeing the "othered" person as wrong even when they are correct, refusing to ascribe human worth to the "othered" person, refusing to grant respect or benefit of the doubt, refusal to invite to parties, refusal to hire. These are the tricks the wealthy use to justify their biases and behaviors and retain their exclusivity. And if their own indulge in these behaviors (which they do in certain contexts), they are excused because they are "in-group."
The elites are now using these same tricks to engender and coerce woke ideological divides. If you don't pay fealty to this worldview, this performative diversity, then it will inhibit professional advancement, prevent you from being published or hired, get you cancelled, keep you on the outside looking in.
I know they despise us because they have both told us they do and because of the way they exclude us from their space. They are not neighborly in the normal sense of the word. We have been friendly, generous, and helpful. Doesn't matter.
Surely there are millions of wealthy people who don't do this. I know many myself, of all ethnicities. And I'm sure there are plenty who do, who can be white, or not, or black, or otherwise.
This is a great sociology paper, but its not at all real in my view. I grew up in working class squalor and the less fortunate/privileged are far more territorial/judgy than this elite you speak of, and also the American economic elite are very, very diverse today, so why are they all behaving so similarly? From Phoenix to NY to wherever you are?
Donald Trump speaks loudly, and emotes. Your rigid class system is well rigid. Being loud is rude, anywhere, any time. Don't the rich wear labels just like the bling inclined? Poor grammar is a sign of something. Direct speech does lack nuance or understanding. And vulgarity is vulgar. Don't rich southern whites suffer from accent judgment? Don't rich Indian techies?
Loud colors offended your neighbors? Don't they go to the beach? Are they all white suit Mormons?
With all due respect, this is all sounding like every sociology paper/theorist I ever read. Sadly it just doesn't exist on the real earth.
Last, the woke/Left are being divided by themselves - because there is a sensible Lwing movement for change and there is a Far Left woke SJW tiny minority enflaming the majority of people, turning poc far more right wing than they were, and undoing the good work of the sensible Left.
Also, I don't think you can argue that public policy, over the past several decades, hasn't slanted away from the working class and toward the affluent. The working class is hurting and has been hurting for a long time. Their welfare and prospects are dependent on the grace of the upper classes to a great degree and I just haven't seen much of that since the Dems went Corporate and abandoned the unions during Clinton.
Well, maybe not in your world. But, I have encountered varying forms of what I outlined frequently in our culture - some of it directed against myself; some of it in movies and stories and msm; and some of it directed at others where I was in proximity. You could, I suppose, boil it down to garden variety tribalism but there is a smug style in the elite ranks that I haven't found so much in other sectors of society—a sort of lack of humility.
My less-affluent neighbors (who live farther away) are friendlier, more tolerant and more down to earth. As I said, this is anecdotal but it's a pattern I've observed throughout my life.
Thanks. Anecdotal evidence is just that though no? We have all observed patterns throughout our life, which is why some people are wary of others. Its a natural instinct, and its evolutionary, and it will persist presumably. It can be a matter of life and death to notice patterns. Like somebody with a gun, yelling, being rude, swearing etc.
Many good points. I was not aware that the KKK advocated for gun control to prevent blacks from being able to defend themselves. Don Lemon shut down Vivek Ramaswamy when he pointed out the importance of gun ownership for former slaves after the civil war. To keep their hard won liberty they needed to be able to defend themselves against the white racists who were threatened by the freedom of the former slaves.
I doubt lunatic racists in the KKK 100 years ago really matter than much to the post 1980s gun control debate. Surely the many diverse black people in the US should make their own decisions about a loaded gun in their house. Clearly most don't want them.
I once heard if guns are illegal, only criminals and cops will have them. I don’t want to live in that world.
It’s interesting when I use the argument that all the dictators took guns first, everyone always says “we’re a long way from Nazi Germany”. But so were they when it happened.
