Getting lost in the weeds

In the discussions about this or that anti-gun proposal, many on our side are missing the big picture. It’s important that we not cede the terms of the debate to the other side. When we do that, we’ve already lost.

The anti-gun extremists couch their arguments in terms of public safety; usually presenting gun control as crime control. But it simply isn’t true that controlling firearms controls crime. Decades of experience in the US and other Western nations, Britain and Australia in particular, show that at best, gun control has no positive affect on violent crime. At worst, it increases violent crime rates. Rather than joining in the debate, for example, about whether or not restricting magazine capacity will reduce crime, we need to reject the entire crime control premise. The debate over whether 10, 7, 30, or 100 rounds in a magazine is “enough” is moot when the entire rationale for restricting magazine capacity in the first place is already seen as invalid.

We need to stop arguing about the minutia. The big picture is that gun control isn’t about crime control; it’s about disarming citizens and turning them into servants of the State. Ultimately, gun control is simply about control.

One Comment

  1. Steve said:

    I should add that if you’re going to shoot down a particular anti-gun argument, do so as quickly and efficiently as you can. I’ll admit that sometimes the stupid is just too big to ignore. And sometimes, a quick, precise answer to a particular anti-gun talking point will inject serious doubt into whoever is repeating said talking point. You’ll often find that the casually anti-gun are simply repeating propaganda that they’ve heard in the past. Quickly shooting a hole into one of those arguments calls into question everything they’ve heard from that source. Once you’ve done that, get back to exposing the true aim of the anti-gun position: Disarming a free people and leaving them vulnerable to tyranny.

    January 23, 2013

Comments are closed.