Debate Magazine

Robert Farago Viciously Attacks Gun Control Supporters

Posted on the 26 September 2011 by Mikeb302000
In a recent screed, Robert made a couple points I took issue with.
People “killed by gun violence” are not killed by people who lack respect for laws and law and order and their fellow man’s right to remain un-shot, un-stabbed, un-beaten, etc. Nor are they civilians who failed to avoid the rabbi’s advice to “avoid stupid people in stupid places doing stupid things.” They are “victims.”

From there it’s a short step to removing the word “violence” from “gun violence” and blaming the gun itself. Hey, why not? No gun, no gun violence; no gun violence, no victims of gun violence. Problem solved. Not to put too fine a point on it, “gun violence” is shorthand for “This wouldn’t have happened if the killers didn’t have ‘easy access’ to guns.”
********************************************
MAIG and other gun grabbers know that the term “gun violence” removes the gunman from any subsequent debate about crime prevention. By pre-deleting criminal culpability, they can highlight the “need” for gun control without raising an entire range of moral, ethical, cultural and political issues that would “cloud the issue.”
Hence the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence, the Coalition to Stop Gun Violence, Stop Gun Violence, States United to Prevent Gun Violence, New Yorkers Against Gun Violence, Women Against Gun Violence, etc.
Insidiously, organizations campaigning against “gun violence” are, by implication, OK with non-violent gun ownership. (Just as one supposes that the Mayors Against Illegal Guns are not against legal guns.) In fact, they are not OK with guns, period. The Brady Campaign was formerly Handgun Control, Inc. and the National Council to Control Handguns. Need I say more?
My response:
Robert, You’re taking too many leaps there. First, speaking as one who believes gun availability is a big part of the problem, I disagree with your accusation that we want to blame the gun and leave the criminal out of it. Whenever someone commits a crime with a gun there are laws against that, he’s sought by the police, he’s recognized by all as the guilty party. We don’t suggest attacking the gun availability and lettinig the criminal get away with the behavior. These two efforts are not mutually exclusive like you keep pretending they are.
Second, folks who are against illegal guns and gun violence are not necessarily against all guns. You keep saying that, but I honestly don’t hear it from the gun control folks. Speaking for myself, I’d like to see strict enough gun control laws so that gun violence drops, but I figure that would still leave about half the current law-abiding gun owners with all their toys.
And you know what the disarmed half would do? Some of them would go criminal, but the disarmed ones would account for most of the gun flow into the criminal world as well as most of the negligence. The world would be a better place.
What's your opinion? Please leave a comment.

You Might Also Like :

Back to Featured Articles on Logo Paperblog

These articles might interest you :

Magazine