Ask Black voters whether they approve of gun control and the answer you get is overwhelmingly “yes”. They see the toll that easy gun availability takes in their communities. They know that the emotional harm that three hundred years of racial oppression have taken and realize on a very practical level that quick access to firearms can escalate a bitter argument into murder and the slow death of the perpetrator in prison. That is the reality.
The reality is that something isn't correct or right just because a majority of people vote yes. Majority consensus is not and never will be the standard for good.
Just think to yourselves why is it people I. Other countries don’t need guns to feel free. What is free about knowing you or your family might become a shooting death statistic at any moment
I believe reading the article will answer this question for you! But just to emphasize a little more what has killed more people? Tyrannical governments ruling over unarmed civilians? Or civilian mass shooters? Every life lost is a tragedy but you will find the death tolls are not close.
That’s a fantasy not reality. There is no good reason to proliferate weapons. Violence and threats lead to more threats and violence. Fuck your numbers as they’re all bad. Far too many people - most of them old Wyte Males who can’t use a vacuum cleaner never mind an automatic killing machine - are allowed to terrorise the rest of us TAKE THE GUNS AWAY
First of all, the article linked to the word “culture” in this piece is an article about Gen Z being fragile and too focused on their handheld devices, whatever you make of that author’s theories it seems to have zero correlation with a “culture that leads to a person picking up weapons with the intent to kill innocent people.” Nowhere in the article is there a reference to this generation being more violent.
Then there is the reference to the “effective Nashville police training” which seems to imply that 6 people being killed in a shooting is, somehow, a success story. In what world is the tragic death of six innocent people hailed as a success?
Most of all, discussing “mass shootings” is a convenient false flag that ignores the reality of gun violence in this country…
“The U.S. Is the Only Country Among Its Peers in Which Guns Are the Leading Cause of Death Among Children and Teens”
And then there’s the fact that guns aren’t protecting black Americans, they are destroying them….
“In fact, while gun violence only recently became the leading cause of death for all children in 2020, gun violence has been the leading cause of death for Black children since 2006. Seventy-three percent of gun deaths among Black children are gun homicides, and, in 2021, Black children were nearly 13 times more likely to be killed in a gun homicide than white children.”
Do people REALLY believe having a gun protects them from the government? Because, clearly it doesn’t. It is not even remotely possible that owning a gun is going to protect you from the United States military.
What protects American Citizens is democracy. Freedom is NOT derived from your right to gun ownership, freedom is derived from your right to VOTE.
I am concerned with a lot of the same things you are. A comment is not the appropriate space to respond to all of it though. I will say that your rebuttal actually doesn't address my point. Unless you are arguing that no one should have guns (including police, government, security guards etc) then gun control gives the affluent more power and the minority less. Do you disagree?
I’m fine with no one having guns. But I am also perfectly fine with anyone having a gun (or several) who is over 21 years of age, has passed a background check, has taken a gun safety course and has had another adult over the age of 21 vouch for their mental stability and intent to use the gun(s) responsibly.
However, I do not agree with the hysteria produced by equating reasonable gun regulations with the confiscation of a law abiding citizen’s guns.
Also because of things like the replication crisis, or more recently anything COVID-related, serving as demonstration that basically nobody trying to claim "there's research" is telling the whole story.
To take your first link - "4 million gun sales blocked" is a fancy fact, but says nothing about whether or not they just went on to steal one of the other 387 million not-legally-registered guns out there mentioned in this article. Stealing isn't a sale, after all.
For the guns-don't-kill-people statistic, it becomes much more vivid if you break things down by demographic. US murder rates by race are remarkably similar to those in their countries of origin. (Though to be clear, this is a culture thing, it just happens to be visible with race because that's what you can poll on surveys - see https://hwfo.substack.com/p/real-talk-about-race-and-murder-rates - the conclusion there is that it's probably from a lack of present fathers)
Re: domestic abusers being able to purchase or even just possess guns - just a reminder that restraining orders generally have a lower burden of proof relative to, e.g., assault charges, so the penalties they can enforce should be similarly lower (not that common sense is guaranteed under the law).
