in medias res

An interesting comment on the blog ‘Of Arms and the Law’ concerning a post about Barack’s misguided attempt to reduce gun crime:

You said: “Reducing crime by limiting access to the types of guns that criminals use is not a bad thing.”

OK. You are making a critical assumption, which must be addressed before the argument can proceed. Gun control advocates, such as Obama, Clinton, Feinstein, Kennedy, Schumer, Boxer, Durbin, etc., simply assume that gun control equals crime control. That assumption is the mantra of gun control … it’s repeated so often as fact that advocates just take it as truth. Most articles I read that advocate gun control automatically assume this is true, and they give it no further thought. They are usually mistaken before they even begin - that is part of the problem.

Take waiting periods, for example. The idea/belief here is that making a gun purchaser wait 24, or 48, or 72 hours, or 5 or 10 days will decrease crime because it prevents people from buying a gun “in the heat of the moment” and committing a crime with that firearm.

But in reality, we have to consider the average “time to crime” for firearms. Of firearms that have been used by a criminal committing a crime, the average “time to crime” (time from purchase to use in a crime) is about 11 years. Someone correct me if I am wrong but that’s the number I recollect. And that is the AVERAGE. There are “times” in the tails of that distribution, of course, and surely a few of them are short by chance alone. But on average, people do not rush out to buy a gun and use it immediately to commit a crime. These facts demonstrate that this particular kind of gun control … waiting periods … is baseless, ineffective, and will not stand upon the scrutiny needed to evaluate these laws.

Look, the bottom line is this: (1) assumptions upon which arguments are based must be scrutinized, and (2) should a particular gun control law be demonstrated effective in reducing crime, that is the STARTING POINT. Even if such a law was found to reduce crime, it must be weighed against other considerations, be they the value of an armed populace, or the clear prohibition against government to pass such laws (e.g. the 2A phrase stating that “the right…shall not be infringed”). Remember, it doesn’t use the same language that the 3A does … the 2A doesn’t say “shall not be infringed but in a manner to be prescribed by law.”

So, Floyd, the point I really want to drive home with you is that EVEN IF a particlar law is proven effective in reducing crime, that such a law should be passed is still not a foregone conclusion.

I wonder, too, why no one wants to address this: almost all guns have been outlawed in England. Yet, crime miraculously still exists. And there, since they can’t blame it on guns like we can, they have to move on to the next readily available weapon– knives. And no, I’m not joking. Listen, it’s just common sense. It’s not the weapon that’s the problem. Outlaw a gun, a maniac will just use a knife. On the other hand–and quite ironically–a well armed public is the only proven deterrent to violent crime that the liberals have been searching for.

Tags: Gun Control, Obama, Truth
Posted in general | Comments (1)