Debate Magazine

Reality Check!

Posted on the 26 April 2013 by Doggone
The Atlantic came up with a piece titled Owning Guns Doesn't Preserve Freedom which basically backs up what I have been saying about personal guns protecting freedom being rubbish. After all, the Iraquis had loads of guns. And heavily-armed Yemen (54.8) and Saudi Arabia (35.0) remain among the most repressive countries in the world (Yes, Orlon, I know this stuff is hard for you to understand, but that never stops you from making idiotic comments).
 The article points out that:
A quick scan through the list continues the point. Chile (10.7) comes in with the same arms rate as Venezuela, but the nations present starkly divergent civil freedoms. Russia (8.9) is slightly more armed than Ireland (8.6). The Netherlands (3.9) is on par, as far as weapons go, with oppressive Turkmenistan (3.8). Israel and Georgia see the same arms rate as Iran and Belarus and yet exist on opposite ends of Freedom House's rank.
The best quote:
"This relationship between gun rates and [democracy] isn't based upon social science - it's based upon philosophy," said Aaron Karp, a political science professor at Old Dominion University and one of the Small Arms Survey's senior consultants. "Part of the reason why people who are advocates of individual gun rights tend to be opposed to social science is that they're not comfortable with it." 
And while you are reading that article, check out the related Great Gun Gobbledygook: The Paradox of Second Amendment Hardliners:
In the current debate over gun control, the pro-gun lobby has an ace card up its sleeve: We need weapons to prevent government tyranny, they say. These self-styled champions of liberty see guns as the ultimate insurance policy to protect the Constitution. The problem is that most of those making this argument also strongly support a massive U.S. military -- exactly the behemoth we must be armed against. It's the great gun gobbledygook.
The irony isn't lost on me that the Second Amendment was supposed to protect against a large, standing military. On the other hand, the historically ignorant can be led.

Back to Featured Articles on Logo Paperblog