Dave Holmes and his gun revenge fantasy won’t save American kids

And then there was this.

So now I’m angry. Now I’m finished trying to reason with you. So now I, a guy who was ambivalent about guns just a few years ago, want to take your guns away. All of them. I want to take them all and melt them down and shape them into a giant sphere and then push it at you so you have to run away from it like Indiana Jones for the rest of your lives. I want Ted Nugent to roam the halls of his gunless house, sighing wearily until he dies. I want to end this thing once and for all, so that all of you who have prioritized the sale of guns over the lives of children have to sit quietly and think about what you’ve done. God help me, I want to take all of your guns out of your hands, by myself, right now.

On the one hand, I am sympathetic to Mr. Holmes’s outrage, because all of us who are parents experience a pang of blinding anger any time we learn that children have died in a senseless and violent event.

The difference is, you can’t just stop with the emotion. The emotion is where the journey begins, not where it ends.

I know, I know, this is the Age of Feelz. Everyone is feeling so thoroughly and so hard over everything all the time, that displaying stoicism is treated as if it’s a psychotic episode. Because if you don’t feel enough about a thing — and especially if you don’t feel the way they tell you you’re supposed to feel — then you clearly don’t care. And not caring is a heinous mindcrime. Only psycopaths and evil Hitler clones don’t care. It’s Dave Holmes (and the other rainbow fascists) who care. In fact, their caring has metastasized into revenge fantasies where innocent people who are not part of the problem, are punished. Humiliated. Or worse. Because Holmes and his fellow travelers simply wish it to be.

Which will not, of course, save the lives of any American children.

Why?

Because the cold, hard, logical truth is that guns really are not the issue. I mean it. They’re not. They are an easy target onto which we (as a society) spew our impotent rage, every time youngsters lose their lives in whatever latest sensational tragedy is happening this week.

The actual issue, is people. It always has been. Inescapably. We can try to blame the object, but this is merely a punching bag for our unexpressed hatred of the fact that, yes, in this world, children do in fact die. Often for stupid, needless, and unexplainable reasons. For example, as many as 8 people a day die on our roads, due to Distracted Driving — cell phones. Is there a dumber, more idiotic reason for our teens to perish, than that they’re too busy texting bae when they oughta be keeping their hands at 8 and 4?

Look, I get it. I do. All parents feel this way, regardless of the political divide. We all dwell for a moment in that place of white-hot fury — at a universe that brings our beautiful babies into existence, then allows those babies to perish in the flowering of their young lives.

But it’s not the guns, Mr. Holmes. Seriously. Shotguns, pistols, and rifles, have been with this nation since its inception. School shootings have not. Even as recently as the 1960s — that decade of ultimate social revolt and turmoil — school shootings were not yet a common thing, as they seem to have become now.

Me? Let me tell you where I see the problem.

It’s the fact that 50% of marriages end in divorce.

It’s the fact that the dysfunction of broken homes is the new normal for millions of youth.

It’s the fact that half of our families don’t go to church anymore.

It’s the fact that children raised in a secular environment with little parental moral guidance can be more easily persuaded to the nihilist’s viewpoint.

It’s that — having imbibed the nihilist’s viewpoint — more and more kids don’t think they have anything to lose.

Because instant fame is just a trigger pull away.

And all those GUN FREE ZONE signs (and laws) have created target-rich environments for people eager to claim a spot for themselves in the limelight — in the worst way possible.

And why not? Our materialist culture worships fame above all else. More children want to be famous on youtube, than want to be anonymous surgeons or social workers or steel welders. We bombard them endlessly with the message that fame — the visual, sensational kind — is the epitome of a flawed human existence. Since life is short, and nothing really (morally) matters anyway, why not go out with a bang?

This is the landscape into which each new 21st century generation of American children is born. Those of us desperately trying to provide a coherent, strong moral framework for our sons and our daughters, is swimming upstream against a torrent of terrible messaging. And it’s not just violent video games or any of the other proxy targets which have come in for a ration these past few decades. It’s the overall emphasis on the superficial. A skin-deep approach to solving life’s problems, and answering life’s most fundamental questions.

I think this leaves our children (if I may paraphrase the words of Mr. Spock) barren. Cold. No mystery. No beauty. A simple connection to the fundamental sacredness of the other souls around them, is beyond too many kids’ comprehension. No meaning. No hope. No answers. They’re asking questions.

And we tell them that their feelings — to include rage, hatred, and a sense that life is worthless — matter more than anything else.

So, Mr. Holmes, go ahead and mentally masturbate at the image of the rolling stone chasing gun owners down a spiderweb-choked tunnel. Imagine yourself — in your moment of triumphant apoplexy — yanking 300+ million firearms out of the hands of each and every law-abiding firearms owner in the nation.

