I’m thinking about changing this blogs name to ‘I Don’t Have Time To Edit A Blog’

This is an heavily edited version of a  comment to a comment  by ednastvincent in the comment section from an op-ed in ‘The Atlantic’


The reason to reject the notion that criminal gun use happens because of the ‘irresponsibility’ of legal gun owners is simple justice. You don’t blame the legal gun owner for theft anymore than you blame the rape victim for sexual assault. If we allow gun owners to be penalized for the criminal use of stolen property, then we should punish people who have have their car, or crowbar, or alcohol, or hatchet, or prescription narcotics, or butcher knife, etc, if a thief uses their stolen property to commit crime.

By the way, this otherwise reasonable op-ed demonstrates what I call the ‘First Error’* of those who hate guns.
Mr. Goldberg asserts that some suicides ‘might’ be stopped by 15 day waiting periods. The ‘might’ contained in that illogical misstep is, IMHO, the only reason there is still any ‘controversy’ regarding guns.
Look the anti-gun people (who are really anti-violence even for defence people) have been around a long time, but every time they try to show how ‘evil’ self-defense, I mean  guns are, the real world doesn’t cooperate.
The numbers don’t support their position.
Logic doesn’t support their position.
The only things left are are the imaginary victims of potential badness, maybe injuries, might be catastrophes.
Set these imaginary people to the side for now.
Consider instead the actual victims of criminal assault.
Specifically, those existing victims of criminal violence who lacked the wealth to hire private security in the face of explicit threats.
Those real life men and women who reported the threatening behaviour of a neighbour, a family member, or a stalker, and were told by the police to call back if the threats escalated into violence.
The real world victims of 15 day waiting periods, denied the exercise of their inalienable right to keep and bear arms, who were maimed or murdered, or who, thankfully, suffered only bruises or broken limbs because their unarmed defensive skills didn’t match their assailants.
Those people exist.
They played by the rules.
They called the cops.

When that proved to be useless they tried to purchase a gun for self defence

They were told to come back in 15 days

They suffered criminal assault.

Their defencelessness and therefore their suffering, is the direct result of infringing on their inalienable right to keep and bear arms.
These people demonstrably exist, and the welfare of flesh and blood people should outweigh the concerns for any could be common sense possibility of potential might be imaginary people. Now run through the logic but replace citizens told to wait 15 day before being allowed to exercise this civil liberty, with those who lack the wealth to comply with ‘responsible gun owner’ laws.

Again, these people already exist. They already suffer and bleed and die from violence and their ability to fight back is demonstrable hindered by laws that create barriers that ultimately disarm the poor.
I personally think that a poor persons civil liberties deserves as much protection as the wealthy, yet to often our society makes laws that price out, or create needless stumbling blocks that hinder and stress our poverty stricken countrymen.

Add the assumption that a poor person ‘might’ act guided by their poverty instead of their ethics, and before you know it, the anti-gun goons have re-labled less expensive guns as Saturday night specials. The accusation, these low end firearms are purchased by poor citizens with the Monday thru Friday paycheck they earned (inconsistently) working (instead of stealing) so they can commit crimes on Saturday. Because poor people are never the victims of violent crime, and therefore never need resort to self-defense. And once again people are told their life isn’t valuable enough to defend.

One last point, my response to Mr. Goldbergs illogical acceptance of 15 day waiting periods, your thoughts on penalizing the victims of a crime and the poor, are meant to point out error’s of fact and/or logic and/or present a different viewpoint and not meant to imply any personal failings. Study a contentious issue say, how do we reduce gun violence in our nation, and when someone proposes 15 day waiting periods, if you haven’t been exposed to the invalidating counter argument(s), it’s incredibly easy to mistake nonsense for common sense, falsehoods for truth. An accepted ‘truth becomes difficult to reevaluate in the face of new evidence. We have a tendency to ‘notice’ things that support our worldviews, and ignore or become frustrated by claims that don’t match our world view. After 25 years of rigorous self criticism I still get caught by things that seem ‘reasonable common sense’.

Until we don’t need to play by Waco vs Romanian rules!
Keep Your Powder Dry Baby!!
Molon Labe!!!

*those who oppose the concept of ‘defensive civilian gun use’  base their ‘public’ reasons for gun bans on their care about the imaginary pain of imaginary people . Every damaging law, possibly every unethical flaw in their efforts can be traced to this error.

The champions of effective defence base their ideas on observations of the actual lives of flesh and blood real world people. This is the major difference between them.