Gun History

From iGeek
Jump to: navigation, search

This is a little background on the History of Guns, Gun Laws, and things of that nature.

Gun History

NPR tries to school the right on something NPR knows little about: in this case anything to do with guns (or canons), or History. Which begs the question, "Why do we have to subsidize them"? It's not that I dislike NPR, but whenever I hear them on conservative issues, they usually fuck it up, big time. Like this example on where Molon Labe comes from, and why it's wrong to use it with AR-15's instead of a canon.
MyGadsden.jpg
There are a few late 20th century inventions in the war against civil liberties (and the 2nd), but few as virulent and wrongheaded as that the 2nd amendment was about "the militia" and the militia meant "National Guard" (something that wasn't invented until 1903). These assumptions fail at Logic, English, History, and Constitutional Law, and there were the founders words, Supreme Court rulings, and experts in language and history that all but unanimously disagree with them. Of course mere facts won't prevent the determined from demonstrating the Dunning-Kruger effect, but hopefully the evidence can deter a few of them from demonstrating their willful ignorance in the future.
ModernMusket.png
There’s a common argument (fallacy) that the Second Amendment didn't project changes in armament / technology, thus it couldn’t have been intended to apply to modern pistols and rifles (most of whose designs actually go back to the 1800’s or early 1900’s). This argument completely fails on the intent of the 2nd (which was about balancing power), but it even more strongly fails on understanding gun technology and history. At the founding of the country they had 8-shot revolvers, 9 shot "repeaters", 11-shot field artillery pieces, Jefferson even had a 22 shot repeating rifle. Not to mention "burst mode" automatics that fired up to 20 rounds with a single pull of the trigger. And during the remainder of their lives, not one of the founding fathers came forward to complain that technology was advancing beyond the intent of the 1st or 2nd Amendments.
GunControlForDummies.png

Defensive Gun Uses (DGU's for short) is how many times guns are used for good (to stop a crime, or for "defense") as opposed to doing harm. If you don't know how many times a gun is used for good, then how can have context on the good-to-bad ratios? In other words, if guns are used for good, far far more often than they're used to commit crimes, or for bad uses, then gun control could easily do more harm than good.

Best estimates on both are that guns are used in ≈9,000 murders per year (only about 1/2 to 2/3rds of murders are with a gun), but they're used about 2.2 million times a year to stop a crime. That means if you outlawed all guns (pure gun control), and you're naive enough to think that would stop 9,000 murders, you'd probably increase crime (including violent crimes) by a couple million more cases a year? Whether that is a net win for you is based completely on your irrational fear/hatred of an inanimate object (hopolophobia).
The news never likes to talk about GGWG's (Good Guys with Guns), and the many, many more cases, where responsible adults save lives, using guns. This is just a small sampling of the millions of DGU's (Defensive Gun Uses) that happen each year.

Examples: 11 items

  • 2019.02.04 Registered Sex Offender shot breaking in - Homeowner in Elizabeth City, North Carolina woke up to find a stranger (Tyrell Johnson) coming into the home through the locked back door, so he shot him. Twice. Johnson is a registered sex offender that had been convicted of manslaughter.
  • 2017.11.25 Schlenker Automotive (Florida) - Robert Lorenzo Bailey walked into Autoshop and started shooting people (killing one, wounding another), when the manager (a CCW holder) shot back with his own pistol, hitting the shooter twice and stopping the rampage.
There are dozens of examples of Mass shootings stopped by armed civilians. Those claiming that civilians don’t stop school shootings are either either ignorant, liars, or both. So if you hear or read that claim, you can immediately consider the source discredited by their own dishonesty, bias or incompetence.