A friend of mine, well-meaning and good-natured as she is, has a gigantic blind spot when it comes to logic on certain topics. One of those topics is guns. She's a European, and cannot fathom some of the freedoms we Americans enjoy.
In the wake of the recent LA Sheriff's deputies who were ambushed by a POS who walked up to their squad car and shot both of them while they were seated in the car, I pointed out to her husband a few facts that he was glossing over in his blatant anti-American spiel about how the rest of the world doesn't have this problem (instead they just have higher rates of violent crime as criminals prey on victims, knowing there's a low risk of getting perforated by lead by a proverbial wolf in sheep's clothing).
That's when his wife, my friend of almost 30 years, rushed to his defense:
FWIW, I think that you (US of A) are paying a very high price in order to uphold your right to protect your "lives", "liberties" and "pursuits of happiness"; there are plenty of lives, liberties and pursuits of happiness that have been extinguished, who don't have these rights, thanks to the fact that pretty much every Tom, Dick and Harry has the right to own and use a firearm (and doesn't wait / think before shooting - or perhaps does, but fear drives them and they shoot anyway ... let's just shoot first and ask questions later).
There have been countless killed (who had a carry permit - even security), where when on site, the Police didn't assess the situation correctly, shot and killed an innocent person (actually performing their duties in protecting other citizens).
And I also believe, that it reeks of white privilege.
There are plenty of PoC who cannot enjoy their "freedom", for example in Ghetto areas / in areas, where gangs are rampant, because guns are so easily accessible (be that legally or illegally. The fact is, they are easily accessible). Where there are poorer members of society, other minorities etc. etc. for fear of their lives, going onto the streets.
That children in schools have to endure active shooter drills!!!
It is the minorities that suffer : the ones, who cannot even protect themselves from this 'scuse my French - shit!
Not to mention the number of accidents involving children!
"A government should fear its citizenry, it keeps them more honest."
Well, it doesn't seem to be working; your government is far from honest! And doesn't seem to fear its citizenry one little bit. In fact, your President is trying to incite and instigate conflict through his rhetoric. And he is succeeding!
One issue with the 2nd Amendment is : the weapons that were around at the time that it was written were very different, to the weapons that are around, available, being used today. I honestly do not believe, that the way that the 2nd Amendment is being interpreted today, is the way that it was intended by the founders - not to mention, that it was meant to arm the militia / national guard and not every Tom, Dick and Harry.
Your nation has become one of such fear, that the lives, liberties and pursuits of happiness mentioned in the Declaration of Independence have a huge black cloud hanging over them : you are not free, not really. And having all the weapons in the world is not going to change that.
But then again, those who benefit from white privilege probably don't see it.
That being said, the situation with weapons all over the US has taken on such dimensions, even if you were to - by law - legally reduce what weapons people have and who and how many, it wouldn't be possible to enforce.
Either way, one life mistakenly taken is one life too many ... and there have been far too many, to really justify blindly arguing for this 2nd Amendment right. And believe me, while it clearly seems to be fully justifiable to many Americans (and there are plenty, who don't - again, minorities, PoC, ....), do you even care, how the rest of the world sees you?
Let's unpack this, a piece at a time.
FWIW, I think that you (US of A) are paying a very high price in order to uphold your right to protect your "lives", "liberties" and "pursuits of happiness";
Her opinion, ill-informed as it is, remains hers. She may have a point about the high price, but every freedom does have a high price, whether it was paid in the past or we continue to pay it. The United States was borne out of a fucking bloody revolution!
there are plenty of lives, liberties and pursuits of happiness that have been extinguished, who don't have these rights, thanks to the fact that pretty much every Tom, Dick and Harry has the right to own and use a firearm (and doesn't wait / think before shooting - or perhaps does, but fear drives them and they shoot anyway ... let's just shoot first and ask questions later).
For starters, not every TDH has a right to own and use a firearm: If you have a felony conviction, you're not allowed to possess a firearm. It's an abridgment of our rights that we accept to ensure that firearms remain, for the most part, in the hands of law-abiding citizens. But let's say for the sake of argument that a law-abiding citizen exercises his/her right to extinguish someone's life. Don't they call that homicide? Mustn't you, unless there are extenuating circumstances that you, at the risk of your own life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness (legal fees will gobble up a substantial chunk of your money), be prepared to prove in a court of law?
I would love for my friend to show numbers on how many concealed-carry (CC) permit holders accidentally shoot someone innocent, rather than engage in what-ifs. But statistics aren't sexy or emotional enough. And my friend makes fear out to be something to be eschewed. Fear is what has guided humankind, and our primate progenitors, to avoid being killed and possibly eaten since the dawn of time. There's an old saying that, had I used it in responding to my friend's diatribe, would have sent her into convulsions: "I'd rather be judged by twelve than carried by six."