Re: city laws being insufficient means federal laws are what to push for - this is one more reason why 2A supporters do not trust gun control advocates when they claim not to be against law-abiding gun owners. It also undermines the answer given to the first "myth".
Re: a small child cannot pull a trigger - they absolutely can, which is why there's resources out there on how to store guns safely in households with kids (and how to teach kids of various levels of maturity what to do if they find a non-virtual gun).
Re: 26x homicide rate - already addressed by the second point, on rates by demographic.
Re: arming teachers - arming *all* teachers regardless of circumstance is an extreme; allowing teachers (or other school staff) to arm themselves *should they perceive a need to* is treating them like the adults they presumably are.
Re: kids in other peoples' houses - yes, educate your kids on gun safety, it's no ickier than sex ed. Also, if a kid can find it, so can a thief - this goes back to the "criminals will still have guns under mass gun control" point.
Re: background check loopholes - black markets have always been a thing, and will be a thing for as long as privacy is. Exchanging cash for guns isn't much harder than exchanging cash for drugs, and we've got a long, long history now of drugs winning the War on Drugs.
Re: red flag laws - I notice they don't include the primary objection, which is that a red flag law can only effectively apply to (and thus be a burden on) the already law-abiding. Police officers cannot confiscate an item they don't know exists.
Re: racial disparities in Stand Your Ground laws - this is missing the point of the laws in question. They are not to prevent homicides (in the short term), they are to change who the victims are: from law-abiding citizens, to actual criminals, at least sometimes. Over time the number of criminals therefore goes down (because they've been killed, or because they're in the hospital and presumably under much stricter surveillance).
Re: racial disparities elsewhere - it's mostly a culture thing, as stated earlier (black police officers are no more lenient than white ones). Removing guns from the equation just moves the violence-to-enforce-"respect" dynamic into "whoever can get a bigger gang/lynch mob/posse together". I for one would rather we not go there.
Re: active shooter drills - agreed, those do more harm than good. Have paintball tournaments instead, those would actually be fun for the kids and give them better instincts for what to do in the still-rare-and-thus-newsworthy event that some asshole decides to come around and shoot with real bullets. Plus you can count it as Phys Ed. Granted, paintball guns and ammo are probably a fair bit extra in an inner-city budget. Water balloon fights as a cheaper alternative, perhaps.
The idiocy of gun control: since 1999, ~24.4 million semiautomatic magazine detachable rifle have come into circulation. That’s probably more than the F-150 truck, the most popular selling truck in America. When it comes to “mass shootings” however you define them maybe less than 60 have featured one of these rifles since 1999. That’s ~60 out of ~24.4 million
In framing this comment I decided to tap the mysterious Chat GPT (I’ve asked it/him/her whether it has plans to take over the world ala Skynet. He denied it.)
Chat GPT --
“The UK has gun control laws in place due to several factors. One of the main reasons is the Dunblane school massacre in 1996, where 16 children and their teacher were killed by a lone gunman. This led to public outcry and the introduction of stricter gun laws, including a ban on handguns. Additionally, in the UK, there is a general belief that firearms are not necessary for personal protection, and the police force is heavily armed to handle any potential threats.
In contrast, the US has a Second Amendment to the Constitution, which protects the right of citizens to bear arms. This has been interpreted by many as a right to own firearms for personal protection and other lawful purposes. Additionally, the US has a strong gun culture and history, with many Americans viewing guns as an important part of their identity and heritage.
Overall, the differences in gun control laws between the UK and the US can be attributed to various cultural, historical, and political factors.”
Lastly, the author proudly identifies herself as “Christian.” For the sake of argument, let me ask this -- WWJD?