Then get on the internet promptly the next day, and see that the killing continues. With knives. Homemade explosives. Cars. Anything and everything the kids can get their hands on. Because kids are smart. If they want to hurt people, they will find a way.

The trick is to show them a broader, richer, more spiritually-grounded, and loving world. Where hurting people is no longer an option in their minds. Frederick Douglas called it: it’s easier to build strong children, than to repair broken men.

What are we doing to strengthen the kids? What are we doing, as selfish, secular, short-sighted adults, which weakens them?

Answer these riddles, and you will have done far more to help with the problem, than venting your spleen at individuals who have never hurt anyone to begin with.

Advertisements

34 thoughts on “Dave Holmes and his gun revenge fantasy won’t save American kids

  1. Knife, bomb, and vehicle attacks merely replace firearms attacks. But guns are strange, mystical, and terrifying for the uninitiated. So . . . it’s reeeeeeeeeeee on guns. Punish the law-abiding. Tell them they’re evil for never hurting anyone, and simply exercise a fundamental piece of the Bill of Rights. Somehow this makes sense in Holmes’ worldview. Either that, or he’s just a cynical bastard fishing for clicks and approval of his correct virtue-signalling. :/

  2. Sadly, your explanations don’t cut it.

    United States
    -more guns
    -more gun-related homicides
    -more homicides in general

    Europe
    -less guns
    -less gun-related homicides
    -less homicides in general

  3. We’re not Europe. I know its hard to understand, but we’re not.

    By the by: Europe’s murder rate, and violence rate, has been going up, even before the whole ‘migrant’ fiasco. Ours isn’t. Go ahead, explain it.

    And there’s also significant proof that European countries fudge their crime stats or underreport things.

  4. People like Holmes are not rational. Actually school shootings are rare today they just get lots more publicity. You are 100% correct people are the problem but it’s much easier to attack inanimate objects

  5. The fundamental reason for the breakdown in society, the breakdown of family as a 6000 year old institution, is the devil. Satan knows his end is near and the god of this world is determined to take us all down with him. He is the ultimate nihilist, the psychopath who leads the madness we are starting to see as normal.
    So, as predicted, people are lovers of self, lovers of money, and of pleasures rather than lovers of God. For over a century. Fierce, without love of goodness. And going from bad to worse.
    We can break free, if we choose to turn to God and learn his ways.
    See jw.org and accept the invitation for lessons in the Bible, maybe you will see satisfying answers there.
    Love your neighbor, love God. This is what works.

  6. I suppose next you’re going to tell me that confiscating and banning spoons won’t end obesity? Well it will end spoon-related obesity and other spoon-related crimes. In China where people eschew spoons, they have virtually no spoon-related obesity. Those are the facts.

    Purged of spiritual identity and self-worth (vs collective-worth) a barren country will by nature be cold and devoid of mystery and beauty. It strikes me that all these children we care so much about are ignored until they can become ideological grist, then its all tears and wide eyes. To get attention depressed souls know what get a byline in the ideological narrative.

  7. comparing statistics across borders is pointless. Even on such things that would seem to be obvious like homicide or live births. It’s at best an apples to oranges comparison in that they do have the similarities of being round fruit. Drilling down into the definitions and statistics make it apparent it more like comparing apples to mushrooms.

    But if you just look at the cursory numbers available you’ll quickly see there is no correlation between the availability of firearms and the homicide rate in the US. High firearms ownership rates in the Dakotas have few murders. While low ownership rates in a state like Maryland has one of the highest murder rates in the nation. A state like ND where half the population has a gun has a typical homicide rate each year comparable to such bastions of regulation as the UK, France and Belgium.

  8. well, here in the states there is almost a negative correlation between common gun ownership and gun crime…

  9. almost except you have places like Hawaii with absurdly low ownership rates as well as extremely low homicide rates.

  10. Well. Mr. Holmes can attempt to come and take them, if he dares. I have little doubt that his experiment will end in tears. His tears. But then, I’m just as sure that he’s not the one who’s going to be taking our guns in his revenge fantasy–it will be other people. With guns.

  11. That’s the real rub, isn’t it? The anti-gun confiscation fantasists will never, ever be the ones on the sharp end of the question. It will be uniformed men and women — cough, with guns, cough — attempting enforcement.

    Except, I honestly don’t think Dave Holmes and Co. have considered historical examples of what the grand takeaway is going to actually look like. During Prohibition, just about everybody had booze, and just about everybody knew booze laws were impossible to enforce. Yes, the cops went after the gangsters, and the bootleggers, and the dangerous cutthroats using the law as a way to make money on the black market.