There have been countless killed (who had a carry permit - even security), where when on site, the Police didn't assess the situation correctly, shot and killed an innocent person (actually performing their duties in protecting other citizens).
And those police rightly lose their jobs, pensions, and often their own liberty for failing at their job. A badge does not give a license to kill. Is it a perfect system? No, but I feel better knowing that, when a meth-head is trying to bust my front door down at 3 a.m., the police officers who respond will be bringing guns in case they can't talk him down from murdering everyone inside.
And I also believe, that it reeks of white privilege.
Fast becoming a classic debate tactic when you're too lazy to make a compelling argument. Yes, I'm white. The person who said this, by comparison of skin tone, makes me look like I'm from South America. If white privilege is expecting people to not behave like animals, then I'll gladly wear the label as a badge of honor. Is it still white privilege if I expect the system to hold those CC permit holders and sworn peace officers to the same standard?
There are plenty of PoC who cannot enjoy their "freedom", for example in Ghetto areas / in areas, where gangs are rampant, because guns are so easily accessible (be that legally or illegally. The fact is, they are easily accessible). Where there are poorer members of society, other minorities etc. etc. for fear of their lives, going onto the streets
Talk to the corrupt left-wing politicians whom have controlled those areas for decades. One of the first things they tried? Strict gun control. Now those who live in those ghettos do not have the option of legally protecting themselves from an organized criminal element that has the means to obtain weapons illegally. Since such criminal elements likely already would have criminal records, the mere possession of the firearms is a felony.
Say you're a shop owner in a rough neighborhood, and a couple of poor, disadvantages youths want to help themselves to the contents of your cash register? Money that you earned with blood, sweat, and tears? What do you do? Roll over and let them help themselves to your money? Or discourage further criminal activity by brandishing a weapon? Even if they leave empty-handed with no holes in them, if you're a good citizen, you still file a police report. And then in many cases, you surrender the weapon that local municipal ordinances prevent you from legally having in your possession in your place of business. Now what do you do when they come back and help themselves to more than your money? Maybe you've got a wife and/or children? What despicable acts do they perform before deciding whether to kill you in retaliation?
That children in schools have to endure active shooter drills!!!
Must have missed the part where school shootings only happen in the United States.
Oh. Wait. Hmm. Seems like training for such events is just good preparation for the unthinkable. Or we could just bury our heads in the sand like my fact-challenged friend and pretend that not having guns makes us all more safe.
It is the minorities that suffer : the ones, who cannot even protect themselves from this 'scuse my French - shit!
Which is why I, along with most conservatives, fully support law-abiding minorities being armed. Like the old saying goes, "God Created Men and Sam Colt Made Them Equal!" A firearm gives the petite woman, the minority shop owner, and literally anybody whom wouldn't last 2 seconds in a physical confrontation with a tall, muscle-bound hoodlum a chance to protect themselves, with lethal force, if necessary.
Not to mention the number of accidents involving children!
So some morons leave their guns accessible to kids, despite the majority of gun owners being responsible stewards of their weapons, and my friend thinks that justifies taking everyone's firearms away! This page shows little correlation between gun controls and accidental discharges.
"A government should fear its citizenry, it keeps them more honest."
Well, it doesn't seem to be working; your government is far from honest! And doesn't seem to fear its citizenry one little bit. In fact, your President is trying to incite and instigate conflict through his rhetoric. And he is succeeding!
Did I mention she has trouble staying on-topic?
Note what I said in the quote: "more honest". She tries to draw a parallel between allegations that Trump is inciting and instigating conflict and not fearing its citizenry. It's an axiom of the Trump-haters that the man incites violence. But the Charlottesville protests that turned deadly? Trump's quote about "fine people on both sides" has been taken wildly out of context. And the recent riots in the wake of George Floyd's death while in MPD custody? Those weren't right-wing militant white supremacists that burned businesses, whom we're constantly told is Trump's base.
One issue with the 2nd Amendment is : the weapons that were around at the time that it was written were very different, to the weapons that are around, available, being used today. I honestly do not believe, that the way that the 2nd Amendment is being interpreted today, is the way that it was intended by the founders - not to mention, that it was meant to arm the militia / national guard and not every Tom, Dick and Harry.