Christianity, unlike Judaism and Islam, did not take up the business of secular law. The difference between the old Testament and new is clear. 'Render unto Caesar' means that you do not defy secular law. The separation of Church and State implicitly follows this doctrine. Jesus did not call for the disarmament of the Romans, he gave a new kind of commandment.
So… Are you saying that if someone wants to have access to a fully-automatic machine gun with enough firepower to rip a person in half, then they should be allowed to have it? Because I’m pretty sure that rules against owning those kinds of weapons technically count as gun control, and I’m also positive that certain people in this country would be purchasing and using those weapons if there weren’t bans on them.
Wealth isn’t bullet proof. Mao and the Bolsheviks disarmed the wealthy in their countries too - at least the ones that didn’t fight back and either wound up dead or exiled to Taiwan (or other countries) or the Gulag Archipelago
Wealth is not “bulletproof.” After all Mao and the Bolsheviks disarmed even the wealthy. At least the ones who didn’t join a rebellion and fight back - and either end up dead, exiled, or in a gulag archipelago.
While not related to guns specifically, but related to the downfall of the wealthy after the communist takeover of China and during the cultural revolution read the old book by Nen Cheng “Life & Death in Shanghai “. Eye opening and unfortunately still relevant to current times and affairs.
The fact that the KKK was the first 'gun control' group is an excellent talking point. Every abhorrent shooting in a gun free zone is met with untimely calls for gun control (or in a recent case, chocolate chip ice cream) ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ All the while, the restrictive gun control did not prevent the attack, and just like the stereotypical gambling uncle "let's bet some more - next time we're sure to win"
Mao, Stalin, and Pol Pot agree - gun control works!
Thank you. You are spot on. Not just minorities but anyone living paycheck to paycheck would be the first to see the effects of further gun regulations. I was not aware of the roll of the NRA in advocating for minority rights for gun ownership. Out of curiosity, how many mass shooters have been NRA members? I know of none.
Absolutely. Given the number of legally owned guns in the US, you would expect a higher proportion of violence. But, the preponderance of legal gun owners are highly rational about use of deadly force. Over half of all gun crimes are performed with illegally obtained firearms.
In addition, isn't it interesting that the wealthy always find themselves above whatever laws they pass, which disproportionately fall on the poor and disadvantaged? Money isn't just a form of privilege, it is able to buy additional privilege, compounding the benefit.
If you seriously unpacked legislation over time and studied how it has impacted the populace (someone may have already done this), I am positive that you would find that Dems have supported a huge advantage for the rich over time. So much for the canard that they are for the little guy/gal. They have become so wealthy themselves that they can't help but lobby for their own interests.
I know this is anecdotal and somewhat stereotypical, but it's true. I have 2 rich neighbors who despise me because my husband and I come from working class but have risen into the UMC statistically. They don't care that we have reached their class because we don't signal fealty to their rules of decorum. That's all the rich truly care about. You either get down with their game of manners, or you won't be allowed in their tribe. They don't really consider the welfare of "lesser mortals" in their sociopolitical equation. They just want to be superior and safe. Obviously, there are outliers, but I have experienced this pattern over and over again as we move up the ladder.
So do you think manners and politeness and courtesy and perhaps thinking of others is outdated? Perhaps they want a nice quiet neighborhood.
I am for gun control, but I can see your point on that key issue here. I really can't see your point on their desire for manners.
Arguably this country is suffering more from narcissism and individual rudeness than it is from the gun issue.
How do you know they despise you? Perhaps they just want be safe, which I assume you do too if you want a gun.
No. Civility, graciousness, and treating people with respect and giving them the benefit of the doubt are all fine and to be desired. Those aren't the manners I speak of.
I find the practice of choosing protocol and propriety over people's humanity problematic. It's one of the ways that the rich exclude minorities and the poor from their spaces. Dress codes, hair style codes, zip codes, name-dropping, college references, label checking, etc. And even if they don't exclude you, they "code" you as lower class and bar access to select opportunities, information, schools, and other affluent perks, etc. They will deny someone's humanity with little compunction to retain their exclusivity, their sense of superiority, their dominance, their privilege.
