Realitycheck is wrong about the gun issue.

Realitycheck is kind of an unpleasant person.

I adore how deeply he analyzes work here on Fimfiction.net. How looks at different stories. I love his opinion on issues like that. But he's such a diehard conservative. And a Southern denialist who refuses to believe slavery was one of, if not the, primary reason for the Civil War. Dude. The secession documents themselves say slavery is why they're leaving. The states right...to own SLAVES...is why they did what they did. The north wasn't willing to kill to stop slavery, but the south was willing to die to keep it. Why do you think they instituted Jim Crow, slavery-lite?

And then there's his other positions. Especially his recent journal on guns. I had noticed before that he blocks and deletes comments that make him look bad. I've never done that once. Not unless someone called me a "f-ggot" or anything. So already that makes me doubt his integrity.

But now...his latest journal pops up. So I need to talk about guns. We need to talk about gun control, about regulation, about how much damage guns can cause.

Before we begin, I wish to say, YES. There are other factors, like our sensationalist culture. We have a culture that places quite a big gloss on violence in Hollywood and a media that hypes up whatever controversy it can lay its hands on. Hollywood, the left, makes violence glamorous whilst the right wing makes it look patriotic. But that's only a part of the debate.

Then there's our mental health state right now. Public mental health services have had their budgets slashed. Many sanitariums and mental hospitals have been closed down. It is all too common for the mentally ill to wind up in the criminal justice system, not the health system. So we DO need to do something there.

But please. PLEASE. We have to talk about guns. And I will begin by going back to the beginning. To the Second Amendment.

"A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to bear and keep arms, shall not be infringed." This amendment has been divided into 2 clauses, the Militia clause and the Right to Bear Arms clause. Experts have talked time and time again about which clause is more important. Let's get started with the first one.

At the Constitutional Convention of 1787, there were very, VERY obvious reasons to include an amendment about guns. Hunting was an important source of food for many people. Personal security was a big deal in an era where people felt the need to protect themselves not merely from ordinary crime, but from potential Native American attacks or slave uprisings, or in case the British decided to try again.

But there were political motivations involved too. America didn't trust standing armies. A well-armed citizenry was, to the early Americans, a reminder and a warning to foreign countries to back the HECK off.

Today, of course, we have a professional full-time Army, Navy, Air Force AND Marines. Most of us, I would think, can't imagine ever needing to grab a rifle off the mantle to defend ourselves against foreign invaders or occupying forces. But let's move on to the Right to Arms clause now. There are many local, state and federal laws already on the books controlling gun sales, possession and use. The NRA would argue that most of these existing laws are unconstitutional. However the courts haven't fully agreed. The most important US ruling on the Second Amendment was United States v. Miller, a 1939 case. It, in effect, made sawed-off shotguns illegal. The court ruled that the laws against them weren't unconstitutional...sawed off shotguns sure as hell weren't used by the state militia or in preserving the peace or for HUNTING, but by gangsters and armed robbers.

But let's move further towards modern times and look at the arguments.

First thing's first...the PRO-Gun arguments.

1. The framers of the Constitution were clear. They intended for the 2nd Amendment to guarantee all citizens had the right to guns for self-defense. The government can't take that right.

2. The second amendment gives us the right to participate in the militia to defend their states or government.

3. The framers of the Constitution distrusted government, especially any government that wouldn't trust their citizens with firearms.

4. The Bill of Rights spells out individual rights a government can't take away, and the right to bear arms is as specific and clear as free speech.

Now for the opposing arguments. For GUN CONTROL.

1. The second amendment was enacted to make sure the states could have militias...but we don't need militias because of the standing US military forces we have and the National Guard.

2. Nothing in the Constitution or the historical record of 1787 shows that the founding fathers intended for the second amendment to allow firearms for self-defense or any other purpose than to raise a militia.

3. The second amendment pertains to federal laws only, and does not prohibit local and state governments from imposing their own controls...including outright bans...on guns.

4. You do not have the "freedom of speech" to yell "fire" in a crowded movie theater. There's regulation on the first amendment, just as there must be regulation on the second amendment.

Let's take a deep look at even more recent arguments and the like to get to the bottom of this. I want the facts and nothing but.

"Switzerland issues every household a gun! Switzerland's government trains every adult they issue a rifle. Switzerland has the lowest gun related crime rate of any civilized country in the world!!! It's a no brainer! Don't let our government waste millions of our tax dollars in an effort to make all law abiding citizens an easy target."

Yeah, uh...this isn't true. I took a look at gun-related crime rates from countries all through western Europe (including Switzerland) but also Japan, Australia, New Zealand, Canada and the United States. And guess what? The Swiss have the FOURTH HIGHEST worst gun crime rate.Only Greece, Ireland and the United States had higher rates.

"Guns kept at home are not necessarily dangerous in the streets, but mostly in situations that happen at home, such as suicide and murder of family members (especially females). In this respect, Switzerland has one of the highest proportions in the Western world," said Martin Killias, professor of criminology and criminal law at the University of Zurich Law School.

