When inquiring about a political issue with an eye for logic, the first step is always detaching oneself from any emotional attachment to said subject. Gun control is perhaps the most emotionally charged of subjects, even when not dealing with some recent mass shooting that has tempers flaring and every righteous crusader armoring up to retake Jerusalem, thus the needed effort to being unmoved by the inevitable theatrics is quite daunting, and all the more valuable is the prize for persevering. But there is a more tragic victim to the inane squabbles that this issue brings about than that of one's right to an adequate self-defense, and that is man's respect for the art of statistics. I prefer to think that Mark Twain intended to point out that statistics, being as useful as they are, reflect the most heinous of dishonesty when manipulated for less than noble ends, but sadly most seem to take his famous quote of "There are lies, damned lies, and statistics" more by their letter than their spirit.
The author of this post naturally makes no secret of his views that a well-armed society is also a polite society, but this does not mean that there isn't some merit to certain objections made by the other side of the issue. Those reasonable people who support limiting guns to law abiding citizens by supporting criminal background checks do make a valid point (though unfortunately a good number of these people support violent criminals being able to vote, which is equally as dangerous as arming them in my opinion), and provided that their endgame is to concentrate on the truly criminal crowd (denying someone arms for smoking pot in their 20s is not criminal by the standards of any rational person, despite what Uncle Sam might say to the contrary) rather than seek to obfuscate standards that would lead to mass deprivation of arms to the public. Similarly, mandatory safety courses also make sense, though mandatory gun ownership in conjunction with this would make greater sense and deprive America of its greatest contributor to mass shootings, the gun-free zone.
However, most sycophant politicians on the left side of the so-called gun debate in America don't stop at making these reasonable suggestions in hopes of curtailing violent criminal activity. On a daily basis many are treated to a deluge of extremely irrational appeals to emotion in the name of stopping gun violence, as typified by 2 particularly odious persons in Diane Feinstein and Charles Schumer. Considering that the states represented by these two offer up a massive chunk of those several thousand gun murders per year statistic that is often dishonestly contrasted with other countries with smaller and less heterogeneous populations, one might be inclined to inquire as to how much their proposed national policies have worked within their own states, particularly compared to less "progressive" parts of the country where these statistics tend to be lower.
But regardless of dishonesty on the part of a few key players on one side of the issue vs. the other, what is more perplexing is the odd fixation that guns have garnered, most particularly so-called "assault weapons", which account for far fewer deaths than the preferred hand gun of one type or another. Rather than dealing with other factors pertaining to motive and opportunity for each unfortunate case of murder, the discourse is usually limited to the means. What, pray tell, makes a gun death more horrible and contemptible than the massive knife violence problem in the UK, or even the too numerous to fathom statistics regarding vehicular death via negligence? My dispassion not withstanding, but if one were concerned only with violence or death, greater emphasis on driving courses and stricter standards for licensing would seem a more logical issue. But alas, there is no logic in politics.
By using simple deductive logic regarding American politics, one has to conclude that when statistics are abused in the name of promoting something that is also referred to as "common sense", red flags and suspicions of dishonest intent should arise. If the sheer number of gun related deaths is so unacceptable and must be redressed, what about those gun deaths that are perpetrated by Uncle Sam in the name of bringing democracy to the world? Granted, most opponents of gun control were big supporters of the War on Terror, but the pro-gun control crowd backing the Democratic Party are largely indifferent to this issue when it's one of their own pushing the button. Then again, the left's fetishism for Obama and its consequential toleration of his murderous drone policy in the Middle-East may suggest that blowing people up is noble, while putting a bullet in them is reprehensible (again, no logic in politics).
Ultimately, this is an issue like all others, it is only as good as the people who argue the prevailing points. And given that even in the height of grief and outrage over the unfortunate Sandy Hook tragedy one side failed miserably in getting their point across, a reasoning mind would rightly conclude that there must be a fatal flaw in their outlook that continues to stymie their efforts, and that is that their opponents have the stronger argument. With the endless monetary war chest and the bully pulpit at his disposal, Obama could theoretically run circles around the NRA and GOA. Then again, such an extended endeavor might take him away from his endless vacation binges. If the gun control debate is to have a reasonable conclusion, it needs reasonable people, ergo ones that respect the field of statistics enough not to misuse it for short-sighted political causes.
P.S. - Nothing cures irrationality like dispassionate research, and below are some good links to start with.
No comments:
Post a Comment