    But Ma and Pa Kettle, who kept a bottle of whiskey stashed in the root cellar?

    Not so much.

    Even the police themselves were often taking a drink on the side.

    Prohibition turned into a bad joke.

    This would be Gun Free America, after Dave Holmes achieved the legislation he and others like him so desperately desire. Scofflaws from coast to coast. Basement gun ranges as the new speakeasies. Private ownership and use of firearms would go up, not down. And guns would achieve a kind of rebel mystique — like pot once had, and which booze also used to have — in the minds of many; eager to demonstrate they are individuals first and foremost. Capable of ignoring laws that seem needless, or stupid, or simply impossible to abide.

  12. As always, the truth is that gun-grabbers aren’t actually in favor of getting rid of guns, only in the coalescing of guns. They want to concentrate the guns in one place: the gov’t.

    And the inevitable argument there is, “If you don’t trust the gov’t, why do you want to give them unlimited power?”

  13. And of course the far-Left extremists are either too stupid, too ignorant, or too willfully blind to recognize their rhetoric often has a reverse effect. Years ago when I got married, my then-fiancée was quite displeased to find out I owned firearms. It was the usual stuff: they’re dangerous, I want them locked up, they make an unsafe environment for kids and family, etc.
    Fast-forward to today and my wife is now considering getting her own pistol for personal and home defense. The near constant physical threats ( exaggerated or not ) she hears from the gun-grabbers has put her much more on guard.

  14. Spacefaringkitten, how about Switzerland? Lots of guns (everyone has to own a rifle and be trained in its use) and almost unheard of gun crime. I know, they are an anomaly and not a fair comparison. Kind of like how you lumped all of the US together. If you take New York City, New Orleans, Chicago, Detroit and LA out of the numbers (by the way, highest levels of gun control in the US), the US gun deaths match up nicely with Switzerland (and any other European country with low gun death numbers).

  15. As alluded to, the US to Europe comparison of gun crime is flawed in numerous ways.

    First, gun-grabbers use the dishonest method of counting ALL firearm related deaths as “gun crime.” That means they count suicides, accidents, and justified homicide ( police officer shootings and lawful self-defense ) as crime. Now, whether or not you personally want to count suicide as a crime, saying that someone legally and lawfully defending their home, life, or lives of others by shooting and killing someone is an outright lie. Also, suicides typically make up 2/3 of the gun related deaths in the USA. So saying those numbers are indicative of violent gun crime is likewise dishonest.

    Second, crimes are not reported the same between US and Europe. The US FBI homicide stats record and report EVERY homicide the same year it was committed. Gang killing, jealous ex-lover, police-involved shooting, and home-owner defending themselves in a break-in, all are homicides and all are recorded by the FBI immediately. Now, the FBI also keeps the relevant categories, so you can drill down in the data to get only murder stats, but that’s rarely done by anyone pushing a gun-control agenda. Contrast that with, say, the UK, whose Home Office only reports homicides AFTER the case has a legal conviction and you can see why the numbers are not equitable. Murders that are never solved, or which result in an acquittal are not reported. When a serial killer is finally captured and convicted, all of their crimes are reported in the year when they are convicted, not in the year they actually happened. Other countries have their own idiosyncrasies in reporting, but you generally need to dig and do a lot of your own number crunching to get apple-to-apple numbers, and even then you don’t always get comparable numbers.

    Third, the gun-grabbers conveniently only go for “gun crime” instead of counting all violent crime, despite there not being any logical reason to do so. If you’re concerned about public safety, about saving lives, then you should be worried how many people are murdered, regardless of method or implement, not just those shot to death. If two cities of the same size each have 100 murders each year, but one has 75 knife murders while the other has 75 gun murders, the first city is not safer. While people may tout the UK or Australia for having very little gun crime, their total violent crime rate has not gone down in relationship to their gun bans. The UK has been ranked worst in the EU in terms of violent crime rate several times, and I believe is still the “leader” there. Australia has a higher rape rate than the US. Home invasions are a BIG problem in both of them. But, as with Point 2, not all countries report violent crime the same ( many don’t count the same types of crimes as violent ), so getting properly comparative numbers is tricky.

    Fourth, no other country in the world has the gun history of the US, which has had a large impact on the American perspective as opposed to the European. European countries today are descended from the older monarchies. Most the times, only the royals and aristocrats were either allowed or could afford to have any types of weapons. The peasants were conditioned to a “by your leave” mentality and I’m not convinced that’s changed a lot over there. The Americans instead, to paraphrase another, do not live our lives “by your leave”. We hack it out of the wilderness with our own two hands. The USA was founded and grown upon an idea of taking care of yourself, not relying on the gov’t. Thus we had Sam Colt “make men equal” and the Winchester repeating lever-action “won the West.” That was how you kept yourself alive, defended your homestead, and put food on the table. And despite what movies want to tell you, the “wild west” wasn’t nearly that wild with gunfights every night and twice on Saturday. So while Europeans may blindly follow a law to turn in their weapons and tools ( God save Her Majesty and all that ), Americans tend to say, “Up yours, I’m taking care of myself and you have no business telling me what to do if I’m not hurting anyone else.”

