« National Problems Require National Solutions | Main | 7th And Main »

Wednesday, January 30, 2013

Trotting Out More Gun Bullshit

I didn't have time to watch all of Sen Leahy's gun safety hearing today, so I missed Gayle Trotter, Senior Something of the Women Against Women Forum.  Her prepared testimony kicked off like this:

I would like to begin with the compelling story of Sarah McKinley.

I found it odd that in all the details she provided in her story, the witness failed to mention the type of weapon McKinley used, or how many times she fired.  Turns out, it was one shot from her 12-gauge that felled the savage intruder.  I guess I'd agree the story is compelling, though I don't think for the same reasons Trotter does, since it really illustrates that a shotgun is great for home defense, and the young woman needed a single shot to defend herself and her child.  Not, you know, an AR-15 with an extended mag, which Trotter assures us (presenting no data) is "the weapon of choice" for single moms with toddlers who live in communities where people don't lock their doors.

Continuing:

Guns make women safer.

Fiction or fantasy?  You be the judge.

Political figures seek to restrict gun rights, and Hollywood celebrities somberly urge Americans to “demand a plan” to reduce gun violence despite their own roles in graphically depicting lethal violence on the screen. In both cases, however, many of these political figures and celebrities already have their own plan: They rely on guns to safeguard their own personal safety.

Yes, guns carried by professionals hired by the government to protect us all, paid for by taxes.  I understand Hollywood stars also support traffic laws even though many of them can't change their own oil, are driven around in limos, and sometimes walk down the street!

Law-abiding citizens do not bring firearms to gun-free zones, so psychotic killers know they can inflict more harm in these unprotected environments.

That doesn't appear to be accurate.  At all.

Gun-control advocates cheer the creation of legally mandated gun-free zones, touting increased safety while actually making citizens in those locations more vulnerable to the next horrible monster in search of soft targets.

It's not entirely clear that these horrible monsters are in search of soft targets, but particular targets.  For example, Jared Loughner specifically targeted another of today's witnesses, Gabby Giffords, in a state not known for its strict gun laws.  Columbine was chosen by the shooters because it was their school (and the armed guard was ineffective).

Regardless, damn the NRA and its gun-control advocacy!

Currently, we have more than 20,000 under-enforced or selectively enforced gun laws.

Again, any data?

Gun regulation affects only the guns of the law-abiding.

And stop signs, speed limits and car inspections only affect the cars of the law-abiding.  Your point?

Recently, a talk show host inadvertently exposed the absurdity of gun regulation in the District of Columbia when he displayed a 30-round magazine on national television, thereby embroiling himself in a police investigation...Why is it permissible to possess magazines to persuade people that guns are dangerous, but not for a woman to possess one to defend herself against gang rape?

I'm fairly certain that without a gun, David Gregory is less dangerous with a 30-round mag than he is normally when firing off GOP talking points.  Unless there are cases of mass death caused by throwing individual bullets.

[T]he United States Supreme Court held that the Second Amendment protects an individual’s right to possess a firearm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home.

It also heldLike most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited...We think that limitation is fairly supported by the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of “dangerous and unusual weapons.”

Selected News Accounts of Women Using Firearms for Protection Against Violent Men

Very selected.  Here are some others:

I won't waste time playing anecdote one-upmanship, but I think you get the gist.  And, BTW, after poking around some of the selected news accounts, I found that most involved defense using a handgun, not an AR-15, while the perps in more than one case had semi-autos, and at least one of the "civilians" was an off-duty sheriff's deputy.  Guess Trotter is depending on Senators not reading the details of her testimony.

Anyway, I don't think anybody in Congress or elsewhere (save perhaps a few out-of-mainstream anti-gun absolutists) is suggesting that you don't have a general right to self-defense, particularly in your home.  Nobody has proposed a ban on handguns or rifles or shotguns.  If you are not prohibited from owning a gun (because you're a felon or have a history of domestic violence), your right will not be denied.

What's being considered is the possibility that, per Heller and Miller, certain dangerous and unusual weapons (that are just a smidge less powerful than heavily-regulated machine guns) might be restricted because there are very good, law-abiding people out there who accidentally fire their weapons in publiclose their weaponsstockpile weapons that can be stolen, and otherwise do things with weapons that can put other people in danger.  We're also exploring ways to shore up existing mechanisms like background checks to help better enforce existing laws, which we're told is important by this witness and others.

Nobody's trying to take your rights away, so stop with the fear mongering about gang rapes and zombie urban hordes.

ntodd

January 30, 2013 in Constitution, Schmonstitution | Permalink

TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d8341c525c53ef017ee814477a970d

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Trotting Out More Gun Bullshit:

Comments

Post a comment