I hear the same arguments over and over again. Let's start with the technology argument. The Founding Fathers did not write the Bill of Rights in a vacuum. They had just participated in the American Revolutionary War. The British army had muskets and cannons. Considering the advancements in firearm technology in the three centuries prior to the Revolutionary War, and the advances made during the War, why would it be reasonable to assume the Founding Fathers envisioned a limit to the advances of the firearm that, once crossed, would cause the Second Amendment to expire?
As I had told my friend's husband in an earlier post, the National Firearms Act of 1934 had in fact placed a limit on what firearms technology is widely available to the general public. Automatic weapons to this day are tightly controlled by the ATF. Like all of the Amendments in the Bill of Rights, these restrictions are reasonable. To imply otherwise is to betray the fact that my friend filled the factual voids in her arguments with emotions and guesses, likely influenced by TV and movies.
And let me turn it around. The First Amendment was written when the printing press was the most advanced form of communication available. Now, we have social media, where an innocent person's reputation can be destroyed in seconds with a few keystrokes:
Another, Kyle Quinn, was more than 1,000 miles away from Charlottesville at the time of the protest—a case of mistaken identity that brought a wave of threats and accusations of racism so large that Quinn felt unsafe in his home.
Now you may argue that loss of reputation does not equate to loss of life. But accusations, especially unfounded ones, do deprive one of their pursuit of happiness. Is it possible to calculate how many job interviews are denied to Kyle Quinn? How many relationships are shattered by people who believe the accusations?
The list goes on. Some have opted for suicide to escape the onslaught of social media bullying. Others are murdered due to things said on social media, a media where anonymity breeds overconfidence and lack of empathy. As bodies pile up due to our freedom of speech, do we revisit whether it's time to restrict it, to keep people safe? Aren't these the deaths a high price to pay for basically saying whatever we want to others with few or no repercussions?
Your nation has become one of such fear, that the lives, liberties and pursuits of happiness mentioned in the Declaration of Independence have a huge black cloud hanging over them : you are not free, not really.
Ah, gaslighting. "You're all just afraid" she's basically saying.
No, ma'am. It's not fear. It's the realization that the government cannot protect me 24/7. One need only look at the response of most of the world's governments in response to the COVID-19 pandemic currently going on. People staying home, working from home. Children doing distance-learning. Panic-buying of toilet paper and hand sanitizer. People buying ineffective masks to protect themselves. If the government cannot prevent the spread of a virus, how effective will if be in preventing the spread of violence? Not very, judging from the "occupation" of parts of Seattle and elsewhere, not to mention the 2+ months of violence on the streets of Portland. Riots protesting police violence. Calls to defund police forces. Such an equation does not end in anything other than a dystopia, so it's no surprise the average person decides not to make themselves into an easy victim. My friend can charge the purchases of firearms are motivated by fear. Perhaps some are. But if fear informs impulsive actions that are easy to complete, like buying a year's supply of toilet paper, then purchasing a firearm is an action that requires more measured thought over time: You don't just walk into a store, plop down cash, and walk out with the gun. There's background checks. Mandatory multiple-day waiting periods. And if you want to be trained to hit something smaller than the broad side of a barn? Time at the firing range.
And having all the weapons in the world is not going to change that.
I don't know, I think the guy armed with an AR-15, a couple of shotguns, and a 9mm pistol probably sleeps quite soundly.
But then again, those who benefit from white privilege probably don't see it.
She might as well be screaming "I'm tired of trying to persuade you with facts and logic, so I'll state you're likely unable to see how wrong you are because of the color of your skin."
That being said, the situation with weapons all over the US has taken on such dimensions, even if you were to - by law - legally reduce what weapons people have and who and how many, it wouldn't be possible to enforce.
The first thing she's said that is true. You know that enforcing a ban would be unconstitutional and bloody.
Either way, one life mistakenly taken is one life too many
Ah, the "if it saves just one life" argument. It's called managing to the exception, a practice popular in government and failing businesses.
... and there have been far too many, to really justify blindly arguing for this 2nd Amendment right.
But I didn't blindly argue for this right. I laid out facts.
And believe me, while it clearly seems to be fully justifiable to many Americans (and there are plenty, who don't - again, minorities, PoC, ....),
Gaslighting again. Did she take a poll?
do you even care, how the rest of the world sees you?
I very nearly responded to her lecture on social media, based on this one question. I can't speak for my fellow 330 million citizens, just like she can't speak for the other 6.7 billion inhabitants of the planet. Personally, I don't care what a European thinks of my country, especially one that doesn't live here and seems to believe everything spoon-fed to her by an agenda-driven media.
But then I realized, as evidenced by the tone of her comment, she wasn't looking to debate, she was looking to lecture. Once, she called me one of her best friends. If this is how she talks to me, I can only imagine the tone of the lecture a stranger would get!