    If the easy availability of firearms were the only, or at least primary, reason for wanton murder, then why are murder rates so low in the 40s and 50s when you could literally mail order a rifle from Sears for under $100?

  16. Knife, bomb, and vehicle attacks merely replace firearms attacks. But guns are strange, mystical, and terrifying for the uninitiated.

    Brad; don’t be so quick to pin this on ignorance. I’ve been shooting since I was 5, own several guns and would have ZERO issues with limits on gun ownership. At a minimum, registration, licensing and insurance requirements. At least to the level that I’m required to for my automobiles. And at a federal level.

    It’s not just the “uninitiated” anymore that think our gun culture needs to change. It’s happened before, slowly with smoking and quickly with confederate iconography. It can happen with guns.

  17. Ryan A, you really trust our government with a gun registration program? History is rife with examples of that ending badly. A former Supreme Court Justice has already come out and said we need to do away with the 2nd Amendment. No more allowing our rights to be infringed upon.

  18. They do an ok job with my auto registration/license/insurance information. No complaints here.

    Can we also move past “gun grabber” hyperbole? If anyone actually ever starts talking about “grabbing guns”, I’ll be the first to stand up. No one has. Well, probably not no one, the internet is a big dumb place, but no one that matters or is rational.

  19. As I mentioned, a former Supreme Court Justice, a few months ago, wrote an Op-Ed in the New York Times calling for an end to the 2nd Amendment. It is no longer tin-foil-hat craziness or paranoia. The laws on the books, actually enforced (as they are here in Colorado) are more than sufficient. The problem is, you can’t legislate against evil.

    People will do bad things. And all additional laws will do is punish law abiding citizens. Criminals don’t care about laws. You can spin the situation however you like, but more and more people are awaking to the reality that yes, plenty of people do in fact want our guns.

  20. ‘hyperbole’?

    Have you ever read the statements that Dianne Feinstein has made? apparently not.

  21. “Brad; don’t be so quick to pin this on ignorance.”
    Ryan, you’ve just shown your ignorance, so I think Brad was correct the first time. Every single one of the items you bring up can be countered with the same question I asked above. Why do you want to give the gov’t more power?

    Registration
    Hell no. Registration leads to confiscation. Always has, always will. Not to mention the security risks involved in that. Having a list of any form risks access by people who shouldn’t be able to see it. Whether it’s hoodlums hacking a gov’t server to find out where’s the best house to rob for weapons or some politician or unelected bureaucrat weaponizing some part of the gov’t against their political opposition, this is bad, bad ju-ju.

    Licensing
    Again, Hell no. The instant you require a license for something, it’s no longer a right, it’s a privilege. This is the same reason I’m against the gov’t being involved in marriage or civil unions at all. They have no need to know who I share a bed and family with, they have no need to know who is armed and to what extent. Besides, who’s in charge of determining license requirements? It’s relatively hard to enact a new law, but once it’s there, it’s very easy to change the enforcement of it. At first a firearm license will only require a 4-hour class once in your life. Then it will require you to renew that class each year. Then you’ll have to demonstrate proficiency at a range. Then they’ll change the proficiency requirement so that only professional competitive shooters can pass it.

    Insurance
    Why? Statistically speaking, firearms are FAR safer than automobiles. And like licensing, this is akin to making a right into a privilege. How many people were killed or injured yesterday by legally owned guns? How many people were killed or injured yesterday by legally owned automobiles?

    Gun-grabbers
    Except it’s not hyperbole. As mentioned, previous SCotUS Justice wrote an op-ed to repeal the 2A. NYT, Vox, and Rolling Stones all have repeal 2A articles and op-eds. Feinstein and other notable Ds are on record saying they want to ban all firearms. Obama and Hilary keep bringing up UK and Australia as a good idea. Search Twitter and you’ll find thousands of people talking about repealing the 2A and forcible confiscation, many are prominent people with a large voice.

    Newsflash, if you didn’t know, the vast majority, as in 90% or more, of firearms involved in crimes are illegally obtained. So, if the people doing bad things with guns are getting them illegally ( stealing them, black market, etc ) what would any of your suggestions do stop them? Someone buying a gun off the street doesn’t need to show a federal firearm license, isn’t going to register the gun, and isn’t going to have to get an insurance policy for it. Only people legally obtaining firearms will have to go through those hoops.