But I know what you're thinking. "Be fair! We wanna know about all crimes involving a gun." So I went to the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime site, which is the best source because the organization classifies crimes in a consistent way. But that organization's website doesn't report data based on gun use, except when homicide is involved.

So let's take a look at those statistics, then. And include crimes like assault, robbery, and theft, where guns were most likely to be involved, to see whether the crime rate in Switzerland was really that low. It wasn't.

Eleven out of 26 countries had lower rates of theft than Switzerland. Thirteen of 26 had lower rates of robbery. Six of 26 had lower rates of assault.

So in other words, that claim from before about more guns equaling less crime in Switzerland is full of holes.

"George Washington said a free people should be an armed people. It ensures against the tyranny of the government."

Louie Gohmert of Texas is no stranger to wild claims. Or stereotypes. But I won't get into that. Let's take a look at that claim. Now, invokving the Founding Fathers...and George Washington...big deal. REAL big deal. Let's take this seriously.

This is from Washington's first state of the union speech. Jan. 8, 1790.

" Among the interesting objects, which will engage your attention, that of providing for the common defence will merit particular regard. To be prepared for War is one of the most effectual means of preserving peace.

A free people ought not only to be armed but disciplined; to which end a uniform and well digested plan is requisite. And their safety and interest require, that they should promote such manufactories, as tend to render them independent on others for essential, particularly for military supplies.

The proper establishment of the Troops, which may be deemed indispensable, will be entitled to mature deliberation."

In this passage, Washington is talking about national defense policy, not individuals arming themselves, and the need for national self-sufficiency in creating military supplies. He was was speaking about external threats and not being dependent on imported weapons. Washington's address goes on to say that peaceful measures having failed in regards to "certain tribes of hostile Indians" on the southern and western frontiers, "we ought to be prepared to afford protection to those parts of the Union."

The "common defence," being prepared for war and having the ability to protect against hostile tribes all refer to outside threats.

The truth is, the idea of resistance to tyranny being dependent on a nation of gun-wielding individuals acting at their own behest or even on local initiative would have been anathema to Washington.

Indeed, during the Revolutionary war he very frequently lamented the crimes carried out by armed civilians or undisciplined militia against their unarmed neighbors. The solution to these crimes, as he understood it, was to increase the power of the government and the army to prevent and punish them -- not to put more guns in the hands of civilians. If you don't believe me, look up the Whiskey Rebellion of 1794. So...Gohmert is wrong about this.

U.S. Sen. Robert Menendez: There are no federal limits on the purchase of guns and ammunition.

Wow. Pretty horrifying to think about, huh? I know what you're thinking. That can't possibly be true.

Unfortunately, it is. We found that the senator's right that there is no federal law limiting the number of guns and bullets one can purchase at a given time. Three states, including New Jersey, have enacted their own restrictions on handgun sales. A spokesman for the U.S. Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, and gun policy experts has confirmed that the senator's claim is accurate.

"It is correct that there are no limits in federal law to the amount of guns or ammunition a person can buy if he/she is not a proscribed possessor of firearms," said Daniel Webster, co-director of the Center for Gun Policy and Research at Johns Hopkins University in Baltimore. The vast majority of states don't limit the number of firearms that can be purchased, according to a state-by-state breakdown compiled by the California-based Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence.

Frank Lautenberg: A loophole allows individuals convicted of domestic violence to purchase guns

This one is even worse. Surely you must be thinking there is NO way in hell this is true. In fact, lemme quote him more fully.

""In 1996, I wrote the domestic violence gun ban, [which] forbids anyone convicted of domestic violence from getting a gun. Since the law's inception, we have kept guns from falling into violent hands on over 200,000 occasions. For instance, in our gun laws we're allowing domestic abusers to sidestep this ban on getting a gun. The loophole allows a convicted abuser to walk into a gun show and walk out with a gun, no questions asked."

This...unfortunately...is true. It's called the "gun show loophole." The Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act, or Brady Act, requires all federally licensed firearms dealers to run a background check on potential customers to ensure they are not prohibited from owning a gun. But private sellers without a federal license don't have to meet the same requirement. Though this exception is known as the "gun show loophole," unlicensed individuals don't have to perform background checks whether they are selling a gun at a gun show or somewhere else.

The trick is that many of the private sellers at gun shows are really unlicensed full time dealers, so they may be selling scores or hundreds of guns a year with no paperwork. Because of the volume, they are much more reliable sources of firearms for prohibited possessors."

As a result of the loophole, "it's possible a convicted felon could go into a gun show and buy a firearm without ever being checked," said Chris Bombardiere, public information officer at the Newark Field Division of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives.

"It's time to acknowledge what we know in our hearts to be true -- that the best way to stop a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun," he said. "Just knowing there's a good guy with a gun around -- a cop, a guard, a soldier … and, yes, a law-abiding citizen with a gun -- makes us feel safer … because we are safer."

Wayne LaPierre has insisted for a national "right to carry" law, a measure that many states already have adopted. Generally speaking, it means that law-abiding citizens have the "right to carry" guns as they go about their daily business. (There are typically a few exceptions, such as in government buildings and schools.)

