During the podcast episode with Stephen Halbrook, we discussed the arbitrary definition of so-called “assault weapons” and how this phrase has been used with the intention of confusing the general public about the nature of certain arms, like the AR-15. I clipped part of this segment into a Short, and I received some nasty feedback and many of the most common and unavailing objections. I thought that some of our listeners might like to read the exchange. I have copied the exchange into this blog post, but you can see the original at the comments in the link below:
https://www.youtube.com/shorts/sEuALsXHTqM
Here is the exchange:
@Cadigan1
2022: 695 mass shootings, 762 dead, 2,902 injured. American brainrot goes hard.
Reply
8 replies
I have yet to hear a proposal from gun control proponents that would change anything except to make innocent people more vulnerable.
4
Reply
@SoloRenegade
BS statistics
1
Reply
@Cadigan1
@theforgeoffreedom I have one, no guns. Works for all other western nations. My country for instance gun control is so streneous that you need to wait 5 years for background checks then you need to participate in the gun range for 10 years just to own a pistol at home as a hobby. You know what our worst school attack was? 4 dead, because the assailent only had a sword.
Show less
1
Reply
@Cadigan1 If a would-be murderer isn’t going to comply with a law against murder, why in the world would he comply with a law prohibiting him from possessing a gun? Moreover, since there are plenty of guns around the world, the notion that a would-be murderer would be unable to acquire an illegal gun on the black market is absurd. What gun-control laws do, then, is simply prevent innocent people from defending themselves against violent criminals.
Show less
1
Reply
@Cadigan1
@theforgeoffreedom You’re implying that it’s the populace responsibility to defend themselves instead of the government. Secondly implying making guns accessable doesn’t decrease gun violence when that is 100% true in every country that banned guns. Thirdly guns massively increase suicide rates, providing the simplest methods of suicide. A sane person with empathy would look at any of these reasons and think “maybe I can forgo owning a gun if it saves lives” but no, just ignore extensive research done and historical precedence, because “guns are fun enough to justify death”
Show less
Reply
@Cadigan1 I am, in fact, saying that it is the individual responsibility of each person to defend themselves, not the government. The United States Supreme Court has explicitly said that law enforcement have no duty to protect anyone.
To your second point, it is not 100% true that decreasing access to guns reduces violence. This is not supported by the evidence at all. The exact opposite is true. One thing gun control advocates never mention is that every single time that guns are banned — either all guns or all handguns — homicide/murder rates rise. This is a remarkable fact. One would think that just due to random chance, one or two countries would have a drop in homicides after banning guns. Furthermore, a holistic view of the data show that it’s not true that there is an association between more guns and more gun deaths. In fact, higher gun ownership rates are associated with lower homicide rates. Finally, the data show a positive association between death rates and the number of gun control laws.
With respect to suicides, if you look at Australia as an example, firearm homicides and suicides were falling from the mid-1980s onwards. So, you could pick out any subsequent year and the average firearm homicide and suicide rates after that year would be down compared to the average before it.
The question is whether the rate of decline changed after the gun buyback law went into effect. But the decline in firearm homicides and suicides actually slowed down after the buyback. Australia’s buyback resulted in almost 1 million guns being handed in and destroyed, but after that private gun ownership once again steadily increased and now exceeds what it was before the buyback. In fact, since 1997 gun ownership in Australia grew over three times faster than the population (from 2.5 million to 5.8 million guns).
Gun control advocates should have predicted a sudden drop in firearm homicides and suicides after the buyback, and then an increase as the gun ownership rate increased again. But, that didn’t happen.
Of course, this is a very complicated topic, and we obviously disagree about the data, but neither one of us wants people to die, and to suggest that I am not sane and lack empathy is not productive. Although, it is typical for gun control advocates to resort to personal attacks rather than real arguments.
I think that gun ownership actually leads to less crime, and this is supported by lots of data. Over 90% of mass shooting occur in gun-free zones. I also think that gun ownership helps protect the most vulnerable. I helped train 1500 women for free over the weekend in the 2nd most violent city in America so that they wouldn’t be defenseless against attack when law enforcement are minutes away and have no legal duty to protect them. I did this for no compensation.
I do not ignore history, data, or reality. You and I want the same outcome – less death. We just disagree about how to get there.
Show less
2
Reply
@Cadigan1
@theforgeoffreedom Heavily regulated gun ownership, even scaling it back to only hunting permits would = less gun ownership = less gun violence. The difference between a knife assault in a school against gun assault is night and day. I also don’t know in what world mass ownership of weapons and carry permits would make society safer, since most crimes are impulsive. And yes it’s the governments job to structure their society to be safer, of course I understand the US which to this day engage in slavery and have legalised workcamps wouldn’t trust their government, especially considering how extensively corrupt your politics are. But many European countries have social programs that prove much more effective at lowering crime rate instead of relying on vigilante behaviour. Or do i need to remind you of what happens when Americans take “justice” into their own hands? In that case just look at how POC are treated and were treated when they were often wrongly accused.
Show less
Reply
@Cadigan1 Your assertion that “scaling it back to only hunting permits would = less gun ownership = less gun violence” is unsupported by the available data. If there is any correlation at all, there is a slight inverse relationship between gun ownership and violent crime. You shouldn’t look at “gun crime,” which is non-sensical because guns don’t commit crimes. People commit crimes. When we look at overall violent crime rates and homicide rates, there appears to be an inverse correlation between gun ownership and violent crime.
If you care to review the actual data, it is available here:
As for your comments about slavery and labor camps, I’m not sure what you are referring to. I have heard reports of those things in China with the Uyghur population and in North Korea. Maybe it’s coincidence, but those subjugated populations are also subject to strict gun control. If, on the other hand, you are referring to general taxation, then yes, the United States does have taxation much like Europe.
Also, most examples of gun control in America have their origins in racism.
Vigilante justice can be cruel and unjust, but by far, the greatest atrocities in this world have been committed by government against unarmed and vulnerable populations.
Comments on The Arbitrary Definition of _Assault Weapons_