A good example is too much bling or loud colors. These aren't considered "correct" and will keep gates to opportunity shut - even if you are very smart and/or bring other types of game.
They also use language fluency and articulation to "code" people. Poor grammar, direct speech, lack of euphemism or subtlety, too much vulgarity, certain dialects or accents - all code people as "lower class" and likewise keep doors to opportunity closed.
Excessive emotional expression, being overly sentimental, speaking too loudly are also coded as lower class - which is a great way to exclude lots of brown people and/or lower class whites who tend toward more colorful and dynamic modes of expression.
All of these "coded" behaviors also trigger out-group dynamics such as not granting favors, insisting on seeing the "othered" person as wrong even when they are correct, refusing to ascribe human worth to the "othered" person, refusing to grant respect or benefit of the doubt, refusal to invite to parties, refusal to hire. These are the tricks the wealthy use to justify their biases and behaviors and retain their exclusivity. And if their own indulge in these behaviors (which they do in certain contexts), they are excused because they are "in-group."
The elites are now using these same tricks to engender and coerce woke ideological divides. If you don't pay fealty to this worldview, this performative diversity, then it will inhibit professional advancement, prevent you from being published or hired, get you cancelled, keep you on the outside looking in.
I know they despise us because they have both told us they do and because of the way they exclude us from their space. They are not neighborly in the normal sense of the word. We have been friendly, generous, and helpful. Doesn't matter.
Thanks for the reply.
Surely there are millions of wealthy people who don't do this. I know many myself, of all ethnicities. And I'm sure there are plenty who do, who can be white, or not, or black, or otherwise.
This is a great sociology paper, but its not at all real in my view. I grew up in working class squalor and the less fortunate/privileged are far more territorial/judgy than this elite you speak of, and also the American economic elite are very, very diverse today, so why are they all behaving so similarly? From Phoenix to NY to wherever you are?
Donald Trump speaks loudly, and emotes. Your rigid class system is well rigid. Being loud is rude, anywhere, any time. Don't the rich wear labels just like the bling inclined? Poor grammar is a sign of something. Direct speech does lack nuance or understanding. And vulgarity is vulgar. Don't rich southern whites suffer from accent judgment? Don't rich Indian techies?
Loud colors offended your neighbors? Don't they go to the beach? Are they all white suit Mormons?
With all due respect, this is all sounding like every sociology paper/theorist I ever read. Sadly it just doesn't exist on the real earth.
Last, the woke/Left are being divided by themselves - because there is a sensible Lwing movement for change and there is a Far Left woke SJW tiny minority enflaming the majority of people, turning poc far more right wing than they were, and undoing the good work of the sensible Left.
Thanks again.
PS: I haven't studied sociology at all. These were just my own observations.
Also, I don't think you can argue that public policy, over the past several decades, hasn't slanted away from the working class and toward the affluent. The working class is hurting and has been hurting for a long time. Their welfare and prospects are dependent on the grace of the upper classes to a great degree and I just haven't seen much of that since the Dems went Corporate and abandoned the unions during Clinton.
Well, maybe not in your world. But, I have encountered varying forms of what I outlined frequently in our culture - some of it directed against myself; some of it in movies and stories and msm; and some of it directed at others where I was in proximity. You could, I suppose, boil it down to garden variety tribalism but there is a smug style in the elite ranks that I haven't found so much in other sectors of society—a sort of lack of humility.
My less-affluent neighbors (who live farther away) are friendlier, more tolerant and more down to earth. As I said, this is anecdotal but it's a pattern I've observed throughout my life.
Thanks. Anecdotal evidence is just that though no? We have all observed patterns throughout our life, which is why some people are wary of others. Its a natural instinct, and its evolutionary, and it will persist presumably. It can be a matter of life and death to notice patterns. Like somebody with a gun, yelling, being rude, swearing etc.
