Thursday, January 14, 2010

Lie #22: "Handguns aren't used for sport."

Taken from one of the typical "ZOMG guns = evil" op-eds:

Handguns aren't used for sport. They are used to kill.

Actually, handguns are used for sport and they are used for killing. Just like any other tool, the uses of a handgun are only limited by ones imagination. I'd wager that most handguns are used to collect dust. The next most popular use is recreational shooting. I'll even go so far as to say "killing" is the least common use of a handgun in America. Even if every gun death were assigned to one handgun, it wouldn't be close to the number of handguns that are only used to put holes in paper.

So, I am protected from secondhand smoke, which may cause life-threatening illnesses, but I'm still not protected from second-hand gunfire, which most certainly threatens my life.

You are just as protected from second-hand gunfire as you are from any other violent crime.

I'm not naïve enough to think banning handguns would be easy or would stop all gun violence. But we have to start somewhere.

I know guns still will be used to harm, to kill, to commit crimes. I'm not idealistic enough to think they'll disappear overnight. But, in time, fewer guns will be out there. And that's a good thing.

Except, no. The criminal element of the US already has an appetite for guns. You ban handguns, they'll start using rifles. You ban rifles, they'll use shotguns. You ban shotguns, they'll seek guns through other avenues. The drug cartels in Mexico would be more than obliged to send some north with their regular drug shipments. And of course, more enterprising criminals could simply manufacture their own guns.

I also don't buy the argument that if more of us were armed, we'd be able to take down the shooter. Usually, the shooter is on a suicide mission anyway. Plus, the gunman has the element of surprise.

The element of surprise only works once. And it will only works if the first person he shoots is the other person with the gun. I'd rather turn on the news and hear, "Shooter kills 5 before being killed by an armed citizen." than "Shooter kills 32 before killing himself."

Of those who support the concealed-carry laws , of those who are members of the NRA and of those who talk about their rights, I ask, what about my right to be safe?

I can ask you the same question. You feel that less handguns will make you safe. Some people feel that carrying a gun makes them safe. So what about their right to be safe? Do your rights magically trump theirs?


weerdbeard said...

"So, I am protected from secondhand smoke, which may cause life-threatening illnesses, but I'm still not protected from second-hand gunfire, which most certainly threatens my life."

You're not even "Protected" from 2nd Hand Smoke. I often see people lighting up in designated smoke-free areas, and I regularly see people smoking in inside subway stations.

Nothing STOPS you from lighting a cigarette in a restricted place. There are just laws that punish such behavior

The laws are the EXACT same (on the rudimentary level, charges of course are vastly different).

Just for amusement I'll relate a story. I was waiting for a train in Boston's Downtown Crossing subway station (probably one of the most dangerous places I traverse every day) and I heard a woman shouting.

Obviously concerned about the gang activity in that area I perked up to see what the commotion was about.

The woman was shouting "PUT OUT THAT CIGARETTE!" and she was dressed in an MBTA uniform. The subject of her distress was a steet person who was likely unconscious for whatever reason (I suspect drug use, but who am I to judge?) with a lit cigarette in his nearly limp hand. He was breaking the law, and had little concern about it. Now the best part was the guy was passed out, and not even SMOKING the cigarette. She could have easily taken the butt from his hand extinguished it, and then either move on with her day or assist the police in ticketing him for the violation.

But to both place her hands on him, and to take his property without his consent is also a crime, so she did nothing but yell. Not sure how it resolved as my train arrived and I had no desire to linger there any longer than I had to.

This is how our laws work, they don't actually PREVENT ANYTHING from happening (if instead a person wanted to light a joint or a crack pipe, that would constitute MORE charges being filed, but in no way would be any more preventable) this is why we have self-defense laws. Its your job to STOP crimes that might immediately harm you, hence why I carry a gun, and am against gun control

Mike W. said...

Yeah, not used for sport. What do you call IDPA, ISPC etc. etc.

Everytime I go to the range I'm not using the gun to kill. Maybe this guy can enlighten me as to what I'm doing wrong?...

weerdbeard said...

But Mike W. Don't you know that people who don't play the sports are the ones allowed to declare it a sport or not.

So IDPA, ISPC, 3-Gun ect are not sports....while Bowling and Golf, and Bass Fishing ARE!

If it doesn't make sense to you it's because you own guns because you have a small penis....or somthing!

AztecRed said...

After doing some Google-Fu, i've found that the op-ed author, Judy Larsen, has a history of making anti-gun comments on her own blog and on other blogs.

Post a Comment