To be quite honest, the majority of the response I got to my first blog on gun control was negative and angry, and it got me down quite a bit. But, the majority of the arguments I saw were also better, more thought out, and much more educated than the ones that I had previously come in contact with. It certaintly was enough to change my mind.
Yes, many of the comments I received were angry and I would even go so far as to say that some of them were vicious, and I'm sure I'll probably be at least mildly pissed about some of them for quite a while, but that doesn't change the fact that many of the arguments I read were well thought out and did have a fair amount of evidence behind them. Many people gave me statistics showing how other countries have fared under tighter gun restrictions, and it certaintly would appear that the majority of them have had a rise in crime rates. I have also been educated on the guns themselves: "'Assault weapon' is an inflammatory term, referring to the shape of the stock of a rifle. That same action, barrel, bullet caliber and ballistics, in a hunting rifle, with the same semi-automatic capability..." This is taken from a comment tazunemono posted in response to my original blog. Unfortunately, I cannot at the moment find another good tid bit of information, and do not feel like wading through all the anger and the hateful comments right at this moment.
One of the good arguments I heard described a theoretical situation which may arise if certain types of guns were banned. The scenario went something along these lines: a couple type of guns are banned, but the ban doesn't work, crime rates rise, and as a response, more guns are banned. This process would only continue to...well, continue along this path. This was probably one of the first arguments that I really hadn't thought of before which didn't really include any technical information about guns and stats and whatnot, and it was really the first one that got me thinking. This certaintly does seem like a very real possibilty, and even when I was all for gun control I'd never had any intention of saying that all guns should be banned or restricted, just a few of the more dangerous ones. This argument started me thinking about the various possible downsides of gun control before the others, and probably warmed me up a little to the information the others provided.
Yes, I have changed my mind on the gun control issue. I really want to note, though, that it was only because of the responses that were written kindly which convinced me. As I've said many times before, these responses are always the ones most well received - I think that the fact they changed my mind is proof enough, as it is so hard for so many people to change their minds on subjects such as this one. There were plenty of informative responses that were written much more angrily and it was very easy for me to brush them off because they had, in one way or another, offended or hurt me. I really want to stress that, because, in all honesty, the majority of those comments I received were angry and rather mean and made me hesitate to return to Progressive-U and see the new comments. They have also made me anxious for the end of the scholarship contest so that I can stop coming here, striving for points. If it weren't for the more kindly written comments, I can safely say I never would have come around to the conclusion that I was originally wrong about gun control.
Don't worry about those who post angry comments. Those who do typically have no intellectual ammunition and are just shooting blanks. They have no bearing on your life, so look past them.
The scenario that I gave you in your original article about the cycle of gun control laws failing, more gun controls being passed, gun control laws failing, more gun control laws being passed, until nothing is left of the right to keep and bear arms actually is what happened in England.
If you wish to read a book about it, it is titled: "Guns and Violence, The English Experience". It is written by Professor Joyce Lee Malcolm who is a professor of English history.
Making a change of opinion is not easy, and it takes courage and character to even investigate issues honestly and to consider opposing ideas, especially ones that you may not originally agree with. Don't ever lose this character trait! Indeed, it takes character.
Thank you so much for sch a kind comment! :) I was trying to locate your original comment but...I was having trouble locating much of anything, really, so I did the best I could - I hope you don't mind. Thank you for the book title, too - I'll see if they have it in the local library when I'm in town again.
Peace
Tahni
-------
"Tell me - if no one ever hears what you say, then why don't you shout it?" -- Floater
No, I don't mind at all that you could not locate the original comment. It's the thought (literally, and that you are willing to think) that truly counts.
I should perhaps clarify my statement above about Professor Malcolm's book. The actual reasons gun control began in England in the early part of the 20th century was that the English government feared a Marxist revolt from all the unrest at that time. England was going through its own Red Scare just as America had during the 1920's and 1950's. The English government never openly admitted this to the public, and the government engaged in an incremental public disarmament campaign. The public was told that the gun control laws were for public safety, not fear of a Marxist revolt. Even after the Red Scare eased, the government continued its public disarmament campaign. The government lied to its people, and the government records exist to prove it as Professor Malcolm shows. Fast forward to today and the English population is virtually disarmed, unable, and forbidden from using self defense against criminal attack. At the beginning of the 20th century firearms ownership and the carrying of firearms was viewed as a right and duty of all English citizens. London was the most populous city in the world at the time, and it had an almost non-existent crime rate. Now England has the most restrictive gun control laws, its is disarmed, except for the government and criminals, and their nation ranks as the most violent western industrialized nation per capita according to the International Crime Victim Survey.
The problem is that firearm knowledge and wording is very esoteric, even without political disputes. An outside observer wouldn't know that an autoloader, automatic, and self-loading gun are all the same thing. It's even worse that "automatic" can refer to both a fully-automatic weapon or a semi-automatic weapon depending on context ("automatic" distinguishes revolvers from semi-automatic handguns -- unless you have a rare "automatic revolver").
Even average gun owners (or even police officers) don't know everything about firearms. I come from a gun owning family, but I only started reading about various gun issues and information over the last few years. Basically, I've learned that any firearms issue has to be examined on a case-by-case basis in order to get an in-depth understanding.
I fully support self-defense with non-guns (tasers, knives, and whatnot), but some localities restrict those devices as much as they restrict guns. Massachusetts requires a license to buy pepper spray. It's as if they don't recognize any form of legitimate self-defense.
(I skimmed the previous discussion, but couldn't read the whole thing.)
That's really weird that you would need a law to buy pepper spray...I'm not even entirely sure what to say about that.
Peace
Tahni
-------
"Tell me - if no one ever hears what you say, then why don't you shout it?" -- Floater
Tahni, try calling "pepper spray" a "chemical weapon" and see how many people would still advocate it's use. Yes, it is restricted in certain places. "Mace" is also restricted, almost universally, except by the Police and U.S. Armed Forces. Mace is not pepper spray, and is not protected by the 2nd amendment.
Poll question: "To keep our children safe, do you support or oppose the use of chemical weapons in self-defense situations, where innocent bystanders may be affected."
Same thing with calling a gun an "assault weapon" - you can get more fish to bite by making the bait more appetizing. Chemical and assault are words with negative connotations.
Poll question: "To keep our children safe, do you support or oppose a ban on assault weapons in self-defense situations, where innocent bystanders may be affected."
Add assault in the same sentence as innocent, and well, you get the idea. This is an example of introducing bias.
To me, pepper spray is just another tool that can be used in a self-defense situation. Just don't bring it, or a knife, to a gunfight, m'kay?
Great blog, I have been actively following it's progress.