I recently read a posting praising the decision by Dick’s Sporting Goods to remove semi-automatic rifles from their shelves. The move was praised as ‘enlightened’ as if the executives at Dick’s had suddenly recognized their sins, and in an act of repentance, adopted the decision to insure that they had no part in any future tragedy. Never do they consider that it is a business move reflective of current political pressures.
The response to the gleeful tone from those who support gun rights was predictable. Exhausted by the ‘it’s the gun’s fault’ hypothesis, gun owners question the sanity of someone who believes the inanimate object is the cause of the tragedy. However, I found myself sadly shaking my head. No one is won to your side by immediately assuming the other side is crazy.
In my experience, the vast majority of anti-gun voters hold similar attributes. Their decision making process is based on the emotional, “if the gun didn’t exist, then the violence would have never happened.” This is the convincing argument that all of us hold in mourning the victims of a tragedy. However, it is a myopic viewpoint that doesn’t stand up to thoughtful examination. I am always surprised by the reaction I receive by asking reasonable questions about the subject as it incites an intense anger and frustration that you don’t hold the same opinion.
Vague, myopic, strictly choice A or B arguments are the hallmark of liberal thinking. Opinions are based on verbiage that can be chanted at a protest movement, written on a bumper sticker or spouted by a celebrity whose success in their occupation is based on the ability to parrot words written by another. Examining the backgrounds of those celebrities whose opinions are being adopted often yields no significant life experience or even a high school education. To think how many follow every word celebrities utter as if they were passed down on a stone tablet from a God that they would contend doesn’t exist is a tragedy in itself.
Rarely does the anti-gun voter focus on the mental health of the tragedies perpetrator. They are unaware of the current qualification process for the purchase of a firearm, the difficulties in adjudicating an adult with a mental illness, the history of mass killing violence or the even the attributes of the “Assault Weapons” they are so eager to ban. This is the very definition of the new politically correct term of ‘Low Information Voter’.
Anti-gun advocates praise the advances of other countries who have banned firearms for the law abiding public. Misleading statistics are boldly cited. Case in point is the vast difference between the summary of police reports in Great Britain and the BCS reporting drawn from victim and witness accounts. The former is widely known as a resource for politicians who wish to appease a concerned public while the latter is used for the strategic planning of law enforcement in deciding where to apply resources. In 2009, the Daily Mail awarded Great Britain the title of ‘Europe’s Most Violent Country’.
Neither is anti-gun crowd aware of the increased violence in these countries since disarming the public. In Australia, weapons flow through a porous coastline far too vast to stop the flow. Criminal activity skyrockets. Desperate to create a successful political policy, the government invests incredible time and effort in confiscating any remaining firearms held by the citizenry.
And despite thousands of years of experience in human nature, the cry is always that ‘it will be different here’ and that ‘we won’t make the same mistakes as in the past.’ How foolish is man.
The NRA is correct that the only answer for a Bad Man with a gun is a Good Man with a gun. The experience last weekend at Clackamas Mall speaks volumes of the character of murderers. When faced with the prospect of someone who can shoot back, the murderer either runs or kills themselves. A lesson lost on those who believe in the concept of a universal myopic argument. Unfortunately, a lesson rarely discussed by our advocates.
The most difficult aspect for most of to understand is the benefit that the anti-gun voter receives from supporting the anti-gun lobby. An imagined utopia of non-violence is unrealistic to the nature of man and those at the lowest levels suffer the most from their ill-considered support. It is ironic to find politicians decrying ‘gun violence’ while being guarded by an armed security detail just off screen. It is unfortunate that through bad experience supporters one day wake to find that they are what those in the Clinton Administration famously referred to as ‘Useful Idiots’.
The path as supporters of the 2nd Amendment is clear. Our voice must be heard and the argument clearly stated in a manner with terms the low information voter identifies with.