Thread: Gun Control Tramples On The Certain Virtues Of A Heavily Armed Citizenry

Gun Control Tramples On The Certain Virtues Of A Heavily Armed Citizenry - Forbes

Hard cases make bad law, which is why they are reserved for the Constitution, not left to the caprice of legislatures, the sophistry and casuistry of judges or the despotic rule making of the chief executive and his bureaucracy. And make no mistake, guns pose one of the hardest cases a free people confronts in the 21^st century, a test of whether that people cherishes liberty above tyranny, values individual sovereignty above dependency on the state, and whether they dare any longer to live free.

Here's a fantastic article that explains why an assault weapons ban makes no sense. It's written by a self-proclaimed leftist.

Why Not Renew the ?Assault Weapons? Ban? Well, I?ll Tell You? ? Kontradictions

It is tempting to ask why accidental drowning is not 340 times more important a social issue than gun control. Or why poisoning isn?t 150 times as pressing a political issue. (If the number of people dying is truly what?s important, almost anything would be more pressing.) The problem is not hard to understand though, and rests in a psychological concept known as the ?logical fallacy of misleading vividness?.
The fallacy of misleading vividness is when the thought, imagery or reality of something is so emotionally potent ? positively or negatively ? that you begin to overestimate the likelihood and frequency of its occurrence. This is why many people are afraid to fly. They can understand intellectually that crashes almost never happen, and that airplanes are statistically the safest way to travel, but the idea of being torn apart mid-air, or knowing that they?re about to die for a full two minutes in freefall, or being dragged under the ocean while stuck inside the cabin is so vivid and disturbing, that they actually experience intense fear about a process that is safer than their drive to the airport...However, it is also an incredible statistical deviation from the norm, objectively inflicting far less suffering and death than many other ways that people are far more likely to die. This is an important point. When our policy becomes based on emotional content rather than facts, we are heading in the wrong direction.

If there was ever a single quotation that summarized the fears of the gun rights crowd surrounding the ?assault weapon? ban, it is this one:

1. ?No one should have any illusions about what was accomplished [by the ban]. Assault weapons play a part in only a small percentage of crime. The provision is mainly symbolic; its virtue will be if it turns out to be, as hoped, a stepping stone to broader gun control.?
   ? Washington Post editorial, September 15, 1994

As we have seen, the battles of gun control have been fought, won and lost with definitions. Categories are created, connotations ascribed with the stroke of a pen. The Brady Campaign, the strongest advocate for these bans, has taken this particular work one step farther since Aurora. They have now redefined ?mass shootings? to include all drive-bys involving a shot fired toward three or more people,regardless of whether anyone was even actually hurt, leading them to assert that there are ?20 mass shootings every year?. People who follow the news with some regularity may sense that there is something wrong with this statement, but this sort of redefinition does influence many people who don?t have the time or will to investigate such a claim.
It is intentional deceptions like this that have peaceful, gun-loving folks like myself looking over our political shoulders all the time. Add to this the fact that the Brady Campaign strategically changed its name from the more honest designation of ?Handgun Control, Inc?, and perhaps it?s easier for the Left to understand why those of us who believe in the importance of ALL of the items in the Bill of Rights (including firearm ownership) are worried about the progressive nature of these bills.
With intentionally dishonest lobbying groups pushing already-failed legislation while calling it a ?stepping stone?, we can see the slippery slope right in front of our feet.