Neil Macdonald added his name to a large and growing list of people speaking out in favour of gun control. Somehow he believes his simple, linear thinking will solve the problem. I’m writing this from work where I don’t have access to the internet at large or many resources, so if you want specifics, ask me later. However the conventional liberal logic on guns goes like this:
1. Guns are bad and guns kill people
2. Make laws to stop people from using guns
3. Fewer people will die.
Call the Nobel Peace Prize Committee, we have a serious contender!
Somehow this simplistic logic seems like a reasonable catch-all to the problem for liberals. An infallible solution to the issue. So much so, the proponents don’t even bother to explain how or why it would work. They don’t bother to show examples of their philosophy reducing gun violence or anything of the sort. It’s as if they are firmly convinced that by making stricter laws on guns, guns will evaporate and violence will disappear. I guess similar to how making drugs illegal makes them vanish and solves all problems related to drug addiction and the drug trade. Rarely is a specific policy suggestion even made. We just keep hearing a generic “we need more gun laws” mantra.
This “analysis” by Neil MacDonald has an incredibly patronizing tone. Anyone who disagrees with his evidence-free faith in gun control is a low-brow mouth-breathing Republ… I mean Neanderthal.
First the mischaracterizations. Neil MacDonald claims that anyone who doesn’t believe in gun control love guns more than protecting innocents. From the get-go Macdonald repeats the tired canard that people who believe in the right to keep and bear arms really don’t give a crap about people being killed. They’re far more interested in slamming down beer, playing country music, and buying the biggest baddest guns they can get their hands on, or whatever other stereotyping these “reporters” engage in.
Neil Macdonald doesn’t say specifically the types of laws he would want enacted. A total firearm ban including hunting rifles? A handgun ban only? The specifics don’t matter apparently, he’s just against guns in general.
I would advise people to look at the data themselves. Bill Clinton did a study back in the 1990s to find which gun laws would reduce crime. He asked the Centers for Disease Control to study over 100 studies done on the subject and not a single one showed more gun laws prevented gun crime. Perhaps counterintuitive, but worth a look for anyone who is actually serious about stopping gun violence. Also, three of the cities in the US with the highest gun violence rates – Washington DC, Los Angeles, and New York City – all have the strictest laws on guns. To those who say this is a mere coincidence, the rates of gun murder in these states increased at a faster rate than the national average AFTER gun laws were enacted. A similar occurrence seems to take place anywhere gun laws are introduced – crime goes up, not down.
Bottom line: All evidence on the subject shows that gun control laws in fact do not work. You may not like that, you may not understand that, but if you are serious about reducing gun murders, it’s worth looking into. But what liberals believe is not fact, but faith in this case. Government and reduced freedom is always the solution according to them. But back to the article.
One thing Neil Macdonald goes after several times is concealed carry laws, which is ironic since he admits himself that concealed carry is illegal in South Carolina. So his point doesn’t really make sense. It boils down to: this was a great tragedy, we need stricter laws such as banning concealed carry, even though in this state that’s already illegal…
Obama said this was a tragedy and then something along the lines that once again someone was able to get a gun too easily – implying the need for more (unspecified) gun control. Macdonald called the president’s response “civilized”. Perhaps it was, but it was also pointless.
According to Macdonald pretty much everyone wants gun control, but then the evil NRA steps in and spends millions of dollars convincing people that’s a bad idea. But this is clearly not the case. People just want the right to defend themselves and their families against violent criminals.
Macdonald mocks the idea that arming good people can stop bad people with guns. I would like to know his alternative suggestion. Make guns disappear? Guns are here to stay, whether legal or illegal. The only question is do you want only criminals to have them or for ordinary citizens to have that right also? The FBI has statistics on the huge number of crimes prevented because a good person had a gun. Again, I apologize for not having them here, I will try to provide them later.
The writer also implies that the governor of South Carolina, Nikki Haley’s, tears are not genuine. He says “As for Haley, sobbing at a news conference, she announced that South Carolina's "heart and soul is broken." But she still evidently thinks Roof had a natural right to carry his gun around.” What a stupid comment. In Canada, a country for which I have data, there are more stabbing murders on average than gun murders even though guns are widely available here. Imagine substituting “gun” with “knife” in Macdonald’s silly assertion:
As for Haley, sobbing a news conference, she announced that South Carolina's "heart and soul is broken." But she still evidently thinks Roof had a natural right to have a knife.
Out of Canada’s murders in 2013, 131 were with a firearm, but 102 were by beatings. To bring the quote to an even greater level of absurdity, you could say: “As for Haley, sobbing a news conference, she announced that South Carolina's "heart and soul is broken." But she still evidently thinks Roof had a natural right to arms and legs.”
Sounds kind of stupid doesn’t it? Roof had a natural right to a weapon just as all people do. He does not, however, have a right to kill someone. Liberals like Macdonald seem to conflate gun ownership with killing people.
Just a couple of weeks ago, Pamela Geller and Geert Wilders, both anti-Islamists and free speech advocates were participating in a free speech event called “Draw Mohammed Contest”. It was lucky there were armed people there because 2 jihadists came to the event to kill as many people as they could with several high-powered weapons. Fortunately there were several armed security officers and off-duty police officers ready to protect them with guns. The two gunmen were themselves gunned down – good guys with guns stopping bad guys with guns. According to Macdonlad they would have been better off being sitting ducks. I suppose after the evil villains had perpetrated their crime, the cops could show up to possibly arrest them and ID the bodies of their victims.
I also notice Macdonald doesn’t recommend everyone be disarmed, just ordinary citizens. He still thinks cops should have guns. But if guns only cause murder, why should anyone be allowed to have them? Believing cops should be allowed to carry guns implies they can be beneficial.
Neil Macdonald has been a journalist for CBC for almost 30 years. Clearly he knows how to do a little bit of research, something completely lacking from his piece. Even though it’s called an “analysis”, that doesn’t mean it should be devoid of any data to support his claims. Macdonald knows this. But the problem is there in fact is no data to support his claims.
We want to do something whenever a tragedy occurs. It’s natural, it’s human. We feel sadness and compassion for the victims. But as John Lott, an expert in gun control laws, says, we can’t just operate on a gut-level without verifying if our hypotheses against reality. People should not be in favor of gun control, but rather in a reduction in gun violence. If that involves restricting guns less, as the evidence suggests, then honest liberals should pursue this.
No comments:
Post a Comment