They say it's degree, but only ever in one regardSubmitted by BDavidH on Sat, 01/19/2013 - 06:25
It's a matter of degree, right? That's what the left insists upon
"We're not taking all of your guns! The second amendment will still exist! It's just a matter of degree!"
Okay, let's explore that with a hypothetical.
You know me. You like me and think I'm a good person. You would conclude that I'm a responsible person. I own an AR 15 semi-automatic weapon. I maintain that weapon, I have it contained in a hidden location, in a locked cabinet or safe. I'm not diagnosed as mentally unstable nor has it ever been brought into question. I live alone. I've never committed any crime whatsoever - not even an arrest on my record. I am also trained to use this weapon and I've practiced extensively... If you don't think I exist (except for the part about specifically knowing you), you're a fool. I'm everywhere.
Now to the point: What is the *benefit* from taking that AR 15 away from me specifically? What is actually gained?
What do you think the likelihood that you've prevented a murder or a mass shooting is by taking my gun away? Has there actually been ANY reduction at all in the amount of potential mass shootings?
So if it's a question of degree, you have to ask yourself, shouldn't the human element of the equation also be a matter of degree, not just the weapon?
Of course we can talk about the weapons themselves, and acting with appropriate restraint is important there too.
Homicides by all rifles (not just semi-automatics) only represent 1/36th of all homicides. Homicides occur with knives almost five times more often than all rifles. Blunt objects are used to kill 50% more people than all rifles. More than twice as many people die from being punched, kicked, or pushed by somebody completely unarmed than die with all rifles. And we're not even talking about only semi-automatic rifles, and especially not only one variant like the AR 15.
Everyone has to die eventually. In our country there are 2,468,435 per year. That's important to preface a conversation exploring death statistics with - if you don't know the total amount of annual deaths, hearing a number like 12,000 or 9,000 can sound like a lot (relatively speaking, it's actually miniscule.)
Of those almost two and a half million, only 358 died by rifle fire in 2010, and trending over the last several years shows that there is a decline in the rate of not just rifle homicides but all homicides. Our society is becoming progressively safer and violent death even rarer.
2,468,435 people die per year.
About 0.5% of annual deaths are due to homicide.
But only about 0.015% of annual deaths are by rifle homicide.
I'll take those odds, considering that rifles are extremely prevalent and easily accessible. We're talking millions of sources for homicide and only hundreds of homicides.
The left wants to disarm us of these weapons, but if their main few arguments actually had any weight at all, we would be a literal wild west shoot out 24/7 considering the sheer number of guns and gun owners in this country and of course the (sarc) very obvious and undeniable will of the everyman to do harm on everyone else around him, so long as he has a bigger stick - which is exactly the sort of fear-mongering the gun grabbers cling to in order to accomplish disarmament.
Handguns are the usual tool selected for homicide, and about 3/4ths of all gun homicides in the U.S. occur due to gang violence.
But back to the human element:
It's the crazies that get the guns and shoot up schools, and it's gangsters who shoot mostly each other and drastically inflate our crime statistics. The anti gun people want to go after specific types of guns, because specific types of guns really get their blood boiling due to a few recent events, but their observance of those rallying events stops exactly when they're sufficiently rallied, and that's a huge problem that serves only to feed confirmation bias. They never ask the question, "Who committed this act?" only, "What committed this act?" Never, "Why did this person do it?" only, "How did this person do it?"
This is the same old 'treating the symptoms' we see repeatedly. If it's a matter of degree, it's a matter of degree, and we should implement reasonable degree to every layer, not just the one that serves the disarmament crowd. If it's a matter of degree you can't just say, "This gun must be blanket banned outright for everyone," because that's not degree at all, that's absolutism. There are more layers than one.