In a previous diary I put forth the question "Why are some people against firearm ownership?" I then gave some examples of the more common reasons that people have provided in gun related diaries for being against firearm ownership, they were:
They believe that firearms are only for killing people
They believe that firearms are bad and cause crime
They believe that it is the job of the police to protect us
They believe that there isn’t an individual right to firearm ownership
They believe that firearms are too dangerous for most people to handle
They believe that firearm owners might snap and go on a shooting spree
While these reasons for being against firearm ownership are valid to the individual holding those views, none of them are based in reality or founded in fact.
Firearms are not the cause of crime, in 2007 there were 613 fatal negligent firearm discharges, in 2010 there were 14,161 non-fatal negligent discharges, and the total number of non-fatal gun shot injuries in 2010 was 73,505. Based on our population and the fact that there are close to 290,000,000 firearms in America, it doesn't appear that firearms are too dangerous for most people to handle otherwise negligent discharges, non-fatal injuries and fatalities would be significantly higher. There is an individual right to keep and bear arms, the police have no obligation to protect us, firearms are not just for killing people, and I am not aware of any instance where an average law abiding firearm owner has suddenly snapped and gone on a shooting spree.
Since none of the above reasons are based on anything other than what appears to be emotion, I have to ask "What is the real reason some people against firearm ownership?" I can name that reason in one word...control. At least that is the best one I can come up with.
Of course there are innumerable underlying reasons people have for being against firearm ownership; they don't like firearms, owing a firearm is reprehensible, defending oneself with a firearm is pointless, hunting is unnecessary, competitive shooting encourages violence, guns cause crime, guns aren't safe, people can't be trusted with firearms (but the police can!), they believe that owning a firearm violates their right to feel safe, the list can go on and on. But for me, the bottom line, the root cause, the real reason why people are against firearm ownership is that an armed citizenry is difficult to control and that is what they want, control. They want control over people in order to prevent them from doing things they don't approve of.
People against firearm ownership don't seem to be concerned with crime otherwise wouldn't they focus on the crime and the criminal and not the implement used during the commission of the crime? They can't be too concerned with safety otherwise I would think they would be on board with teaching people at an early age on the safe handling of a firearm (training is one of the most effective means of reducing incident rates). How else can one explain the desire for the state to have a monopoly on the use of force if the goal is not control over the citizenry? I see no other answer. But they can't let the mask slip too much, so the truth of this desire for control must be cloaked in compassionate claims of looking out for peoples bests interests (because evidently people are too stupid to know what's best for them and need others who are more enlightened to dictate what their best interests are), and in thinking of the children, or it is shrouded with platitudes and belittling insults of gun owners being insane, accusations of gun fetishes, sexual innuendo and statements like this;
I am always looking for ways to explore the craziness of gun freaks who think more of their firearms than their own family. Otherwise, why would these morons leave their weapons around for children to play with? They act as if their 2nd Amendment rights are more important than their country; many of these twits can carry a concealed weapon around on the streets of their city with no permit, no background check and little if any educational training on how to use it.
There isn't much they won't do to drawn attention to what they feel is wrong with gun ownership and away from their authoritarian desires of control. I am fully persuaded their interests lie in removing rights that they don't approve of and in this respect they are no different than fundamental Christians and their stance on abortion. If only we could remove this authoritarian blight from the Democratic Party, because if we could I believe we could own the White House, the House and the Senate for a very long time.
Right to Keep and Bear Arms is a DKos group of second amendment supporters who also have progressive and liberal values. We don't think that being a liberal means one has to be anti-gun. Some of us are extreme in our second amendment views (no licensing, no restrictions on small arms) and some of us are more moderate (licensing, restrictions on small arms.) Moderate or extreme or somewhere in between, we hold one common belief: more gun control equals lost elections. We don't want a repeat of 1994. We are an inclusive group: if you see the Second Amendment as safeguarding our right to keep and bear arms individually, then come join us in our conversation. If you are against the right to keep and bear arms, come join our conversation. We look forward to seeing you, as long as you engage in a civil discussion. If you're just here to disrupt or troll, expect to get a Do Not Respond (DNR) comment and then be ignored. Insults, lies, and willful ignorance will be dealt with by normal community moderation. Disagreement by itself is not considered trolling.
As always, if you're interested in joining RKBA, message
KVoimakas.