From our favorite Brady Board member, in her own comments:
Should we just not do anything? That is not what this country does. When there is a national public health and safety problem, people get to work. They pass laws, they educated, they do something. Seatbelt laws, no smoking laws, breast cancer and colon cancer screenings- all national efforts to get people to take better care of themselves or to mandate things that will make people safer and cut costs to health care, etc. We haven’t even tried with guns so how would we know?
Sometimes nothing is exactly the right thing to do. I don’t get this “We have to do something,” mentality. Especially when something generally involves restricting people’s liberty in the cases of smoking bans and seatbelt laws. I think this is really what probably separates our two sides; we value freedom and they want to be relieved of the burdens of it. I think this more now that we have interacted with them more.
Note the comparison to breast cancer screening and colon cancer screening. Would Joan Peterson favor mandating these? With long prison sentences for failing to show up to your scheduled screening? Because that’s what using gun control to solve the problem of violence means. Maybe she would. It certainly wouldn’t surprise me. But to borrow some of their lingo in a different context, as a cancer victim and survivor myself, having lost my mother to it, I would never advocate mandating such things. Freedom is more important than saving the lives which would be saved by mandatory screening with stiff penalties for non-compliance. I think most other folks would agree.
But there’s one difference here. There’s reliable scientific evidence that early screening greatly increases cancer survival rates. There’s absolutely no evidence at all that gun control reduces violence crime or murder.
Yes. We must do something. Repeal the Sullivan Act!
..oh wait. By ‘something’ she meant ‘the specific something I want’.
“There’s absolutely no evidence at all that gun control reduces violence crime or murder.” Or, better (more accurately said), there’s evidence that more (legal) guns means less crime. However, its interesting that that “more guns” (increased sales) has not been credited with the recent drop in Violent Crime/Murder, eh? But, otherwise, its a big enigma to ’em, they can’t figure out why the drop — A really mystery? not so much.
Just wait to see how “Obamacare” will be used as a battering ram to destroy numerous liberties, but especially gun ownership. The devil is in the details and the regulations this administration will generate should make you hair stand on end.
Their view is that guns are dangerous so your physician will have to ask you about them. Newly-equipped NIH stormtroopers (or BATFE agents) will then be at your door to confiscate your firearms as health hazards. I’m convinced they will attempt to either penalize you for them or attempt outright confiscation while hiding behind medical professionals. Am I paranoid? Well, looking at this lawless administration, I’m more credible.
That’s funny, because nothing is what Joan seems to think we should be capable of doing in the event we need to defend ourselves.
Hanson’s Razor.
“If I’m not shouting demands for gun control at cameras, how on earth will anybody know how much I care about the victims?“
You’re clearly a victim, so how can I argue? :-P
There are a lot of public health problems that we have not tried to regulate out of existence. Regulating sexual behavior would go a long way towards eliminating or reducing the 16,000 deaths per year from AIDS. Outlawing homosexuality would certainly help save as many lives as gun control. Why aren’t the anti-gunners also on board with that?
Now don’t misunderstand me, I am not advocating outlawing homosexual sexual contact, but merely deflating the argument that we “get to work” on problems. This isn’t a public health problem, but a political one.
Funny how the Pro-Choice crowd wants to eliminate our choice to be armed. The Lib-Cong want to control every aspect of our lives because they know what’s good for us.
How does the thought pattern go?
(A) I’ve found a problem.
(B) I think we must do something.
(C) I’ve thought of something.
(D) We MUST do something.
Where something is gun control.
I would guess implementing ethics and morality classes are out.
“But there’s one difference here. There’s reliable scientific evidence that early screening greatly increases cancer survival rates. ”
To a point. In somebody without family history early screening (in the 30s and 40s) the results really aren’t there. Certainly screening in the early teens would just be a waste of time, and unnecessary inconvenience, not to mention the loss of dignity of having a camera shoved up your ass, or your breast mashed between two pains of glass.
That’s more like Gun Control.
For once, I agree with Joan–we must do something. I suggest that we start by ending the War on Drugs. If our experience with Prohibition is any guide, that should drop the homicide rate quite a bit.
I have to say, I get so frustrated with these hypocritical leftists. They tout Freedom of Expression and Freedom of Choice, they go on and on about love being blind and argue for “rights” for homosexuals to do as they please and they especially love “Freedom of Speech”. But try to disagree with them or refute their “data” and you’ll get the biggest face full of hateful invective and venemous rage that you’ve ever seen. Things have to be Their way. They’re all for Freedom, but their idols are some of the most restrictive and violent people to ever live. Che was Not a nice guy.
Now, Gun Control is Easy! I agree with a criminal background check. Felons cannot legally own firearms, nor should they, as far too many tend to be repeat offenders and recidivists. I’ll even concede waiting periods on handguns. 48-72hours is reasonable, keeps people from going off stupid. Although I can go off even More stupid with a 12Ga. that I can buy that day… But lift the ban on “Assault Style” weapons. Gimme a bayonet lug and pistol grip if I want it. If not, I’ll just have the gunsmith add it aftermarket. Remove any magazine capacity restrictions. Why Shouldn’t I be able to put a 30rnd mag on my Glock23? And when you find a criminal with a stolen gun, don’t blame it on the owner of the gun, blame it on the criminal that Stole the gun. Even if you outlaw guns, criminals will Still have them. For Christ’s sake, look at Great Britain. They have a 100% ban on handguns, unless you’re a cop or military, but lookie lookie, criminals Still have guns there. So…. for Gun Control, nor restrictions on reasonable weapons and Use Both Hands and that’s all you need.
Bah, I’m done ranting.
I already own several pistols and long guns-what mayhem will be prevented by a waiting period?
I understand wanting to meet in the middle and be reasonable. I understand the notion of giving them something we don’t care about to shut them up. This is not what we should do.
Never give them anything if it won’t actually reduce violence. Even if we don’t care about it, don’t give it to them or concede it unless it will actually be beneficial.
Anything they are given, even if it appears inconsequential, will be tried as a cudgel against us.
I thought NRA (and other) firearms classes were “doing something!” I though Eddie Eagle was “doing something!”
Just not the thing she wants
Mandated colon screenings?!? Good lord, is there nowhere they won’t stick their noses into?