Regards, and I hope they are nicer going forward.
Many good points. I was not aware that the KKK advocated for gun control to prevent blacks from being able to defend themselves. Don Lemon shut down Vivek Ramaswamy when he pointed out the importance of gun ownership for former slaves after the civil war. To keep their hard won liberty they needed to be able to defend themselves against the white racists who were threatened by the freedom of the former slaves.
I doubt lunatic racists in the KKK 100 years ago really matter than much to the post 1980s gun control debate. Surely the many diverse black people in the US should make their own decisions about a loaded gun in their house. Clearly most don't want them.
I once heard if guns are illegal, only criminals and cops will have them. I don’t want to live in that world.
It’s interesting when I use the argument that all the dictators took guns first, everyone always says “we’re a long way from Nazi Germany”. But so were they when it happened.
You would be a goddam fool to vote for gun control, especially black people.
All Americans... Never Surrender!
Ask Black voters whether they approve of gun control and the answer you get is overwhelmingly “yes”. They see the toll that easy gun availability takes in their communities. They know that the emotional harm that three hundred years of racial oppression have taken and realize on a very practical level that quick access to firearms can escalate a bitter argument into murder and the slow death of the perpetrator in prison. That is the reality.
The reality is that something isn't correct or right just because a majority of people vote yes. Majority consensus is not and never will be the standard for good.
Does that apply to Christianity in the US?
I agree. This article seems to tell a monolithic black world of people they must all feel the same.
Two thirds of Americans, of all shades, clearly don't want guns in their home But somehow black people should. Sounds like essentialism to me.
Just think to yourselves why is it people I. Other countries don’t need guns to feel free. What is free about knowing you or your family might become a shooting death statistic at any moment
I believe reading the article will answer this question for you! But just to emphasize a little more what has killed more people? Tyrannical governments ruling over unarmed civilians? Or civilian mass shooters? Every life lost is a tragedy but you will find the death tolls are not close.
That’s a fantasy not reality. There is no good reason to proliferate weapons. Violence and threats lead to more threats and violence. Fuck your numbers as they’re all bad. Far too many people - most of them old Wyte Males who can’t use a vacuum cleaner never mind an automatic killing machine - are allowed to terrorise the rest of us TAKE THE GUNS AWAY
Another article full of false flags, bravo.
We welcome reasoned argument from readers who disagree with the pieces we post!
First of all, the article linked to the word “culture” in this piece is an article about Gen Z being fragile and too focused on their handheld devices, whatever you make of that author’s theories it seems to have zero correlation with a “culture that leads to a person picking up weapons with the intent to kill innocent people.” Nowhere in the article is there a reference to this generation being more violent.
Then there is the reference to the “effective Nashville police training” which seems to imply that 6 people being killed in a shooting is, somehow, a success story. In what world is the tragic death of six innocent people hailed as a success?
Most of all, discussing “mass shootings” is a convenient false flag that ignores the reality of gun violence in this country…
“The U.S. Is the Only Country Among Its Peers in Which Guns Are the Leading Cause of Death Among Children and Teens”
https://www.kff.org/global-health-policy/issue-brief/child-and-teen-firearm-mortality-in-the-u-s-and-peer-countries/
And then there’s the fact that guns aren’t protecting black Americans, they are destroying them….
“In fact, while gun violence only recently became the leading cause of death for all children in 2020, gun violence has been the leading cause of death for Black children since 2006. Seventy-three percent of gun deaths among Black children are gun homicides, and, in 2021, Black children were nearly 13 times more likely to be killed in a gun homicide than white children.”
https://giffords.org/lawcenter/memo/gun-violence-in-black-communities/
“Studies show there is very little correlation between heavily armed citizens and the presence of democracy in countries around the world.”
https://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2013/04/owning-guns-doesnt-preserve-freedom/275287/
Finally, more guns do NOT create more safety. That is a terrible lie.
https://www.everytown.org/debunking-gun-myths-at-the-dinner-table/
Do people REALLY believe having a gun protects them from the government? Because, clearly it doesn’t. It is not even remotely possible that owning a gun is going to protect you from the United States military.