    Sure, you might catch or prevent a few cases each year where a fringe lunatic decides they don’t want to buy a firearm for the first time because of the extra hassle, and therefore won’t have it to pull off some nefarious plot. But there’s also no guarantee that person won’t simply build some explosives or incendiaries instead. This also will do nothing about the people who have had guns for years and finally snap ( those these people are incredibly rare in the first place ). So even with the most generous estimates, it’ll prevent one drop in the bucket, but it will comes at a huge cost to literally millions of others. This would be the same as tripling ISP rates while halving bandwidth just because it might prevent one or two child pornographers a year.

    The instant the gun-grabbers and their supporters like you offer up suggestions where the cure isn’t worse than the disease ( or worse, just a placebo ), I and many others are more than willing to discuss and entertain them.

  22. In fact, there has already been a court case saying that criminals don’t need to register firearms because doing so would violate their 5ht amendment rights.

  23. Spacefaringkitten, how about Switzerland?

    Well, there are a lot of guns around in Switzerland, but the gun laws are a lot stricter than in US as far as I know. You certainly can’t carry your guns around, you have to prove you are competent in handling them and you don’t get a licence if you don’t pass an extensive background check etc.

    There are some points to be made about different ways statistics are collected in different countries, but there’s no way you can say that Western Europe is anywhere near US when it comes to violent crime.

    In the country where I live in, the police has had to shoot 7 people dead during the last ten years. Every time it happens, it’s a media event. Every time a police officer fires their weapon, the situation is investigated by police, and a prosecutor decides whether it was ok, and there’s very hard scrutiny.

    Divorce rate is high here also, so I don’t think that’s a viable explanation.

  24. I don’t agree with Holmes’ violent fantasy, but still, your response to it probably shows as much as anything why this discussion is over now. You’re obviously an intelligent and thoughtful person, Brad. That even you can look at this graph for example (https://wapo.st/2Jmrn5X – yes that’s the Washington Post, but based on non-partisan OECD data) and think, “meh, the problem isn’t guns it’s people; it must be crumbling culture, our high divorce rate, or rampant godlessness,” well that just tells me and lots of others like me that there is no convincing anyone on your side of this issue anymore. You hold your views at a visceral not a logical level, and you will never let go of them, or demonstrate a willingness to compromise.

    Because the fact is the other countries in that graph represent a wide array of different human cultures. They have varying rates of divorce and religiosity (generally, though, higher and lower respectively). Their cultures are more or less stable. But all of them with lower rates of gun murders do have one thing in common: much more restrictive gun laws. You can talk about “skewed statistics” all day long. You’re only kidding yourselves at this point—wishful thinking.

    So, what’s left? Are we really expected to believe that Americans are just more bloodthirsty, more prone to shooting their neighbors, by dint of who they are (broken children grown into broken adults), or how our culture developed? Why on Earth should we as Americans ever accept the idea that we are somehow worse people than the rest of the world?

    Now as for myself, I’m a former White House speechwriter from a Republican administration. I grew up partly on a cattle ranch in Eastern Oregon, partly in semi-rural Western Oregon, where gun ownership is extremely common. Gun racks in the back of every pickup. I grew up hunting and, although I live in a city now, I see it as a fundamental right to be able to own and use guns responsibly. But, at the same time, I also see it as clear as day that that certainly does not and should not mean unlimited, barely regulated access to guns, any more than a citizen should have unregulated access to cars, light aircraft or explosives. We regulate those things heavily, and people are generally safer because of it, though they are for the most part able to operate them responsibly to do the things they want and need to do.

    I lived for several years in Sweden, and unlike the US that country does have a healthy, positive attitude toward guns. Hunting is still a common activity for a large rural population. Any adult who wants to can own a gun, as long as he doesn’t have a history of mental illness or a heavy criminal record, and can pass a training course. The number of rifles/shotguns an individual can own is limited to four. Pistols are allowed but are more heavily regulated, and there is certainly no concealed carry—definitely not in town. In fact, it’s even illegal in many cases to concealed carry a knife in town. Guns have to be kept by their owner in a gun safe, and yes, the government tracks every individual gun.

    And hey presto, magic. Those people who want to hunt are well able to hunt. And very few human beings end up getting shot every year. Are there still disagreements, fights, even worse? Oh yes, many. But where an American might be able to walk into one of those carrying an AR-15 with a bump stock and several XL clips, plus assorted other weaponry, Swedes who want to cause trouble usually have no other option than to do that with a knife, or a broken bottle, or their fists. And although all of those are still lethal, they aren’t lethal in nearly the same volumes.

