In other words, a true debate and a fair fight. Not the incessant poo-flinging seen all to often. Generally speaking, the pro-2A crowd has a good track record of taking the high road and entering with logic against emotional stances. This approach is admirable, yet yields little fruit. Yes, we do it for the fence-sitters who are content to stay in the background, read but never comment and this is a much needed harvest.
But…destroying the logic of a decent argument is more difficult and therefore more rewarding both on a personal level and moving the chains down field for the team.
This is why I follow and comment on the anti blogs. I certainly can’t read them all, but I try to keep up with the heavy hitters like the Brady Bunch. After all, they are the 800 gram gorilla in the room.
Luby’s, Columbine, Amish School for Girls, Virginia Tech, Ft. Hood…etc…blah blah blah.
One common theme and decent argument is that these massacres would not have been possible on the scale that they were without the use of a gun. Forget the ranting against semi-autos vs. pump or lever actions. Forget the rant concerning how many rounds a magazine holds.
We’ve destroyed those arguments a thousand times over already; it’s dead, been raped by wild dingos and then killed again.
The premise of their argument is correct on a superficial level. A recurring theme goes something like this…”If the attacker had been using a knife, sword, bow and arrow, baseball bat, etc, then the body count would have been much lower.” Or equally…”He would not have been able to inflict that level of carnage had he not had a gun.”
Sounds reasonable and chock full of common sense, right?
My response would be that someone wielding a knife, sword, bow and arrow, baseball bat OR firearm could achieve any level of body count IF THEY ENCOUNTERED NO RESISTANCE. It may take a bit longer to bash in your brains with a blunt object, but if faced with zero resistance, you and those within their swath of influence are just as dead.
This forces the antis into the ol’ standby retort that if someone is taking the extra time to rupture skulls with a golf club, this will give the police more time to respond and save additional lives.
Sounds pretty good to the family members of victims 1 through 10, huh?
This also shows the hand of the antis in the sense that the way to deal with someone bashing in the skulls of innocents is to rally LEO’s carrying firearms. If the situation warrants calling armed LEOs to come stop the bad guy, then I have the RIGHT to call the LEOs after the bad guy is bleeding to death on my very expensive carpet.
The true defense against the criminal mind is not a 3 digit number on your phone’s speed dial, it is the spirit of self-preservation. Whatever weapon is wielded against you, an appropriate response would be to counter with a superior weapon, or an equal one at the least.
That is why we keep/carry the most effective defensive weapons allowed by law. I’ll best your baseball bat, knife, sword and bow and arrow; if it comes to pass that you carry a firearm as well…well then it’s a fair fight, isn’t it?
Who could argue against the innocent taking a stand against the lawless? The Brady Bunch.
This is why they fail.
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/feb91/feb91d8cd479f22490b61907ef6e03403867a8f7" alt="Unorganized Militia Gear"