What protects American Citizens is democracy. Freedom is NOT derived from your right to gun ownership, freedom is derived from your right to VOTE.
I am concerned with a lot of the same things you are. A comment is not the appropriate space to respond to all of it though. I will say that your rebuttal actually doesn't address my point. Unless you are arguing that no one should have guns (including police, government, security guards etc) then gun control gives the affluent more power and the minority less. Do you disagree?
I’m fine with no one having guns. But I am also perfectly fine with anyone having a gun (or several) who is over 21 years of age, has passed a background check, has taken a gun safety course and has had another adult over the age of 21 vouch for their mental stability and intent to use the gun(s) responsibly.
However, I do not agree with the hysteria produced by equating reasonable gun regulations with the confiscation of a law abiding citizen’s guns.
I find it disingenuous and dangerous.
Pretty sure God prefers children over guns. Sane people prefer children over guns. And why is it that “conservatives” can’t read research?
Because they do their own?
https://hwfo.substack.com/p/the-surprisingly-solid-mathematical
Also because of things like the replication crisis, or more recently anything COVID-related, serving as demonstration that basically nobody trying to claim "there's research" is telling the whole story.
To take your first link - "4 million gun sales blocked" is a fancy fact, but says nothing about whether or not they just went on to steal one of the other 387 million not-legally-registered guns out there mentioned in this article. Stealing isn't a sale, after all.
For the guns-don't-kill-people statistic, it becomes much more vivid if you break things down by demographic. US murder rates by race are remarkably similar to those in their countries of origin. (Though to be clear, this is a culture thing, it just happens to be visible with race because that's what you can poll on surveys - see https://hwfo.substack.com/p/real-talk-about-race-and-murder-rates - the conclusion there is that it's probably from a lack of present fathers)
Re: domestic abusers being able to purchase or even just possess guns - just a reminder that restraining orders generally have a lower burden of proof relative to, e.g., assault charges, so the penalties they can enforce should be similarly lower (not that common sense is guaranteed under the law).
Re: city laws being insufficient means federal laws are what to push for - this is one more reason why 2A supporters do not trust gun control advocates when they claim not to be against law-abiding gun owners. It also undermines the answer given to the first "myth".
Re: a small child cannot pull a trigger - they absolutely can, which is why there's resources out there on how to store guns safely in households with kids (and how to teach kids of various levels of maturity what to do if they find a non-virtual gun).
Re: 26x homicide rate - already addressed by the second point, on rates by demographic.
Re: arming teachers - arming *all* teachers regardless of circumstance is an extreme; allowing teachers (or other school staff) to arm themselves *should they perceive a need to* is treating them like the adults they presumably are.
Re: kids in other peoples' houses - yes, educate your kids on gun safety, it's no ickier than sex ed. Also, if a kid can find it, so can a thief - this goes back to the "criminals will still have guns under mass gun control" point.
Re: background check loopholes - black markets have always been a thing, and will be a thing for as long as privacy is. Exchanging cash for guns isn't much harder than exchanging cash for drugs, and we've got a long, long history now of drugs winning the War on Drugs.
Re: red flag laws - I notice they don't include the primary objection, which is that a red flag law can only effectively apply to (and thus be a burden on) the already law-abiding. Police officers cannot confiscate an item they don't know exists.
Re: racial disparities in Stand Your Ground laws - this is missing the point of the laws in question. They are not to prevent homicides (in the short term), they are to change who the victims are: from law-abiding citizens, to actual criminals, at least sometimes. Over time the number of criminals therefore goes down (because they've been killed, or because they're in the hospital and presumably under much stricter surveillance).