"Right now, in the United States, 7 million law-abiding Americans legally carry a concealed firearm, 7 million in almost every state in the country," he said. "And across the board, violent crime in jurisdictions that recognize the Right to Carry is lower than in areas that prevent it. The whole flock is safer when the wolves can't tell the difference between the lions and the lambs."

Problem is this isn't true. Now let's get started. The NRA website claims that 40 states have "right to carry" laws, while 10 restrict it. The NRA identifies the 10 states lacking "right to carry" laws as such: California, Delaware, Hawaii, Illinois, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Jersey, New York, Rhode Island, and Wisconsin.

I next turned to the FBI's crime statistics, looking particularly at the violent crime rate. This is a statistic that counts violent crimes per 100,000 inhabitants. I DO want to remind you all that the FBI warns people not to create ratings from these statistics, saying that rankings "provide no insight into the numerous variables that mold crime in a particular town, city, county, state, or region." We went ahead and created a state ranking anyway, knowing that it wouldn't necessarily establish a causal link between "right to carry" laws and a lower crime rate. At this point, though...I simply wanted to see if the statistics were consistent with what LaPierre said.

So. I found the the states without "right to carry" were spread out across the list, not bunched together at the top. The District of Columbia, which has strict gun control laws, ranked highest for violent crime. The other states ranked as follows: Delaware, No. 5; Maryland, No. 10; Illinois, No. 13; California, No. 17; Massachusetts, No. 18; New York, No. 24; New Jersey, No. 30; Hawaii, No. 36; Wisconsin, No. 39, and Rhode Island, No. 42.

I also couldn't help noticing that some states with laws that favor gun ownership placed at different points along the list. The Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence rates state gun laws, so I went and looked at the 14 states that had the weakest gun laws.There's a wide variation in where the states ranked in terms of violent crime: Alaska, No. 6; Louisiana, No. 7; New Mexico, No. 8; Arkansas, No. 11; Oklahoma, No. 12; Missouri, No. 15; Arizona, No. 21; West Virginia, No. 32; Kentucky, No. 38; Montana, No. 41; Idaho, No. 44; Utah, No. 47; North Dakota, No. 48, and South Dakota, No. 49.

So using the 2009 data, I don't see any evidence that state gun laws correlate with violent crime rates one way or the other, at least not "across the board" as LaPierre suggested in his speech. In fact, The National Academies of Sciences concluded in 2005 that current data do not allow for firm conclusions about how "right to carry" laws affect crime. There are simply no statistics that prove that conceal and carry laws stop crime across the board. There just aren't.

If you disagree with those conclusions, well...I don't really see how you can, considering I've just proved how the statements were true or false. Facts are objective. And the fact is that we need to have a talk about gun control. And we need to have it now. We need to do something. Perhaps not JUST for guns, yes, but they DO need to be included and on the table. I want solutions, I want answers. I want open and honest debate.

And I know what else some of you might say. Especially Realitycheck who is, AGAIN, a full on conservative. I keep hearing this. "If the Jews had guns they wouldn't have been murdered by Hitler." Or "hitler took the guns". Stuff like that.

...the Warsaw Ghetto Uprising. Thousands of Jews rebelled against the Nazis in the biggest organized resistance in Germany against his rule. They had guns, sub machine guns even, land mines, handguns, rifles, many of which were snuck to them by Polish resistance troops. But a "well regulated militia" of far stronger quantity and quality beat them.

So the next time somebody brings up that whole "if the Jews had had guns, Hitler wouldn't have risen to power" thing...you point them to the uprising, because they had plenty. And they still lost. Big time. It's not about how many guns you have or what type of guns you have. It's about how well trained you are with what you have, and about the friends you have to back you up in case things go wrong.

By he way? Hitler actually LOOSENED gun laws...except for the Jews. According to scholars he relaxed the tight gun laws that governed Germany after World War I, even as he barred Jews from owning weapons and moved to confiscate them.
Advocates who cite Hitler in the current U.S. debate overlook that Jews in 1930s Germany were a very small population, owned few guns before the Nazis took control, and lived under a dictatorship commanding overwhelming public support and military might, historians say. While it doesn't fit neatly into the modern-day gun debate, they say, the truth is that for all Hitler's unquestionably evil acts, his firearms laws likely made no difference in Jews' very tenuous odds of survival.

"Objectively, it might have made things worse" if the Jews who fought the Nazis in the 1943 Warsaw ghetto uprising in Poland had more and better guns, said historian Steve Paulsson, an expert on the period whose Jewish family survived the city's destruction.

So again, I say...no. It wouldn't have made a damn bit of difference. God help me. I wish it would have.

Comments

[Eggonaught]

You're even more hilarious and nonsensical than Reality Check.
Protip: if you start your argument by using "conservative" as a slur, you're going to appeal to a tiny minority of similarly angry and bigoted people who already agree with you.

[ngrey651]

2374606

Conservative=close minded. The current Conservative party is currently at war with itself and clashing for leadership. It's extremist elements have taken over. Look at how many conservatives don't believe in science, still think Obama is a Muslim.