    Most Americans haven’t had the same chance as me to see how well gun laws work in a country like Sweden. But still, for a large majority of us now, the necessity of tighter gun regulation is as plain as day. We are sick of worrying that our kids will get shot by a wacko at school. And we look around and see that some level of further regulation does in fact work, in basically every other developed country on Earth. And then we look back to you guys, who still keep making the same arguments about freedom to hunt, etc. (I mean: Oliver North? Really? Wow.), and forgive me, but at this point we have to think that those arguments are not just tired, but downright dishonest. Because this is not about hunting—Sweden shows that perfectly plainly. Forgive me if we, at this point, conclude that it’s really about your own misguided fantasy of maintaining the ability to overthrow the US government should you ever want to, by force of arms. A desperate fantasy about forcing people to go along with you, because you couldn’t convince them to agree with your ideas.

    As a person of a not-particularly-liberal background, this fascinates me. This simultaneous flag-waving, backed up with the looming threat of open rebellion. The idea of being for something and radically against it at the same time. It’s so paradoxical, so human, to want to play both sides of the field like that.

    But in the end, this have-your-cake-and-eat-it-too approach leaves us as a society in an impossible bind. An increasingly urban population doesn’t understand the hunting culture at all, and just wants the absurd quantity of gun violence to stop. The numbers are there. The argument is over, really. If your side were willing to compromise, maybe that could result in sensible gun ownership rules like Sweden, which would work perfectly well for anyone who really wanted to hunt. But you’re not. So what most likely will happen is that, within a generation or two, there will be a major cataclysm on this issue. This is what Holmes was channeling in his own pathetic fantasy. Maybe it won’t be as big as the Civil War, but it will be a disaster in any case. And given that gun-owning households now total in the mid-thirty percents (and by that I’m not talking rabidly pro-gun folks; many current gun owners are also willing to submit to heavier regulation), it’s hard to imagine that that cataclysm will go in the extreme pro-gun crowd’s favor.

    Note, I’m not writing any of this in the hopes of changing anyone’s mind—that’s no doubt pointless. I’m just reacting to your post, stating the obvious about where this attitude inevitably leads us as a nation.

    PS – your follow-on argument in the comments above about Prohibition is also specious. This is not the 1920s. Technology is totally different. And a majority of Americans don’t feel the need to own guns, as they did to drink alcohol. Sure, there will always be a low-level black market in these things (there is in Sweden too). But a post-gun America will not be swimming in guns as it is now. And yes, if extremely tight gun regulations are voted in, or even a repeal of the 2nd Amendment, we would expect that to be enforced by the civil authorities. That’s how civil society works.

  25. And you are seriously underestimating how UNcivil society has gotten in the years since you were a speechwriter for ‘a Republican Administration’. My guess is you haven’t been to Sweden recently, either….

  26. Draven: the administration I worked in was George HW Bush. I was in Sweden two years ago, and still have family living there, that I talk with on a regular basis. Don’t believe everything you read on Fox News. Bad things happen in Sweden, like everywhere else. But bad violent things (especially death by gun) are far less likely to happen there than here.

  27. The Bush Administration was almost 11 years ago. A few things have happened since then.

    No Bad Violent Things in Sweden, that’s not what even non-Fox News sources are saying. Don’t believe everything that people are telling you, either, since it has basically been said they are putting pressure on the media to not report it…. but of course, that doesn’t count to you, does it…

    The numbers ARE NOT there. There isn’t and hasn’t been enough support to even pass a new AWB, even when the Democrats controlled congress from 2006-2010. You should remember that, it was when you were working for GWB.

  28. Oh my Hell. Did you even bother reading any of the comments already posted? Good night, and you want to accuse “my side” as unable to be convinced otherwise? How ’bout try some of these.

    “You hold your views at a visceral not a logical level, and you will never let go of them, or demonstrate a willingness to compromise.”
    Um, yeah, turn that back and apply it to yourself there. Here’s some logical reasoning for you. Cities and states with higher legal firearm ownership per capita have drastically lower murder rates than cities and states that don’t. The highest murder rates are in states and particularly cities with the strictest gun control laws. If it was only about the number of firearms out there, why is this the case?

    “Because the fact is the other countries in that graph represent a wide array of different human cultures.”
    Sure they do. You know what else they represent? Relatively tiny countries compared to the US, in both population and geographic boundaries, that are largely ethnically and culturally homogenous. The US on the other hand is not only one of the largest countries in the world in land mass, it’s also the most diverse in terms of culture, religion, and ethnicity. So of course anything that happens there can be directly applied here, right?