Re: racial disparities elsewhere - it's mostly a culture thing, as stated earlier (black police officers are no more lenient than white ones). Removing guns from the equation just moves the violence-to-enforce-"respect" dynamic into "whoever can get a bigger gang/lynch mob/posse together". I for one would rather we not go there.
Re: active shooter drills - agreed, those do more harm than good. Have paintball tournaments instead, those would actually be fun for the kids and give them better instincts for what to do in the still-rare-and-thus-newsworthy event that some asshole decides to come around and shoot with real bullets. Plus you can count it as Phys Ed. Granted, paintball guns and ammo are probably a fair bit extra in an inner-city budget. Water balloon fights as a cheaper alternative, perhaps.
Well-written and well-argued article. Thank you for providing the history in addition to the logic.
The idiocy of gun control: since 1999, ~24.4 million semiautomatic magazine detachable rifle have come into circulation. That’s probably more than the F-150 truck, the most popular selling truck in America. When it comes to “mass shootings” however you define them maybe less than 60 have featured one of these rifles since 1999. That’s ~60 out of ~24.4 million
Thank you so much for this piece. It gives me hope
Thank you for reading. God bless.
In framing this comment I decided to tap the mysterious Chat GPT (I’ve asked it/him/her whether it has plans to take over the world ala Skynet. He denied it.)
Chat GPT --
“The UK has gun control laws in place due to several factors. One of the main reasons is the Dunblane school massacre in 1996, where 16 children and their teacher were killed by a lone gunman. This led to public outcry and the introduction of stricter gun laws, including a ban on handguns. Additionally, in the UK, there is a general belief that firearms are not necessary for personal protection, and the police force is heavily armed to handle any potential threats.
In contrast, the US has a Second Amendment to the Constitution, which protects the right of citizens to bear arms. This has been interpreted by many as a right to own firearms for personal protection and other lawful purposes. Additionally, the US has a strong gun culture and history, with many Americans viewing guns as an important part of their identity and heritage.
Overall, the differences in gun control laws between the UK and the US can be attributed to various cultural, historical, and political factors.”
Lastly, the author proudly identifies herself as “Christian.” For the sake of argument, let me ask this -- WWJD?
Christianity, unlike Judaism and Islam, did not take up the business of secular law. The difference between the old Testament and new is clear. 'Render unto Caesar' means that you do not defy secular law. The separation of Church and State implicitly follows this doctrine. Jesus did not call for the disarmament of the Romans, he gave a new kind of commandment.
“All gun control is oppressive”
So… Are you saying that if someone wants to have access to a fully-automatic machine gun with enough firepower to rip a person in half, then they should be allowed to have it? Because I’m pretty sure that rules against owning those kinds of weapons technically count as gun control, and I’m also positive that certain people in this country would be purchasing and using those weapons if there weren’t bans on them.
Wealth isn’t bullet proof. Mao and the Bolsheviks disarmed the wealthy in their countries too - at least the ones that didn’t fight back and either wound up dead or exiled to Taiwan (or other countries) or the Gulag Archipelago
Wealth is not “bulletproof.” After all Mao and the Bolsheviks disarmed even the wealthy. At least the ones who didn’t join a rebellion and fight back - and either end up dead, exiled, or in a gulag archipelago.
While not related to guns specifically, but related to the downfall of the wealthy after the communist takeover of China and during the cultural revolution read the old book by Nen Cheng “Life & Death in Shanghai “. Eye opening and unfortunately still relevant to current times and affairs.
The fact that the KKK was the first 'gun control' group is an excellent talking point. Every abhorrent shooting in a gun free zone is met with untimely calls for gun control (or in a recent case, chocolate chip ice cream) ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ All the while, the restrictive gun control did not prevent the attack, and just like the stereotypical gambling uncle "let's bet some more - next time we're sure to win"
I enjoyed your article.