    “But all of them with lower rates of gun murders do have one thing in common: much more restrictive gun laws.”
    Ok, and as I said before, why are you counting only murders by firearm? Why not count ALL murders? Why not count ALL violent crime? Also, how are crimes reported in those countries? Are the numbers there counted in the same way as here? And I’ll repeat once again, the four cities in America with the highest firearm murder rates have the most restrictive firearm laws: LA, NYC, Chicago, Baltimore. If all it took was restrictive firearm laws to lower firearm murders, how can those cities have tons of gun murders, but tough gun law European countries have very little? That is not logical. Maybe, just as I and many others have said, there are a metric ton of other factors and variables that are also at play. Trying to greatly simplify that to “it’s just the gun laws” is the emotional, visceral path you accuse me and many others.

    “Why on Earth should we as Americans ever accept the idea that we are somehow worse people than the rest of the world?”
    I don’t know anyone that argues that. I know many who will say we are the freest people in the world. And part of having more freedom means a greater chance some people will abuse that freedom to make illegal choices and actions. That’s kinda been the basis of America since the beginning ( the whole “better ten guilty people go free rather than one innocent man imprisoned” thing ).

    “I grew up hunting”
    Which has exactly zilch to do with the 2A or the inalienable right to defend yourself.

    “I also see it as clear as day that that certainly does not and should not mean unlimited, barely regulated access to guns.”
    When was the last time, if ever, you tried to legally buy a firearm? Because the tens of thousands of laws regarding firearms already on the books certainly means we have unlimited, barely regulated access, doesn’t it?

    “any more than a citizen should have unregulated access to cars, light aircraft or explosives.”
    There is no inalienable right to transportation.

    “We regulate those things heavily, and people are generally safer because of it,”
    Arguable. As I’ve already said, cars are arguably more dangerous than firearms. Heavier regulation also comes with a much higher cost in time and monetary expense.

    “I lived for several years in Sweden, and unlike the US that country does have a healthy, positive attitude toward guns.”
    Three things. First, empirically define what a “healthy, positive attitude toward guns” is. Second, empirically prove that Sweden has it. Finally, empirically prove the USA does not. After all, you’re claiming to be the logical one, so I’m sure you can logically prove your argument.

    “Any adult who wants to can own a gun, as long as he doesn’t have a history of mental illness”
    And who is in charge of defining what is and is not mental health? Is there any due process to declare someone mentally incompetent? Is there a process for someone to contend that ruling and regain their legal right?

    “or a heavy criminal record”
    Which is already the case here.

    “and can pass a training course.”
    Once again, who is determining the rules for the course? What protections are in place to keep those requirements from escalating to a ridiculous levels where no one can pass them?

    “The number of rifles/shotguns an individual can own is limited to four.”
    Why? What is this supposed to accomplish? With the possible exception of Vegas, nearly all shootings have been done with three or fewer firearms.

    “Pistols are allowed but are more heavily regulated, and there is certainly no concealed carry—definitely not in town.”
    I advise you to look up Kennesaw, Georgia. Also Chicago. The instant they finally legalized citizen concealed carry in Chicago, despite the naysayers claiming it’d turn into a shooting gallery, the murder rate dropped sharply.

    “In fact, it’s even illegal in many cases to concealed carry a knife in town.”
    Yeah, and Londonistan also arrests people for carrying screwdrivers and kitchen shears. Scary.

    “Guns have to be kept by their owner in a gun safe”
    Yep, and that safe generally can’t be easily or quickly accessible, great for the home invaders. It’s also very iffy to use your firearms for any kind of personal defense there.

    “and yes, the government tracks every individual gun.”
    Perfect to let them know what doors to break down to forcibly confiscate them all. Also, if you want to keep going with your car comparison, how would you like it if before selling your personal vehicle to someone else, you had to run a background check on them and have the sale approved and recorded by the local registrar?

    “Those people who want to hunt are well able to hunt.”
    Once again, hunting and sport shooting have nothing to do with 2A.

    “And very few human beings end up getting shot every year.”
    How many each year are getting stabbed, strangled, bludgeoned, raped, kidnapped, or otherwise violently assaulted? Per capita stats, preferably. Stop focusing on just firearm crime and look at all crime.

    “Swedes who want to cause trouble usually have no other option than to do that with a knife, or a broken bottle, or their fists.”
    No. Recent attacks have shown that cars, vans, trucks, and pressure cookers can be deadlier than firearms.

    “Most Americans haven’t had the same chance as me to see how well gun laws work in a country like Sweden.”
    You mean a country with a tiny, homogenous population that has never had a lot of guns there in the first place? Ok. Sounds totally like the US. No problems with scale or anything else in applying those rules here.

    “But still, for a large majority of us now, the necessity of tighter gun regulation is as plain as day.”
    If it’s so simple and so obvious, I’m sure you can explain very quickly and easily how to enact those laws that won’t molest the law-abiding but will get the criminals to turn in their guns. Again, you’re the logical side and not the emotional one, right? I’m sure the organized crime rings will instantly turn in all their now-illegal firearms the instant those laws get passed.

    “And we look around and see that some level of further regulation does in fact work, in basically every other developed country on Earth.”
    Gun grabbers do love that phrase “developed country.” Why? What is the official definition of “developed country”? Why exclude the so-called under-developed countries from this? Is it because it’s inconvenient to include places like Mexico, Brazil, and most of Africa and Central America where guns are completely illegal for civilians, yet gun murders are sky high?

    “And then we look back to you guys, who still keep making the same arguments about freedom to hunt,”
    Um, no, actually, no one on this forum has used hunting as a primary reason to keep and bear arms.

    “Forgive me if we, at this point, conclude that it’s really about your own misguided fantasy”
    Uh huh, the side of logic and reason and not emotional insults, right?

    “of maintaining the ability to overthrow the US government should you ever want to, by force of arms.”
    Ok, a few things here. Apart from a very few severely deluded people, no one WANTS to overthrow the gov’t. Those who are actually prepared for it and have thought about it know, that while possible, it would be absolutely horrific. Two, if you think the US citizens with their paltry small arms would have no chance to stand up against the US military, please explain why the wars and conflicts in the Middle east are still ongoing. Why hasn’t the might of the US military been able to clear out the goat herders with AKs? Finally, how many soldiers and LEOs do you think will follow orders to fire on American civilians? It’s not that we fantasize about another revolution, it’s that we know the possibility of it alone acts as a great deterrent.

    “A desperate fantasy about forcing people to go along with you, because you couldn’t convince them to agree with your ideas.”
    Yes, that is exactly what you’re doing.

    “This simultaneous flag-waving, backed up with the looming threat of open rebellion.”
    Samuel Clemens perhaps said it best. Patriotism is supporting your country always and your gov’t when it deserves it. The idea of the USA is that all men are created equal and all are free to pursue their own idea of happiness provided they do not encroach upon the rights of others. So, we wave the flag celebrating that idea while staunchly defending against those who would deny us or others their rights. There’s no paradox there.

    “An increasingly urban population doesn’t understand the hunting culture at all,”
    Why do you keep bringing up hunting?

    “and just wants the absurd quantity of gun violence to stop.”
    Inferring that the dumb hunting rednecks aren’t interested in stopping gun violence, which is completely false. Many on “my side” have offered up suggestions on how to curb the violence. All of them are instantly shot down by “your side.”

    “The argument is over, really.”
    For you, pigeon on the chessboard. Preen and strut away, but you haven’t proven anything.

    “If your side were willing to compromise”
    Except the gun grabbers never offer a compromise. All that has ever happened in the US for gun rights is take, take, take. You can’t have automatic weapons, suppressors, or explosives. Now you can’t have firearms manufactured overseas. Now you have to buy them from FFLs. Now you can’t have semi-auto rifles with pistol grips. Now you can’t have pistols with magazines more than 10 rounds. Now only 7 rounds. Now you have to first register yourself with the state to even try purchasing one. Please show the great compromises you’re offering. All you’re interested in is adding more restrictions, never giving anything back. It’s not a compromise when a bully only takes half your lunch money instead of all of it.

    “And yes, if extremely tight gun regulations are voted in, or even a repeal of the 2nd Amendment, we would expect that to be enforced by the civil authorities. That’s how civil society works.”
    When in the course of human events . . .

  29. @ Eric:

    Ok, and as I said before, why are you counting only murders by firearm? Why not count ALL murders? Why not count ALL violent crime? Also, how are crimes reported in those countries? Are the numbers there counted in the same way as here?

    Because this is the easiest way to pretend that all those other countries are ‘far more moral’ than the US – it’s a strawman to beat y’all over the head with. It’s stupid.

    Further, there’s indications that in Germany alone, assaults are not as well recorded when ‘certain ethnic groups’ are involved. Hell, apparently, discussions about such crimes are quickly stifled online by the government, but it seems there are so many now it’s harder to police those discussions (which manpower should’ve gone to actually policing the streets and protecting the citizenry, but naaah, left-wing priorities!)

    Britain is rapidly becoming a laughing stock, where criminals have more rights than the local citizenry. This is not a tenable situation; if citizens have more rights than criminals, what incentive is there to not become a criminal?

    Oh some good news though, Denmark is banning the niqab and burqa. This is good! No longer will these women’s identities be erased by hiding their faces.

Comments are closed.